-
Welcome to PASOTI (Sponsored by GA Solictors and Lang & Potter)
Five subs for season 2022-2023
- Thread starter PL2 3DQ
- Start date
Part of the downturn in last season's form could be attributed to fatigue.
Schuey has already made mention about wanting a bigger squad. 5 subs per game used well could help mitigate the fatigue some players suffered from towards the end of the season and help to avoid what happened last season.
I think this rule change is more advantageous to smart managers than clubs with deep pockets.
Schuey has already made mention about wanting a bigger squad. 5 subs per game used well could help mitigate the fatigue some players suffered from towards the end of the season and help to avoid what happened last season.
I think this rule change is more advantageous to smart managers than clubs with deep pockets.
l think it‘s only advantageous if you are tactically good at making changes at the right time.
For example, England manager Southgate. He seems good at setting up a team. Yet when the game changes or a side is getting on top he doesn’t change things quickly enough. Prime example being Italy in the euro finals.
People are right. It’s is an advantage for bigger squads. However, no good having this option if you don’t have the skills to utilise it. There will be managers who don’t have big squads who make 1 or 2 less substitutions but be able to influence the game better.
For example, England manager Southgate. He seems good at setting up a team. Yet when the game changes or a side is getting on top he doesn’t change things quickly enough. Prime example being Italy in the euro finals.
People are right. It’s is an advantage for bigger squads. However, no good having this option if you don’t have the skills to utilise it. There will be managers who don’t have big squads who make 1 or 2 less substitutions but be able to influence the game better.
In hockey Reading had a player called Paddy Osbourne, and when they got a penalty corner on he'd trot. Drag flick it into the roof of the net, then off he'd trot again. Saw him do it in the flesh. That ball was travelling. Back then the defender's had no protection whatsoever too!
Could lead to exciting last 10/15 minutes in matches where a coach/manager throws on 3 attacking players to salvage a point or more from a game, conversely coach/manager could throw on 3 defensive players and try to kill a game .
Don't forget next season 5 subs allowed and the game will become much more technical and the subs will become much more important. They will become a real part of the team not just for tired or injured players.
Regardless of who it advantages and how, this is a really bad change that should have been stopped.
Football is supposed to be a 90 minute game and keeping going for 90 minutes is part of the challenge.
Football is supposed to be a 90 minute game and keeping going for 90 minutes is part of the challenge.
I have not heard any reason given for the change and, on the face of it, I am in agreement. However, I wonder if this is to reduce the number of injuries? Many sports have tweaked their rules to protect its players.
On the plus side, it means that more players can run their socks off.
It does annoy me that the game is "unnecessary" disrupted by subs. My suggestion is that there should be official times when tactical substitutions can be made (except for injuries). Such as half time (as currently), following a goal, or at specific times when the ball goes out of play at, say, 55, 75 or 90 mins.
Call me a radical.
On the plus side, it means that more players can run their socks off.
It does annoy me that the game is "unnecessary" disrupted by subs. My suggestion is that there should be official times when tactical substitutions can be made (except for injuries). Such as half time (as currently), following a goal, or at specific times when the ball goes out of play at, say, 55, 75 or 90 mins.
Call me a radical.
Those managers at the very top in this country have shouted the loudest for this and claimed that it is for "player welfare." My preference would have been to continue with three subs being allowed during play but all and additional two that could only be made at half time. That way it addresses the player welfare issue but lessens a manager's ability to exploit a 5 subs rule for tactical changes.
Bearing in mind that goalkeepers and centre backs hardly ever get subbed off (because they do less running and managers want a settled unit) this means that forwards and midfielders are going to be replaced more often than not.
It's not going to be a 90 minute game for players in those positions, which changes the entire nature of the sport.
Absolutely nobody would endorse reducing games to 60 minutes, but this change isn't far off doing that.
It's not going to be a 90 minute game for players in those positions, which changes the entire nature of the sport.
Absolutely nobody would endorse reducing games to 60 minutes, but this change isn't far off doing that.
Other sports with plenty of substitutions such as rugby manage with rolling subs, maybe this could be explored to limit stoppages?
I'm not averse to 5 subs as it could lead to more interesting on field action. It would certainly be another way of seeing who the smart managers are who have come up with good alternative plans if Plan A isn't working.
All EFL clubs will be grappling with this new rule- will be interesting to see which clubs & managers are the best for making 5 subs & getting the desired result
Schuey is certainly a thinker & a tactician - it will certainly take a good few games to get used to this new rule if he chooses to adopt 5 subs on a game by game basis
Schuey is certainly a thinker & a tactician - it will certainly take a good few games to get used to this new rule if he chooses to adopt 5 subs on a game by game basis
We have, of course, already had experience of the 5 substitutions rule when the EFL introduced it mid-season in November during the 2020-2021. Interestingly, Argyle did not always use the all five substitutes option. Primarily the times they did it was when we lost 1-5 to Fleetwood, 0-4 to Rochdale, 0-3 to Bristol Rovers, 0-3 to Peterborough, 0-2 to Northampton, 0-3 to Hull (but not the 0-6 to Charlton!). Clearly, the substitutions did not change those games nor did they manage to score (apart from the OG at Fleetwood). We did, though, use all five in the 4-3 win v Lincoln but none of the substitutes scored.
These games were of course with restricted attendances which may have given a false indication as the crowd's reaction can often inspire a substitution if a player is having a mare. The evidence would appear to be under Ryan Lowe that the use of five substitutions made little difference to the eventual result. Under Schuey I detected a better use of substitutions but that may be because the team were playing well and not in a downward spiral towards the relegation places as in the previous seasons.
It will certainly be interesting to see if we can impact a game with judicious additional substitutions to either win a game or secure a game but I wonder whether we will, after all initial judgements, notice any difference in the outcome of results compared to the use of three substitutions.
These games were of course with restricted attendances which may have given a false indication as the crowd's reaction can often inspire a substitution if a player is having a mare. The evidence would appear to be under Ryan Lowe that the use of five substitutions made little difference to the eventual result. Under Schuey I detected a better use of substitutions but that may be because the team were playing well and not in a downward spiral towards the relegation places as in the previous seasons.
It will certainly be interesting to see if we can impact a game with judicious additional substitutions to either win a game or secure a game but I wonder whether we will, after all initial judgements, notice any difference in the outcome of results compared to the use of three substitutions.