Substitutions

[Littleowl74]

Are we allowed 5 substitutions like the Prem or are we still only allowed 3 in the Championship? 
Not sure what the rational is behind the increase as I haven’t looked into it. Is it related to the pandemic? 

[jonnyowl]

5 from 9 due to the amount of games being played in short space of time. 

 

Can only bring substitutes on 3 occasions though not including half time.

[cowl]

I actually hope they keep this rule change on beyond the pandemic.

[Littleowl74]

3 minutes ago, jonnyowl said:

5 from 9 due to the amount of games being played in short space of time. 

 

Can only bring substitutes on 3 occasions though not including half time.

Cheers. Obvious now when I remember fixture congestion. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, cowl said:

I actually hope they keep this rule change on beyond the pandemic.

 

Why?

[cowl]

29 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

Why?

 

Because it increases the tactical options available to coaches as the game evolves.

 

My only fear is that increasing the options would have the effect of making their opening set-up more cautious.

 

I think this it's possible we may have seen this already in the few Prem games we've had - but it's hard to ignore the fact that some teams just don't look particularly fit (Norwich and Sheff United stuck out in this regard, I thought).

 

Still, I think the games in the Bundesliga I've seen have already seen a fairly heavy use of all 5 permitted subs, and certainly more half time (or early) substitutions.

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, cowl said:

 

Because it increases the tactical options available to coaches as the game evolves.

 

The first thing a chairman of a club would do if it become the norm is to spaff even more millions of pounds on strengthening the squads

[Guest Bulgaria]

2 minutes ago, cowl said:

Because it increases the tactical options available to coaches as the game evolves.

And also be taken advantage of by managers who want to waste time

 

Nothing more annoying than seeing substitutions in added time. That should be banned.

[cowl]

4 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

The first thing a chairman of a club would do if it become the norm is to spaff even more millions of pounds on strengthening the squads

 

They can only do that if there's a change in the FFP rules though.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

Because it increases the tactical options available to coaches as the game evolves.

 

My only fear is that increasing the options would have the effect of making their opening set-up more cautious.

 

I think this it's possible we may have seen this already in the few Prem games we've had - but it's hard to ignore the fact that some teams just don't look particularly fit (Norwich and Sheff United stuck out in this regard, I thought).

 

Still, I think the games in the Bundesliga I've seen have already seen a fairly heavy use of all 5 permitted subs, and certainly more half time (or early) substitutions.

 

I see the point of it now with the short 'pre-season' and the many matches in a short space of time but not long term.

 

Managers already have the opportunity to change more than a quarter of their team a 90 minute game. Having the option to change more and have more on the bench only aids the bigger, financially stronger teams. Man City can field 2 different 11's that would both finish top 6, we may barely be able to put 9 subs on the bench in a couple of weeks time.

 

It would just give bigger clubs more opportunity to hoover up players and the evidence from friendly matches suggests too many subs serves to break up the flow of the game rather than give a positive tactical change.  

[cowl]

3 minutes ago, Bulgaria said:

And also be taken advantage of by managers who want to waste time

 

Nothing more annoying than seeing substitutions in added time. That should be banned.

 

They've tried to mitigate for this by stating that subs can only be made on 3 occasions though - so in this regard, the rule hasn't changed.

[Littleowl74]

3 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

The first thing a chairman of a club would do if it become the norm is to spaff even more millions of pounds on strengthening the squads

Or hang on to players that should be gone. We do not need to encourage that! 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

5 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

The first thing a chairman of a club would do if it become the norm is to spaff even more millions of pounds on strengthening the squads

 

 

What could possibly go wrong?

[cowl]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

I see the point of it now with the short 'pre-season' and the many matches in a short space of time but not long term.

 

Managers already have the opportunity to change more than a quarter of their team a 90 minute game. Having the option to change more and have more on the bench only aids the bigger, financially stronger teams. Man City can field 2 different 11's that would both finish top 6, we may barely be able to put 9 subs on the bench in a couple of weeks time.

 

It would just give bigger clubs more opportunity to hoover up players and the evidence from friendly matches suggests too many subs serves to break up the flow of the game rather than give a positive tactical change.  

 

But we're not competing against Man City. The Prem is a different standard.

 

Also we're only talking about two more subs being named, so the matchday squad is increasing merely from 18 to 20.

 

If teams are more likely to put kids on the bench then I'm not so sure that's a bad thing in itself either.

 

Furthermore, friendlies are a poor comparison to competitive games for the simple reason that they aren't competitive. Certainly, I've not seen any obvious evidence of the flow of a game being broken due to the increased number of subs being made - the flow can change perhaps (for example, Pogba coming on last night), but that's the idea, I suppose.

[Leaping Lannys Perm]

There is an argument to be made that more subs means more opportunities for young players.

 

How often do you see youth players make the bench but not get on?

 

With 5 subs, you could blood those youngsters in the latter stages of any game where the result isn't in much doubt.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

But we're not competing against Man City. The Prem is a different standard.

 

Also we're only talking about two more subs being named, so the matchday squad is increasing merely from 18 to 20.

 

If teams are more likely to put kids on the bench then I'm not so sure that's a bad thing in itself either.

 

Furthermore, friendlies are a poor comparison to competitive games for the simple reason that they aren't competitive. Certainly, I've not seen any obvious evidence of the flow of a game being broken due to the increased number of subs being made - the flow can change perhaps (for example, Pogba coming on last night), but that's the idea, I suppose.

 

Pogba was Man Utd's 2nd sub last night so his impact would have been the same under normal circumstances. You've never heard anyone mention that the number of substitutions has broken up the flow of the game?

 

The size thing still applies in this division and our aim is to get to the Premier League isn't it? Clubs with parachute payments at this level will have more resources to add greater depth to their squad and have more of an advantage. If you think have a bigger playing squad with more players on the payroll for doing very little is a positive then fair enough. Having 7 on the bench is more than enough to include academy players if a manager wants to, our squad is getting smaller in comparison with what we have had recently but we still have players that rarely get used, we don't need more of this type.

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, Leaping Lannys Perm said:

There is an argument to be made that more subs means more opportunities for young players.

These next 9 games definitely

After that it would be more first teamers that get the nod, and chairmen would simply buy more players

[Littleowl74]

It increases the tactical option of manager doesn’t have a clue and it’s all gone pear shaped so I will just drag some off and chuck more at it in the hope of getting a formula that works. 

[camffiti]

A team has a lead to protect, going into the last 10 mins ... 

 

The subs are going to be an absolute sh*tshow 

[Guest paulvcooke]

2 minutes ago, camffiti said:

A team has a lead to protect, going into the last 10 mins ... 

 

The subs are going to be an absolute sh*tshow 

Why, there could still only be three stoppages for subs, just like before.