5 subs is stupid. 3 subs were far better. Now, you can replace half the outfield players, which basically means you can change tactics completely. It means more of the result is down to the manager. It also means there’s less need to prioritise which games are important, you can start with your best 11 every game, and just substitute later if the result allows it. It also benefits clubs with bigger budgets more, as they can afford having a higher quality bench.
You must log in or register to comment.
no its not
It helps to manage the amount of matches and helps a lot in regards to youth development as there is a higher chance that the kids get a few minutes
Nah it’s great
I’m going to be more radical, there should be unlimited replacements but in just three stops.
Are there stops chosen by the manager or are they decided beforehand (i.e. break the game into quarters where you can choose a new team for each quarter)? I kind of like the idea of the latter, but obviously injuries become an issue. Also opens up the idea of rolling subs. If the number of subs are increased again I feel like we might start seeing the option of subbing players back on
basically means you can change tactics completely
What is bad about that?
It saved us ( arsenal’s) ass against crystal palace, it helps quite alot
It favours bigger teams that can afford to keep world class players on the bench
You’re right. It is an unpopular opinion. The game is better for it. There have been hardly any 0-0 draws. Yeah the games can turn on their head in middle of the game but that’s not a bad thing… it’s just made it more entertaining and competitive while also helping player welfare
which basically means you can change tactics completely.
That’s good
. It means more of the result is down to the manager.
Also a good thing
you can start with your best 11 every game, and just substitute later if the result allows it.
Better for fans
Really, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree
I kind wish it was like basketball with unlimited substitutions.
5 subs within 3 time is fine with me. But I also feel that subbing in stoppage time should be disallowed as 90% of the time it is to waste time.
I love 5 subs. It makes it easier for managers to give young/inexperienced players some minutes. It also means you have less absolutely exhausted players on the field, which when players are exhausted the game is far less interesting
I do not like 5 subs either. Both with the amount of matches they keep adding means it is a necessity.
The idea that it favors the clubs with higher budgets is not borne out by the statistics. The 4th & 5th subs on the going clubs are not so much better than the 4th & 5th subs on lesser clubs THAN the first three subs. Besides the amount of time they play (avg 10-12 minutes) does not give them much time to affect the game.
Big clubs were winning all the time before and they are winning all the time now.
It great, game is faster and more exciting till the end, just more fun to watch. Big teams always had the advantage
You’re being downvoted but are entirely correct. Changing half of the on field players is stupid and is absolutely another way to both favour the bigger teams (I say this as an Arsenal fan) and enable football associations to further cram the fixture schedules with the excuse of “well, now you can rest players more easily due to more subs being allowed”.
Unfortunately many people on here are American and will likely struggle to understand the sentiment behind your point. The amount of injuries we’re seeing for many teams this year is staggering even with the increased subs. Players are being completely run into the ground. Unfortunately that’s just the way the game is heading - new UCL format with more fixtures, new WC format with more fixtures, and competitions like Nations League replacing friendlies which forces national teams to play their best players more often due to the prospect of tournament qualification being available if they miss out in the main qualifier.
Basically they’re trying to fill up the year with as many ‘meaningful’ matches as possible to increase revenue. The increased number of subs are just a way to keep players from complaining.
We actually don’t see many more games than we used to 10 years ago at the minute. What has changed is that the intensity of games has increased where players are expected to press until the last minute. Improvements in training and science have meant that players are playing to their physical maximum every game and aren’t getting rotated as much as you would think with 5 subs allowed. Generally managers stick close to their first choice 11 as much as they can and as a result players are getting pushed physically farther than ever before. In the 90s and early 2000s plenty of players could half arse it in training and perform on match day. Too much is expected of players physically every game for that to work any more.
5 subs is great but they are used less often than you would expect and probably less than what the players need. If you push yourself to your physical limit every game, any opportunity of a break is welcome (unless you are Bruno Fernandes.)
I agree that adding more games is only gonna make it worse but the amount of injuries that we’ve seen this year is incredible. And I can’t help but think that it is because of too many games as you say. In theory 5 subs allows you to rest players but in reality managers don’t use it that often, meaning that players are still being run into the ground.
All that talk from me just to say I agree with your assertion that there are too many games, but I disagree in that 5 subs are a necessity nowadays.
Yeah fair points. Of course there are freaks like Salah and Bruno that can play 90 mins 2 or 3 times a week at full intensity and be fine, but like you say the intensity is a lot higher.
I guess I do agree with you anyway that with how much is demanded of players now that we do need more subs, I suppose it’s just a symptom of the game now. I’d just prefer that we weren’t in a position where that had to be the case.
As others hand said, 3 subs makes for sloppy endings of games. Having the extra subs always teams to be more tactical and have fresh legs. It also ensures the quality of football is higher than it used to be. Gone were the constant horrible matches were teams were dead and hanging on for constant life. It still happens at times, but nowhere near as much as it used to. Also teams can play younger players and build their teams up. This helps both big and small clubs, as both don’t have to worry about ‘wasting’ a sub for a younger player. They can now give them time and still strengthen the team in the pitch with other substitutions as well.
I want my sport to be the best it can and more subs allows that to happen. To go back would be to regress and we don’t need that.
Tbh, I miss the mud baths of yesteryear. The game is too clinical now. Watching a match in the Premier league is like the waiting room at the dentist. Clinical, clean, and if you’re lucky, there are some interesting magazines there.
Same for champions league really. It’s also just (mostly) the same few teams over and over, every year. These days, the uefa conference league makes for more interesting and exotic viewing. Sure, the stakes aren’t as high, but the money has sucked all the soul out of the top tier of football. It’s all just a money game now, and I hate that.
Fortunately PSG haven’t won the CL, but yeah.
5 subs is better with the current game schedule no doubt, there are so many games and professionals are getting injured constantly, but in all honesty 2 extra subs probably won’t help considering the stubbornness of alot of managers, UEFA needs to make the game schedules better and have less games and then move it down to 3
UEFA needs to make the game schedules better and have less games and then move it down to 3
Agree!