|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 31, 2022 13:54:18 GMT
What a fucking joke of a decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Mar 31, 2022 14:03:26 GMT
To those that have more will be given.
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 31, 2022 14:10:57 GMT
To those that have more will be given. I'm still to be convinced as to why this would necessarily benefit the top clubs. Obviously there's a gap in quality between Liverpool's squad and Burnley's, but is that gap always significantly greater across 16 players than across 14? Why those numbers? Surely any substitutes at all favour a bigger club in that case? It might be true in certain match-ups but I don't know that there's much evidence to argue it as some self-evident truth.. |
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Mar 31, 2022 14:47:53 GMT
The motives are clear - reduce the level of competitiveness in the PL that little bit further.
The so called ‘big’ clubs have a level of insecurity that is quite pathetic to observe.
It would be simpler if we just asked Pep or Jurgen what result they would like at the start of a game then abandon the next 90 odd minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Mar 31, 2022 14:50:40 GMT
To those that have more will be given. I'm still to be convinced as to why this would necessarily benefit the top clubs. Obviously there's a gap in quality between Liverpool's squad and Burnley's, but is that gap always significantly greater across 16 players than across 14? Why those numbers? Surely any substitutes at all favour a bigger club in that case? It might be true in certain match-ups but I don't know that there's much evidence to argue it as some self-evident truth.. To use your example, when Burnley played Liverpool last month, Liverpool brought on Thiago, Milner and Jota as subs. The new rule would mean they could also bring on a fresh Diaz and Oxlade-Chamberlain to further stretch Burnley. In that match, Burnley brought on Dwight McNeil and Ashley Barnes as subs. The best of their other options from the bench appeared to be Jack Cork and Phil Bardsley, hence they didn't even bother making a third sub as they chased the game. So using that example, I would say the new rule gives an extra advantage to the clubs with the better fringe team players. I agree that any substitutions at all do favour the bigger club. Having no subs would be a leveller. |
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Mar 31, 2022 14:53:20 GMT
Cue more timewasting!
|
|
|
|
Post by terrorofturfmoor on Mar 31, 2022 15:12:43 GMT
That's half the side changed....
Another nail in the coffin for football with me I'm afraid, football is dying on its arse!!!
Other than Stoke, I've no interest in football anymore, and Stoke haven't made things easy the last few seasons either!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Mar 31, 2022 15:13:41 GMT
The logical conclusion of all this is the game turns into a hybrid of American Football.
Got a free kick around the box - bring on the specialist , 1-0 up in a tight game bring on the defensive unit etc.
Horrible prospect.
|
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Mar 31, 2022 15:22:19 GMT
The logical conclusion of all this is the game turns into a hybrid of American Football. Got a free kick around the box - bring on the specialist , 1-0 up in a tight game bring on the defensive unit etc. Horrible prospect. Potentially you could bring on a sub to take a free-kick, which he scores, and then immediately sub him off for a defensive midfielder. Managers could do that knowing they could still make their other three regular subs. I predict the first manager to try this will be Garry Monk. |
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Mar 31, 2022 15:25:37 GMT
How many clubs had to agree to this? I'm really surprised if it had to be a majority of 11/20. As well as onionman's Burnley vs Liverpool example, I can see this leading to the richest clubs hoovering up even more of the best talent. |
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Mar 31, 2022 15:29:27 GMT
Fuck it, make it unlimited. Should be a laugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Mar 31, 2022 15:33:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 31, 2022 15:36:59 GMT
I'm still to be convinced as to why this would necessarily benefit the top clubs. Obviously there's a gap in quality between Liverpool's squad and Burnley's, but is that gap always significantly greater across 16 players than across 14? Why those numbers? Surely any substitutes at all favour a bigger club in that case? It might be true in certain match-ups but I don't know that there's much evidence to argue it as some self-evident truth.. To use your example, when Burnley played Liverpool last month, Liverpool brought on Thiago, Milner and Jota as subs. The new rule would mean they could also bring on a fresh Diaz and Oxlade-Chamberlain to further stretch Burnley. In that match, Burnley brought on Dwight McNeil and Ashley Barnes as subs. The best of their other options from the bench appeared to be Jack Cork and Phil Bardsley, hence they didn't even bother making a third sub as they chased the game. So using that example, I would say the new rule gives an extra advantage to the clubs with the better fringe team players. I agree that any substitutions at all do favour the bigger club. Having no subs would be a leveller. I don't think you're making the point you think you're making though - we know there's a gulf in quality, you've got to show that the average gulf in quality is *increased* by Liverpool having, for example, Ox-Chambo to call on rather than Jack Cork. Is the difference in level between those players much bigger than the difference in level between Mane and Jay Rodriguez (again, an example)? And even if you say yes in this case, does that mean it reliably will be, across all extra substitutions in games like this? I'm not keen on 5 subs but I don't think the favouring big clubs argument is a very compelling or convincing one. |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Mar 31, 2022 15:37:00 GMT
How many clubs had to agree to this? I'm really surprised if it had to be a majority of 11/20. As well as onionman's Burnley vs Liverpool example, I can see this leading to the richest clubs hoovering up even more of the best talent. Exactly this. After Leicester winning the title these clubs have covered every possible loophole. Apart from that, this just increases time wasting. The amount of time it takes for 2 subs is ridiculous once they have all finished faffing about and the refs never add it on. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 31, 2022 15:38:34 GMT
The logical conclusion of all this is the game turns into a hybrid of American Football. Got a free kick around the box - bring on the specialist , 1-0 up in a tight game bring on the defensive unit etc. Horrible prospect. Potentially you could bring on a sub to take a free-kick, which he scores, and then immediately sub him off for a defensive midfielder. Managers could do that knowing they could still make their other three regular subs. I predict the first manager to try this will be Garry Monk. No they couldn't, you've never been able to stop the game more than three times to make substitutions. They'd have one left if they did that. |
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Mar 31, 2022 15:39:07 GMT
How many clubs had to agree to this? I'm really surprised if it had to be a majority of 11/20. As well as onionman's Burnley vs Liverpool example, I can see this leading to the richest clubs hoovering up even more of the best talent. Exactly this. After Leicester winning the title these clubs have covered every possible loophole. Leicester are a big advocate of 5 subs with Brendan Rogers a manager who has been calling for it Let’s not fall ion to the blame Klopp and Guardiola trap |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Mar 31, 2022 15:43:30 GMT
Exactly this. After Leicester winning the title these clubs have covered every possible loophole. Leicester are a big advocate of 5 subs with Brendan Rogers a manager who has been calling for it Let’s not fall ion to the blame Klopp and Guardiola trap Obviously the majority of the clubs are for it otherwise they wouldn't get it through. I just think its crap on several levels. 1 sub for me and make the managers, coaches and players work it out. |
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Mar 31, 2022 16:09:38 GMT
To use your example, when Burnley played Liverpool last month, Liverpool brought on Thiago, Milner and Jota as subs. The new rule would mean they could also bring on a fresh Diaz and Oxlade-Chamberlain to further stretch Burnley. In that match, Burnley brought on Dwight McNeil and Ashley Barnes as subs. The best of their other options from the bench appeared to be Jack Cork and Phil Bardsley, hence they didn't even bother making a third sub as they chased the game. So using that example, I would say the new rule gives an extra advantage to the clubs with the better fringe team players. I agree that any substitutions at all do favour the bigger club. Having no subs would be a leveller. I don't think you're making the point you think you're making though - we know there's a gulf in quality, you've got to show that the average gulf in quality is *increased* by Liverpool having, for example, Ox-Chambo to call on rather than Jack Cork. Is the difference in level between those players much bigger than the difference in level between Mane and Jay Rodriguez (again, an example)? And even if you say yes in this case, does that mean it reliably will be, across all extra substitutions in games like this? I'm not keen on 5 subs but I don't think the favouring big clubs argument is a very compelling or convincing one. Yes, the gulf does increase. Liverpool have a huge squad and will always be able to bring on 5 quality subs in every match, thereby ensuring they can always have more fresh legs on the pitch at the end of every game. Like other big clubs, they've built a squad containing a lot of top class players who can be interchanged without weakening their overall quality. Burnley have a much smaller budget, and are much more likely to have to fill their bench with some serious dregs who are a step down from their first choice players. Phil Bardsley, Matthew Lowton and Kevin Long, in this case. I can't say whether this would apply in every match, but logic suggests it does give the clubs with big squads an advantage over the smaller ones. The same would apply if Stoke were playing Leek Town in the FA Cup. |
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Mar 31, 2022 16:11:23 GMT
Potentially you could bring on a sub to take a free-kick, which he scores, and then immediately sub him off for a defensive midfielder. Managers could do that knowing they could still make their other three regular subs. I predict the first manager to try this will be Garry Monk. No they couldn't, you've never been able to stop the game more than three times to make substitutions. They'd have one left if they did that. Fair point. I still think Monk will try it though, he'll just have to bring his other subs on at the same time, which will confuse the hell out of Nigel Johnson. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 31, 2022 16:15:37 GMT
I don't think you're making the point you think you're making though - we know there's a gulf in quality, you've got to show that the average gulf in quality is *increased* by Liverpool having, for example, Ox-Chambo to call on rather than Jack Cork. Is the difference in level between those players much bigger than the difference in level between Mane and Jay Rodriguez (again, an example)? And even if you say yes in this case, does that mean it reliably will be, across all extra substitutions in games like this? I'm not keen on 5 subs but I don't think the favouring big clubs argument is a very compelling or convincing one. Yes, the gulf does increase. Liverpool have a huge squad and will always be able to bring on 5 quality subs in every match, thereby ensuring they can always have more fresh legs on the pitch at the end of every game. Like other big clubs, they've built a squad containing a lot of top class players who can be interchanged without weakening their overall quality. Burnley have a much smaller budget, and are much more likely to have to fill their bench with some serious dregs who are a step down from their first choice players. Phil Bardsley, Matthew Lowton and Kevin Long, in this case. I can't say whether this would apply in every match, but logic suggests it does give the clubs with big squads an advantage over the smaller ones. The same would apply if Stoke were playing Leek Town in the FA Cup. All you seem to be saying is that Liverpool have much better subs than Burnley. To which I’d say, yes - they also have a much better 1st team 🤷🏼♂️ I also haven’t heard any actual officials from these clubs make this argument. Only fans. The smaller clubs seem to be mainly in favour of it. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 31, 2022 16:16:24 GMT
No they couldn't, you've never been able to stop the game more than three times to make substitutions. They'd have one left if they did that. Fair point. I still think Monk will try it though, he'll just have to bring his other subs on at the same time, which will confuse the hell out of Nigel Johnson. Oh yes, you’re right, they could still do all three at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Mar 31, 2022 16:32:42 GMT
Yes, the gulf does increase. Liverpool have a huge squad and will always be able to bring on 5 quality subs in every match, thereby ensuring they can always have more fresh legs on the pitch at the end of every game. Like other big clubs, they've built a squad containing a lot of top class players who can be interchanged without weakening their overall quality. Burnley have a much smaller budget, and are much more likely to have to fill their bench with some serious dregs who are a step down from their first choice players. Phil Bardsley, Matthew Lowton and Kevin Long, in this case. I can't say whether this would apply in every match, but logic suggests it does give the clubs with big squads an advantage over the smaller ones. The same would apply if Stoke were playing Leek Town in the FA Cup. All you seem to be saying is that Liverpool have much better subs than Burnley. To which I’d say, yes - they also have a much better 1st team 🤷🏼♂️ I also haven’t heard any actual officials from these clubs make this argument. Only fans. The smaller clubs seem to be mainly in favour of it. Not really, I'm disagreeing with your fundamental point. Liverpool will be able to make 5 subs without forfeiting any quality, which gives a great advantage to their manager. As things stand, Burnley can't even make 3 subs without forfeiting quality. So being able to make 5 subs doesn't offer their manager any extra help. I haven't really seen any arguments from clubs for or against to be honest. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2022 16:34:53 GMT
What a farce. Modern football is slowly crumbling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Mar 31, 2022 16:35:06 GMT
Next they'll be having 'Special Teams' like in American Football for corners etc
|
|
|
|
Post by jonnynico on Mar 31, 2022 16:52:18 GMT
Subs were bought in the year I started watching Stoke I think 1958. But only for an injured player. I think
|
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Mar 31, 2022 17:08:12 GMT
Subs were bought in the year I started watching Stoke I think 1958. But only for an injured player. I think The first used Football League substitute was Keith Peacock of Charlton in 1965. You are correct that it used to be for injured players only, but, it wasn't long before the authorities realised that some teams were faking injuries and tactical substitutes were allowed. |
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Mar 31, 2022 17:18:47 GMT
This rule would have been made so much better if they had made an addendum that two of the five had to be U21.
|
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Mar 31, 2022 17:20:26 GMT
Subs were bought in the year I started watching Stoke I think 1958. But only for an injured player. I think The first used Football League substitute was Keith Peacock of Charlton in 1965. You are correct that it used to be for injured players only, but, it wasn't long before the authorities realised that some teams were faking injuries and tactical substitutes were allowed. I bet that was Bournemouth. |
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Mar 31, 2022 18:22:18 GMT
All you seem to be saying is that Liverpool have much better subs than Burnley. To which I’d say, yes - they also have a much better 1st team 🤷🏼♂️ I also haven’t heard any actual officials from these clubs make this argument. Only fans. The smaller clubs seem to be mainly in favour of it. Not really, I'm disagreeing with your fundamental point. Liverpool will be able to make 5 subs without forfeiting any quality, which gives a great advantage to their manager. As things stand, Burnley can't even make 3 subs without forfeiting quality. So being able to make 5 subs doesn't offer their manager any extra help. I haven't really seen any arguments from clubs for or against to be honest. It'll make it easier for the richer clubs to blood more youngsters too given they're more likely to be at least a couple of goals ahead by 70-80 minutes. I can't see any benefit for clubs outside the top few in comparison to the rest. I wonder if these kind of things are a compromise to avoid more threats of a breakaway European or World league. Could it mean fewer loans from the top Premier League clubs to lower Premier League and the Championship? |
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Mar 31, 2022 18:40:17 GMT
The noose is tightening on the game as we know it
|
|
