|
|
Post by spitthedog on Aug 6, 2020 15:05:19 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53662014Thats good news and I would imagine the lesser clubs (outside top 6 ) would have got this through as its obvious that this is a massive advantage to better resourced teams
|
|
|
|
Post by biglad180 on Aug 6, 2020 15:28:37 GMT
that can only be good news for the smaller teams
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhoffsleftboot on Aug 6, 2020 15:49:15 GMT
I saw the results of in depth research in The Guardian a few weeks ago (most of which flew totally over my head). However, applying the science to it, the evidence was clear that the 5 subs rule did NOT give undue advantage to the bigger, wealthier teams when playing against opponents in the same league. It was something to the effect that the subs for both teams were basically operating at the same level as the starting teams. And I think it would be different if, for example, a Premier League team played a cup game against a League 1 side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cast no shadow on Aug 6, 2020 15:52:56 GMT
I saw the results of in depth research in The Guardian a few weeks ago (most of which flew totally over my head). However, applying the science to it, the evidence was clear that the 5 subs rule did NOT give undue advantage to the bigger, wealthier teams when playing against opponents in the same league. It was something to the effect that the subs for both teams were basically operating at the same level as the starting teams. And I think it would be different if, for example, a Premier League team played a cup game against a League 1 side. Fuck ya research, if man City can bring on 300 million of subs on vs Crystal Palace £40mil it obviously favours man City its not hard to fathom. |
|
|
|
Post by femark on Aug 6, 2020 15:59:18 GMT
I saw the results of in depth research in The Guardian a few weeks ago (most of which flew totally over my head). However, applying the science to it, the evidence was clear that the 5 subs rule did NOT give undue advantage to the bigger, wealthier teams when playing against opponents in the same league. It was something to the effect that the subs for both teams were basically operating at the same level as the starting teams. And I think it would be different if, for example, a Premier League team played a cup game against a League 1 side. Fuck ya research, if man City can bring on 300 million of subs on vs Crystal Palace £40mil it obviously favours man City its not hard to fathom. It's obviously a little bit hard for you to fathom that it doesn't favour Man City at all because it is relative to the value of the starting 11. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Aug 6, 2020 16:09:27 GMT
This changes things
with 5 subs & more midweek games increased rotation & the aptitude of the manager re making subs would mean larger squads
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 6, 2020 16:25:19 GMT
I saw the results of in depth research in The Guardian a few weeks ago (most of which flew totally over my head). However, applying the science to it, the evidence was clear that the 5 subs rule did NOT give undue advantage to the bigger, wealthier teams when playing against opponents in the same league. It was something to the effect that the subs for both teams were basically operating at the same level as the starting teams. And I think it would be different if, for example, a Premier League team played a cup game against a League 1 side. Fuck ya research, if man City can bring on 300 million of subs on vs Crystal Palace £40mil it obviously favours man City its not hard to fathom. Love this - I've decided what's true and it's my opinion that counts - facts are rubbish. As to 5 subs - glad it's gone. Makes it too much like an egg ball game. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 6, 2020 16:54:05 GMT
I saw the results of in depth research in The Guardian a few weeks ago (most of which flew totally over my head). However, applying the science to it, the evidence was clear that the 5 subs rule did NOT give undue advantage to the bigger, wealthier teams when playing against opponents in the same league. It was something to the effect that the subs for both teams were basically operating at the same level as the starting teams. And I think it would be different if, for example, a Premier League team played a cup game against a League 1 side. Yeah I always thought that notion was unconvincing. As I said in June... at the end of the day rich clubs will always have the advantage whether we’re talking about 5, 11, 14, 16 or 18 players.. |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Aug 6, 2020 17:06:28 GMT
I saw the results of in depth research in The Guardian a few weeks ago (most of which flew totally over my head). However, applying the science to it, the evidence was clear that the 5 subs rule did NOT give undue advantage to the bigger, wealthier teams when playing against opponents in the same league. It was something to the effect that the subs for both teams were basically operating at the same level as the starting teams. And I think it would be different if, for example, a Premier League team played a cup game against a League 1 side. I would like to see this research in more detail and how it was designed because I would question it. Clubs having more and better options from the bench will have advantages. The quality of player of less financed teams drops more dramatically with the squad size. For example, Crystal Palace's 16th best player is a greater drop in ability level than Man City's 16th. Man City will be able to bring on player's who is closer to the standard of player they are replacing compared to say Norwich who financially can only just about sustain 11 decent players in a squad. 5 subs puts a greater strain on the resources of less financed clubs. Anyway all those teams outside of the top 6 voted to change it back so they must think there is something in it. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 6, 2020 18:15:00 GMT
I saw the results of in depth research in The Guardian a few weeks ago (most of which flew totally over my head). However, applying the science to it, the evidence was clear that the 5 subs rule did NOT give undue advantage to the bigger, wealthier teams when playing against opponents in the same league. It was something to the effect that the subs for both teams were basically operating at the same level as the starting teams. And I think it would be different if, for example, a Premier League team played a cup game against a League 1 side. I would like to see this research in more detail and how it was designed because I would question it. Clubs having more and better options from the bench will have advantages. The quality of player of less financed teams drops more dramatically with the squad size. For example, Crystal Palace's 16th best player is a greater drop in ability level than Man City's 16th. Man City will be able to bring on player's who is closer to the standard of player they are replacing compared to say Norwich who financially can only just about sustain 11 decent players in a squad. 5 subs puts a greater strain on the resources of less financed clubs. Anyway all those teams outside of the top 6 voted to change it back so they must think there is something in it. It's a nice theory but is there any evidence for any of the assertions you make there? (Including how individual clubs voted?) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 18:25:31 GMT
It's not really about the five subs.
It's about the 11 on the pitch who the next two seasons will be playing more games in less time with shorter rest periods, on top of shorter holidays and shorter pre season, and the risk of more injuries with less time to recuperate. Therefore it would have been good to have the option of partially resting players by taking off more at around the 75-80th minute, which is when many "invisible" injuries occur, i.e. not brought about by dirty tackles but by fatigue.
Apart from Manure bringing on 5 simultaneously substituted in one game, I don't think the five subs system has been abused. Ironically they got caught out in another game by having subbed at three different times, then when a player got injured, despite still having two unused subs, they weren't able to sub him.
Of course clubs with expansive squads can rotate as they always have, but not if you'd like to start games with your best eleven.
|
|
|
|
Post by ab61 on Aug 6, 2020 18:29:31 GMT
Are they leaving the drink breaks does anyone know !
|
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Aug 6, 2020 19:35:36 GMT
I would like to see this research in more detail and how it was designed because I would question it. Clubs having more and better options from the bench will have advantages. The quality of player of less financed teams drops more dramatically with the squad size. For example, Crystal Palace's 16th best player is a greater drop in ability level than Man City's 16th. Man City will be able to bring on player's who is closer to the standard of player they are replacing compared to say Norwich who financially can only just about sustain 11 decent players in a squad. 5 subs puts a greater strain on the resources of less financed clubs. Anyway all those teams outside of the top 6 voted to change it back so they must think there is something in it. It's a nice theory but is there any evidence for any of the assertions you make there? (Including how individual clubs voted?) The evidence is logic really. A less resourced squad has less and poorer quality options. Injuries have more impact on lesser resourced squads which tend to be fewer in depth and numbers. Better resourced squads will have more quality options as well as more fitter options because they have bigger and better squads to utilise over a period of games, not just in one game. As for the vote. It is reported on the BBC story and nearly every report on it today. "In terms of the extra substitutions, many members are believed to have felt having five was unfairly benefiting the major clubs, despite Fifa allowing the continued use of the rule if leagues wanted." I don't have first hand evidence. It was an academic who produced the report on the 5 subs not benefitting bigger clubs. You can tell its written by an academic who knows little about how the game works imho and he bases the theory on very limited data (like most academics), for example if it was beneficial then the bigger clubs would make more subs in a game. That is a flawed argument imho. Of course you are going want to keep better players on the pitch for as long as possible, that doesn't prove it for me. It's not just advantageous in a specific game, its advantageous over a period of games, it furthers the options for rotating squads for example. He doesn't consider this element at all. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 6, 2020 20:23:40 GMT
It's a nice theory but is there any evidence for any of the assertions you make there? (Including how individual clubs voted?) The evidence is logic really. A less resourced squad has less and poorer quality options. Injuries have more impact on lesser resourced squads which tend to be fewer in depth and numbers. Better resourced squads will have more quality options as well as more fitter options because they have bigger and better squads to utilise over a period of games, not just in one game. As for the vote. It is reported on the BBC story and nearly every report on it today. "In terms of the extra substitutions, many members are believed to have felt having five was unfairly benefiting the major clubs, despite Fifa allowing the continued use of the rule if leagues wanted." I don't have first hand evidence. It was an academic who produced the report on the 5 subs not benefitting bigger clubs. You can tell its written by an academic who knows little about how the game works imho and he bases the theory on very limited data (like most academics), for example if it was beneficial then the bigger clubs would make more subs in a game. That is a flawed argument imho. Of course you are going want to keep better players on the pitch for as long as possible, that doesn't prove it for me. It's not just advantageous in a specific game, its advantageous over a period of games, it furthers the options for rotating squads for example. He doesn't consider this element at all. It has a feel of logic but I’m not convinced. Teams with more resources have better quality, obviously. I don’t see why the *relative* quality would necessarily be worse in smaller teams’ squads, apart from in extreme examples maybe. The argument is that more subs advantages bigger teams, in which case they’re already benefitting from three subs rather than two or one or none - does that follow? Couldn’t you just as easily argue the opposite, for example a smaller team would suffer more from being unable to replace an injured player than a big team, because of the quality of the ten remaining players on the field? Therefore having more substitutes available is a benefit for smaller teams. I dunno, there might be something in it but it doesn’t strike me as self-evident at all. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhoffsleftboot on Aug 7, 2020 8:43:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by walrus on Aug 7, 2020 11:51:10 GMT
Even if - like the Guardian claims - there wad no advantage for the bigger, richer clubs this seasonhaving the option five subs permanently could certainly impact transfer policy in future windows, benefitting those clubs which could afford to “stockpile” players.
The kind of player who’s at a level of guaranteed starter for a mid-table club may start to look attractive as a bench-warmer for the elite teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by bucknall67 on Aug 7, 2020 12:00:41 GMT
Are they leaving the drink breaks does anyone know ! I hope they get rid of them. |
|
|
|
Post by smiler_andy on Aug 7, 2020 13:00:53 GMT
Even if - like the Guardian claims - there wad no advantage for the bigger, richer clubs this seasonhaving the option five subs permanently could certainly impact transfer policy in future windows, benefitting those clubs which could afford to “stockpile” players. The kind of player who’s at a level of guaranteed starter for a mid-table club may start to look attractive as a bench-warmer for the elite teams. The likes of Chelsea and Man City have been stockpiling players for years. Chelsea had 28 players out on loan in January www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/the-28-chelsea-players-out-on-loan-this-season-and-how-theyre-faring/ |
|
|
|
Post by reddipotter on Aug 7, 2020 13:04:13 GMT
Are they leaving the drink breaks does anyone know ! I hope they get rid of them. I don’t mind either way about the five subs, but the drinks break is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Aug 7, 2020 13:15:38 GMT
Even if - like the Guardian claims - there wad no advantage for the bigger, richer clubs this seasonhaving the option five subs permanently could certainly impact transfer policy in future windows, benefitting those clubs which could afford to “stockpile” players. The kind of player who’s at a level of guaranteed starter for a mid-table club may start to look attractive as a bench-warmer for the elite teams. Exactly.... it contributes towards an imbalance that is already in the game and increases it further. It would make it more difficult for smaller teams to get decent players in. The research is flawed because it doesn't take into consideration the effects of the change over a season/or seasons only during a game. Anyway its gone for now. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2020 13:41:30 GMT
I hope they get rid of them. I don’t mind either way about the five subs, but the drinks break is ridiculous. For you, maybe, but for players in the sweltering sun it could be essential. |
|
|
|
Post by tosh on Aug 7, 2020 13:58:13 GMT
Even if - like the Guardian claims - there wad no advantage for the bigger, richer clubs this seasonhaving the option five subs permanently could certainly impact transfer policy in future windows, benefitting those clubs which could afford to “stockpile” players. The kind of player who’s at a level of guaranteed starter for a mid-table club may start to look attractive as a bench-warmer for the elite teams. Exactly.... it contributes towards an imbalance that is already in the game and increases it further. It would make it more difficult for smaller teams to get decent players in. The research is flawed because it doesn't take into consideration the effects of the change over a season/or seasons only during a game. Anyway its gone for now. Totally agree with spit’s logic on this one. You don’t have to be a statistician to see some flaws in the Guardian “learned professor’s” opinion. If Man City have 16 players available, all with talent rating 100 and Brighton have 11 first choice players talent rating 70, and five subs average talent rating 50, then Man City will not be weakened by substitutions, but Brighton obviously will. After six months of Covid strategy u-turns, and conflicting opinions maybe we should all be looking more sceptically at “expert” opinions and “following the science”? |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 7, 2020 16:16:21 GMT
Exactly.... it contributes towards an imbalance that is already in the game and increases it further. It would make it more difficult for smaller teams to get decent players in. The research is flawed because it doesn't take into consideration the effects of the change over a season/or seasons only during a game. Anyway its gone for now. Totally agree with spit’s logic on this one. You don’t have to be a statistician to see some flaws in the Guardian “learned professor’s” opinion. If Man City have 16 players available, all with talent rating 100 and Brighton have 11 first choice players talent rating 70, and five subs average talent rating 50, then Man City will not be weakened by substitutions, but Brighton obviously will. After six months of Covid strategy u-turns, and conflicting opinions maybe we should all be looking more sceptically at “expert” opinions and “following the science”? This genuinely terrifies me. It is not about "expert" opinion - it is about how observable facts verify or refute a theory/opinion. Its called the scientific method - ditch that and we are back to astrology and reading chicken entrails. In this case most people believe 5 subs will favour the richer clubs - which is a perfectly reasonable opinion/theory but is not supported by observation. The rational thing to do is to question the theory - not ignore the facts or dismiss the observations because "expert" option is less valid than what the majority believe to be true. Assuming the observations are correct (and I have no basis to believe they are wrong) then the theory that having 16 better players is an advantage needs to be questioned. My theory (which is open to refutation by observation) is that making too many changes disrupts the team dynamic and counteracts any advantage of fielding better players. At one time managers only made changes when they absolutely had to. The more tactically aware managers started to successfully tweak formations mid game - but to date it has been tweaks rather than wholesale changes. It could well be that making 5 changes is tactically a really bad idea as it kills the team dynamic. That or we can slaughter a chicken to decide who is right. Also - if it helps -I'm a Virgo. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhoffsleftboot on Aug 7, 2020 16:41:53 GMT
I'm liking what's just been said: the best managers should be reassigned to the weakest teams! Now that would be interesting! To see what Pep could get out of Norwich and Klopp out of Bournemouth. And how far into next week Bielsa could kick half of our lot!
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 7, 2020 16:59:01 GMT
Exactly.... it contributes towards an imbalance that is already in the game and increases it further. It would make it more difficult for smaller teams to get decent players in. The research is flawed because it doesn't take into consideration the effects of the change over a season/or seasons only during a game. Anyway its gone for now. Totally agree with spit’s logic on this one. You don’t have to be a statistician to see some flaws in the Guardian “learned professor’s” opinion. If Man City have 16 players available, all with talent rating 100 and Brighton have 11 first choice players talent rating 70, and five subs average talent rating 50, then Man City will not be weakened by substitutions, but Brighton obviously will. He literally addresses this exact point in the article - in fact it's part of his argument. |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Aug 7, 2020 17:50:35 GMT
Totally agree with spit’s logic on this one. You don’t have to be a statistician to see some flaws in the Guardian “learned professor’s” opinion. If Man City have 16 players available, all with talent rating 100 and Brighton have 11 first choice players talent rating 70, and five subs average talent rating 50, then Man City will not be weakened by substitutions, but Brighton obviously will. After six months of Covid strategy u-turns, and conflicting opinions maybe we should all be looking more sceptically at “expert” opinions and “following the science”? This genuinely terrifies me. It is not about "expert" opinion - it is about how observable facts verify or refute a theory/opinion. Its called the scientific method - ditch that and we are back to astrology and reading chicken entrails. In this case most people believe 5 subs will favour the richer clubs - which is a perfectly reasonable opinion/theory but is not supported by observation. The rational thing to do is to question the theory - not ignore the facts or dismiss the observations because "expert" option is less valid than what the majority believe to be true. Assuming the observations are correct (and I have no basis to believe they are wrong) then the theory that having 16 better players is an advantage needs to be questioned. My theory (which is open to refutation by observation) is that making too many changes disrupts the team dynamic and counteracts any advantage of fielding better players. At one time managers only made changes when they absolutely had to. The more tactically aware managers started to successfully tweak formations mid game - but to date it has been tweaks rather than wholesale changes. It could well be that making 5 changes is tactically a really bad idea as it kills the team dynamic. That or we can slaughter a chicken to decide who is right. Also - if it helps -I'm a Virgo. That's a decent argument when the research is an improvement on astrology and reading chicken entrails. My opinion is the research data is fundamentally flawed. Like a lot of research (and there is more bad than good from my experience in academia) it excludes a lot of other contributory factors imho. For one thing it is totally focussed on what happens in a specific 90 minute game. My argument is the 5 sub rule benefits teams accumulatively over a sequence of games because these better resourced teams have greater depth with higher quality. I get the argument that it is relative but I don't think it as simple as that. I think this has other effects and the 5 subs rule will ultimately be advantageous based on these. Teams like Norwich have a huge drop off in ability after 12/13 players. That drop is proportionately smaller for bigger clubs imho. There are other reasons it's flawed and conclusions cannot simply be made on what happens in specific games. Contextual elements are missing which I think are important. Bigger teams are better positioned to gain advantage from this rule imho. The fact that Man City can actually bring on better players as subs, which they often do IF they need them. You don't get that with Norwich or Crystal Palace. |
|
|
|
Post by smiler_andy on Aug 14, 2020 17:07:05 GMT
The Premier League have made a decision to stop the 5 subs. Have the EFL made any decision yet as I can not find anything when trying to google it.
|
|
