The mancityfans.net football forum

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... stitutions

I think there's a way to keep 5 subs in an innovative way that ALL PL clubs and fans would like:

Make it so that the 4th and 5th substitutions HAVE to be:

A) U21s or u23s who are HG eligible or
B) something similar to how it works for u21 (?) foreign players in CL who don't have to be registered when they've spent 2 seasons with the club, so Fernan Torres, for example, won't count.

To protect against the richer clubs "hoarding" talent 1 of the 2 new substitutions has to be a naturally HG player and you cannot use the "B" list sub for more than a certain number of games in a row to ensure the A list subs get game time.

The idea against the 5 subs is that "richer" clubs benefit because they have more depth.

The FA, fans and the media whinge on about how young players never get any game time because there is too much pressure to not rely upon them in the PL with so much at stake from top to bottom.

So make it so that the only extra-"depth" you can go into is mostly from the academy?

I love the idea. Thoughts?

So Foden goes back to the bench so that we have more subs available. Tried this in Scotland years ago and it actually held back players from making the first eleven as two of the seven subs had to be under 21.

I've been thinking about the 5 subs benefits stronger club argument and am not sure I fully agree. The richer, often stronger teams are usually ahead by the end of the 1st hour or so and then are less likely to need to change tactics or revert to plan b.
By allowing all teams extra subs it would give more opportunities to change personnel/tactics to the trailing team, usually the team lower in the league which is usually, except for in the case of Man Utd ... the club with less resources.

In most cases for the stronger teams it would probably mean more opportunities to blood youth as they are already ahead in the game.

Also agree with post above that reserving the 4th/5th sub for young players may inadvertently lead to less minutes for them as they could be held back in case an extra sub is needed (e.g. for injury). It would also further encourge the rich clubs to buy the best young talent from elsewhere to sit on the bench.

It's clearly true the richer teams have the stronger benches but I still don't fully agree this rule benefits them outright.

Change for the sake of change. Three substitutions is more than enough.

I would however, be happy to see seven or eight substitutes named, even if only 3 can come on. Perhaps it would give a young lad or two from the Academy a bit more match day experience of being around the squad and first team so they aren’t overawed when a chance comes their way.

And if we are winning comfortably at 85 minutes say, then bring one on for a taster every now and then. Can’t hurt

For all who keep whinging on about Pep AND Klopp for not using all 5 subs.

Can we show some effort to think just a bit more?

It doesn't mean EVERY GAME they will use them, especially in a match like City-Liverpool with so much at stake (i.e. a 6 pointer).

But in other matches the chances of the 5 being used is higher and if/when used will help keep more players rested GOING INTO the next match/run of games.

It's really that simple.

On Pep's question why is it that all other major European leagues are allowing for it?

I am curious what journalists in other countries think about it where it is allowed? Particularly in Germany where they are aguably FAR more socialist when it comes to their football.

Seems most of the English media/fans are dead set against it because they think it favours the bigger sides. "Fairness" may be defined differently and perhaps, like here in the States, there's more of a "pick up your bootstraps and stop crying" attitude about work, and towards professional athletes where we have little empathy for them given the wages they earn.

Btw, I'm not convinced it's true that 5 subs helps the richer clubs, for a few reasons.

First, because one of the problems with having a "bigger squad" is consistency and familiarity due to more rotation.

Lower quality sides who suffer less injuries rely on consistency of players to win games. City and others with larger squads, benefit from depth, but managing that is a different skill given the number of players who may have larger egos and consider themselves starters, and also issues of consistency in their lineups.

Lower sides also, by default not being in Europe or even likely focusing on Cups vs. staying in the PL, do not NEED as large of a squad as they have less games.

So the 3 sub rule given what's going on with so many games, less rest, etc. is sort of like the Electoral College of football.

Where it could be seen as disproportionately helping lower sides do better by increasing injuries across the league and therefore diminishing the quality of football overall.

That's what I see happening right now.

Well the EFL have just given the go ahead for 5 subs for the rest of the season, will the Prem follow suit?

5 subs now official for the Carabao cup, starting with the semi finals on Wednesday.

Shall we run a book on how many Pep will use?

I reckon one.......