5 subs - good or bad?

[Duffer_]

Just watching the Fulham game and the commentator said the EFL is considering extending (max) 5 subs into next season.

My initial reaction, which is probably conditioned by Dyche's reluctance to use subs and the quality of our recent benches, was a negative one. The received wisdom is that the big clubs have such massive strength in depth that their quality will blast teams away. Is there not a case though for more energetic scrappers being able to plan subs after 60 mins or so to keep the intensity that they need? The cliché is that games are tight to start with but quality shows as bodies tire. Will more player rotation stifle quality?

What do you reckon?

Apologies if this has already been discussed at length. I have seen the odd comment but not much more.

[Rowls]

Bad

[claptrappers_union]

Bad, Three is enough. Though I think you should be allowed to have your whole squad of 25 accessible for matchday selection. Like international football. How many a manager decides to put on the bench is up to them though

[vinrogue]

Good for the richest teams in any Division, bad for the majority of teams including us.

[ClaretTony]

Bad - need to have 3 on and no more than 7 on the bench

[FactualFrank]

I thought this was due to players not being as fit as if they'd had a pre-season and more games being squeezed in?

If so, why should it continue into next season?

[ClaretTony]

If so, why should it continue into next season?

The bigger clubs will see it as another advantage over the smaller clubs

[Devils_Advocate]

Id like to see in the future a rule whereby you had to make a minimum amount of substitutions as well as having a maximum

Something like you have to have made at least 2 subs before the 2nd half, a 3rd sub by 60 mins then have the option of a further 3 subs in the last 30 mins.

I think this would really test the managers tactical nous and reward managers for building a good squad.

Sounds far fetched at the moment but I think most people would agree with me that this is a really good idea and one that will improve football and raise the standard of both the managers and the players.

I cant see something similar to this not being in play in a couple of seasons time as the game has to be progressive and embrace positive change

[HunterST_BFC]

Agree with CT

5 also simply encourages better players being stockpiled as bench fillers for the richest elite clubs who already have the better squads.
Even decent loans would be harder to make.

Plus the game time wasted even more.

[Grimsdale]

Definitely bad.

My preference is to go back to having one sub, wearing the number 12 shirt.

[Bosscat]

3 subs max ... plus any drinks break ... should be as in cricket where the drinks brought to the middle ... NO coaching....

Rant over ... been up the pub

[dougcollins]

Not bothered about the subs, it's the drinks (Ads) break that bothers me.

[timshorts]

Bad. Too many footballers sitting watching football when they ought to playing in league 1. There's enough of them in premier, championship, efl to make up a whole league on their own.

[No Ney Never]

The more subs, the less effective are yellow cards.

[Devils_Advocate]

The more subs, the less effective are yellow cards.

Thats a great point and yet another plus to allowing more subs

[MACCA]

Bad, let's keep it as level as possible. Itll be like american football soon, or the ability to swap all 11.

The richer will just but 30 world class players instead of 25, and have 3 11s rather than just 2.

[Longsidelenny1882]

Go back to 3 subs and only 5 on the bench then that treats everybody the same utc

[Gordaleman]

Id like to see in the future a rule whereby you had to make a minimum amount of substitutions as well as having a maximum

Something like you have to have made at least 2 subs before the 2nd half, a 3rd sub by 60 mins then have the option of a further 3 subs in the last 30 mins.

I think this would really test the managers tactical nous and reward managers for building a good squad.

Sounds far fetched at the moment but I think most people would agree with me that this is a really good idea and one that will improve football and raise the standard of both the managers and the players.

I cant see something similar to this not being in play in a couple of seasons time as the game has to be progressive and embrace positive change

And the game would last three hours? No thanks.

[Dyched]

Bad, let's keep it as level as possible. Itll be like american football soon, or the ability to swap all 11.

The richer will just but 30 world class players instead of 25, and have 3 11s rather than just 2.

That’ll be great for us then, a far more level playing field.

[Devils_Advocate]

And the game would last three hours? No thanks.

Not really, 2 would be done at half time, you have three to use normally so would only add one additional in play substitution (the 60 min sub)

We could solve the 60 min sub worry by changing it to when they have the 2nd half drinks break as that has got to stay next season

[Dyched]

Something I which has puzzled me is why aren't managers making subs in the first half. There’s been a few games since the restart where teams have been crap in the first half an hour and managers wait until half time. Why? You have 2 extra subs, make one!

[Gordaleman]

Not really, 2 would be done at half time, you have three to use normally so would only add one additional in play substitution (the 60 min sub)

We could solve the 60 min sub worry by changing it to when they have the 2nd half drinks break as that has got to stay next season

And all the top clubs would be able to bring on full internationals, and the likes of Burnley would be bringing on academy kids. Haven't the top clubs already got enough advantages?

[BenWickes]

Bad. What also gets on my t*ts is 89th minute substitutions when there's only 1 minutes injury time. Keep it to 3.

[Devils_Advocate]

And all the top clubs would be able to bring on full internationals, and the likes of Burnley would be bringing on academy kids. Haven't the top clubs already got enough advantages?

A fair chance we wont be playing the top clubs in a couple of years time so I wouldnt worry about it.

Even if we survive a little longer I like to look at whats best for the game as a whole and not just what suits Burnley. I get its hard for most people on here to understand that kind of viewpoint so I dont judge anyone for their blinkered ways of thinking

[Gordaleman]

A fair chance we wont be playing the top clubs in a couple of years time so I wouldnt worry about it.

Even if we survive a little longer I like to look at whats best for the game as a whole and not just what suits Burnley. I get its hard for most people on here to understand that kind of viewpoint so I dont judge anyone for their blinkered ways of thinking

I don't know where you get the idea we might not be playing in the PL in a couple of seasons from. The club is improving, year on year and not just on the pitch.

I guess you're just playing Devil's advocate.

[BenWickes]

I get its hard for most people on here to understand that kind of viewpoint so I dont judge anyone for their blinkered ways of thinking

Apart from judging people for being blinkered in their way of thinking

[Devils_Advocate]

I don't know where you get the idea we might not be playing in the PL in a couple of seasons from. The club is improving, year on year and not just on the pitch.

I guess you're just playing Devil's advocate.

Once Dyche goes we'll drop like a stone and even with him we wont hang around too long with our financial muscle (or lack of it)

[Devils_Advocate]

Apart from judging people for being blinkered in their way of thinking

You misread my post, I dont judge anyone for being blinkered

[BenWickes]

You misread my post, I dont judge anyone for being blinkered

Oh I didn't misread it. Maybe you worded it incorrectly. The fact you suggested people are blinkered means you're judging.

[Gordaleman]

Once Dyche goes we'll drop like a stone and even with him we wont hang around too long with our financial muscle (or lack of it)

Sean is going nowhere.

[Devils_Advocate]

Oh I didn't misread it. Maybe you worded it incorrectly. The fact you suggested people are blinkered means you're judging.

No you misread (or maybe didn't understand it) but lets leave it as its getting way off topic. Dont worry though I wont judge you for it

[Devils_Advocate]

Sean is going nowhere.

We've got a proper Mystic Meg here. Youre already struggling on the other thread about 3pm kick offs so give yourself a break.

I made a really good point about increasing substitutions. You disagreed because you think Burnley aren't capable of competing if those rules are in place and I have admitted I understand where you are coming from and wont judge you

Lets leave it there and let others have their say as this is a messageboard for the many, not the few

[Gordaleman]

We've got a proper Mystic Meg here. Youre already struggling on the other thread about 3pm kick offs so give yourself a break.

I made a really good point about increasing substitutions. You disagreed because you think Burnley aren't capable of competing if those rules are in place and I have admitted I understand where you are coming from and wont judge you

Lets leave it there and let others have their say as this is a messageboard for the many, not the few

Seems like you are also a mystic, because you think Sean IS leaving. People are entitled to their views but what happens on other threads is irrelevant to this one.

[tiger76]

That's funny i thought this was only a temporary change due to the unique environment, now they want to extend it too next season, and probably make it a permanent fixture, this couldn't possibly be because it'll favour the bigger clubs with the deeper squads could it.

The good news is that the pampered prima donnas won't be tired halfway through a season, as they'll have only played a portion of the available minutes, due to squad rotation and substitutions, it's great that they're really working hard for their ludicrous wages.

[Colburn_Claret]

Bad
It's unnecessary, and designed to favour the bigger clubs with bigger squads.
Under the current schedule it's acceptable, but for next season it's a load of ********.

[Chester Perry]

I posted this on the MMT thread but works here too

An intriguing theory as to why haveing 5 subs in a game does not advantage the bigger clubs with deeper squads - from the Guardian

Football's five substitutes rule doesn't benefit the big clubs – and here's why
The academic and former Athletic Bilbao head of talent ID explains why the issue is not as simple as it appears

Ignacio Palacios-Huerta

Wed 29 Jul 2020 11.56 BST - Last modified on Wed 29 Jul 2020 20.09 BST

Last month I was chatting to my friend Ernesto Valverde, the former Athletic Bilbao and Barcelona coach who I got to know well when I was Athletic’s head of talent ID. For once we were disagreeing. He, like many in football, thought that the temporary rule change to allow five substitutions from an extended bench of nine players favoured the big clubs. I insisted it wouldn’t.

At the time it felt like the debate didn’t matter much either way, given the rule was only expected to last until the end of the season. Now, however, Ifab has agreed to extend it, to the dismay of many. Burnley’s manager, Sean Dyche, and Aston Villa’s Dean Smith are prominent critics – and one well-regarded journalist recently claimed it “really does not take the brains of Lloyd George to work out that it is a rule which will favour richer clubs who have squads packed with larger numbers of higher-quality players”. However, this issue really is not as simple as it appears on the surface. Let me explain why.

My starting point is this: if being able to use five substitutes favoured the big clubs, you would expect them to make more changes compared with smaller teams. However, since the season resumed that hasn’t been the case. After lockdown was relaxed in the Bundesliga, for instance, the top four teams used 4.03 substitutes per game, while the bottom four teams used 4.59 substitutes per game. In the Premier League, Manchester City and Chelsea used fewer substitutes on average than Bournemouth and Norwich.

So what is going on? My argument is that the change in the number of substitutions neither harms nor benefits the teams according to their quality, but depends on other considerations.

Let me explain using a scenario I have discussed with a number of coaches, players, and analysts in the Premier League and La Liga. It is far simpler than real life, but hopefully it captures the essence of the situation.

Let’s take two hypothetical situations. In Situation A, substitutions during the game are forbidden. Teams start and end the game with 11 players. In Situation B, meanwhile, it is mandatory to replace the starting XI at half-time, and no other substitutions are allowed. Going from A (“No subs”) to B (“All subs”) means going from 0 to 11 substitutions, something undoubtedly much more drastic than going from three to five substitutions.

In Situation B, each team experiences a change in the quality of its players in the second half. The difference between the second half and the first half depends only on how good each team’s substitutes are relative to the starting XI.

In other words, whether a given team benefits depends on how its own relative change compares with the relative change of its opponent. Note that the words “strong team” or “weak team” are not used here, and therefore whether one team has a better or worse squad than another is irrelevant.

Let me put it another way. Let’s assume that every team’s first team and substitutes’ bench has a quality that is measurable and can be assigned a number from 0 to 100, with 100 being best.

Now imagine a match between a strong and a weak team, in which all the players are replaced at half-time. The strong team has 11 players of quality 100 and another 11 who are 60. On the other hand, a weak team has 22 identical players, all of quality equal to 20.

When the starting players have to be replaced at the break, the strong team plays with quality 100 in the first half and quality 60 in the second half, while the weak team plays with quality 20 in both halves. Contrary to what many might think, under these conditions, it is clear that the weaker team prefers the situation where there are more substitutions.

Of course Team B has a low chance of winning throughout. I am not disputing that. But, crucially, their chances of winning go up when 11 changes are made. The reason is that it has a more homogeneous squad, one with more similar player quality and is able to make more like-for-like substitutions.

Here is another scenario. All players in the strong team have an identical quality equal to 50, while the weak team has a quality of 20 in its first XI and of 15 in its 11 substitutes. Here again the more homogeneous team – which in this case is the strong team – benefits most from a situation where there are more substitutions allowed.

These simple exercises capture the essence of the impact of rule change. A team’s strength does not matter. Squads that can make more like-for-like substitutions are the ones that will benefit most from the possibility of a greater number of substitutions, regardless of their riches and thus overall level of quality of the squad. More uneven squads suffer from the rule change, regardless of how good their overall squad is.

At this point you are probably thinking: “Well, your theory sounds all well and good professor, but in practice the big clubs have more homogeneous squads than smaller ones?” I wouldn’t be so sure.

There is a well-known effect in football which economists refer to as the “superstar phenomenon” – whereby a small number of people earn enormous amounts and dominate the activities in which they engage. Of course it is not specific to football or even sports. There are countless examples from the world of arts and letters and showbiz where there is a strong tendency for rewards to be highly skewed toward the most talented individuals in the activity, with very large rewards at the top and a marked skewness in the distribution of salaries.

Nearly 40 years ago, Sherwin Rosen, an economist from the University of Chicago, proposed a brilliant theory to explain these general patterns. Applied to football, it means that essentially the best players reap a greater share of payroll, and this reduces the spoils available to the relatively less gifted in the squad. The superstar phenomenon, therefore, tends to increase the salary inequality both within squads and across squads.

As salaries are associated with quality and performance, this pushes richer clubs to tend to have more uneven squads than lesser – in terms of money – clubs. Richer clubs would then benefit less, not more, and tend to use fewer substitutes, which is what is happening. Of course it would make sense to go through each squad individually to make sure this is the case.

Incidentally, reports have suggested that only Aston Villa, Bournemouth and West Ham voted against the rule change. But if they have a relatively more balanced squad, they should have been among those to vote in favour.

Ignacio Palacios-Huerta is professor of management at the London School of Economics

[dougcollins]

'Ignacio Palacios-Huerta is professor of management at the London School of Economics'

And he probably needs to stick to it.

[Duffer_]

It takes a visionary with continental flair to see the possibility. Moi? That's for others to decide

[exilecanada]

Quit piddling around, let's go 'full NFL'. When team A has the ball, game stops (along with a commercial break....brought to you by the 'official bog roll supplier of the EPL'). Team B brings on the defensive squad until they retrieve the ball. Team A then brings on the offensive squad, again punctuated with a commercial break


With any luck one game could be over with in a week or so.



Year round footy, what's not to like? LMAO.

[Chester Perry]

'Ignacio Palacios-Huerta is professor of management at the London School of Economics'

And he probably needs to stick to it.

also a former Board member at Athletic Bilbao

[bfcmik]

Id like to see in the future a rule whereby you had to make a minimum amount of substitutions as well as having a maximum

Something like you have to have made at least 2 subs before the 2nd half, a 3rd sub by 60 mins then have the option of a further 3 subs in the last 30 mins.

I think this would really test the managers tactical nous and reward managers for building a good squad.

Sounds far fetched at the moment but I think most people would agree with me that this is a really good idea and one that will improve football and raise the standard of both the managers and the players.

I cant see something similar to this not being in play in a couple of seasons time as the game has to be progressive and embrace positive change

Awful idea. Only favours those teams with large squads of very good players. I recall Sean Dyche saying after hearing Man City hadn't played any pre-restart fixtures that he believed a Man City 1st XI v Man City squad players was harder for the 1st XI players than playing BFC - as was proved on that Monday evening!

[Devils_Advocate]

Awful idea. Only favours those teams with large squads of very good players. I recall Sean Dyche saying after hearing Man City hadn't played any pre-restart fixtures that he believed a Man City 1st XI v Man City squad players was harder for the 1st XI players than playing BFC - as was proved on that Monday evening!

You've had nearly 3 weeks to consider my excellent suggestion and thats your best response. You need to think about it a few weeks longer until you realise I am right.

Tip: If you get your head out of Dyche's arse you will be able to think a little more clearly

[levraiclaret]

Ver bad as my Turkish colleagues used to say.

[bfcmik]

You've had nearly 3 weeks to consider my excellent suggestion and thats your best response. You need to think about it a few weeks longer until you realise I am right.

Tip: If you get your head out of Dyche's arse you will be able to think a little more clearly

I only looked at this thread for the 1st time this evening so paragraph 1 is pointless. Just because I quoted SD before the City game does not mean I feast from his arse, it means he made a quote that fits the discussion.

I doubt if I took another 5 years sitting in a dark room to minimise external 'pressure' I would remotely agree with your proposal. As I stated I believe the only beneficiaries of your idea would be the big 6 and any other club with a deep pocketed owner.

[Devils_Advocate]

I only looked at this thread for the 1st time this evening so paragraph 1 is pointless. Just because I quoted SD before the City game does not mean I feast from his arse, it means he made a quote that fits the discussion.

I doubt if I took another 5 years sitting in a dark room to minimise external 'pressure' I would remotely agree with your proposal. As I stated I believe the only beneficiaries of your idea would be the big 6 and any other club with a deep pocketed owner.

You wont realise the error of your ways arguing on here with me. Now take my advice and consider my excellent idea a little longer and I think you'll soon come round to my way of thinking.

[bfcmik]

A fair chance we wont be playing the top clubs in a couple of years time so I wouldnt worry about it.

Even if we survive a little longer I like to look at whats best for the game as a whole and not just what suits Burnley. I get its hard for most people on here to understand that kind of viewpoint so I dont judge anyone for their blinkered ways of thinking

The game as a whole? Or just the rich clubs? Many lower division teams struggle to fill their matchday squad with 18 decent players as it is. They wouldn't have any more money coming in but would have to sign a larger squad.

As for us thinking primarily about how it would affect Burnley this is a partisan messageboard set up for Burnley fans to use, I am shocked they would put the club they support before your thoughts about whats (sic) best for the game as a whole, though if you are such an expert then why put your ideas on here when the media are crying out for knowledgeable and insightful contributors, and the FA is probably desperate for a consultant with your impartial views on the good of the game as a whole.

[NewClaret]

I don’t mind it really. I think:

1. The difference in quality between the top teams starting 11 and their subs is a greater than ours. On that basis, the opportunity for those teams to play more subs may actually help us; we may see them play with weaker starting 11s against us, knowing they can bring them on later, or wholesale changes if they go a few up.

2. We should have 16 players capable of playing at thiS level.

3. If we ever get in to Europe again we might be able to manage the fixture congestion better.

[Bullabill]

Bad. The game is as much about fitness and stamina as skill, and subs dilute that aspect.

[Devils_Advocate]

The game as a whole? Or just the rich clubs? Many lower division teams struggle to fill their matchday squad with 18 decent players as it is. They wouldn't have any more money coming in but would have to sign a larger squad.

As for us thinking primarily about how it would affect Burnley this is a partisan messageboard set up for Burnley fans to use, I am shocked they would put the club they support before your thoughts about whats (sic) best for the game as a whole, though if you are such an expert then why put your ideas on here when the media are crying out for knowledgeable and insightful contributors, and the FA is probably desperate for a consultant with your impartial views on the good of the game as a whole.

My proposal is just for the Premier League so whilst your concern for lower league teams (see youre thinking of the bigger picture already) is honorable its misplaced in relation to this particular conversation.

Thanks for your career advice but dont worry as I already provide my expert advice to the footballing bodies. For the record I do it pro gratis because of my good nature and overriding love for the game

[Woodleyclaret]

No subs would suit us.Sean stuggles with using them at the best of times
Tired legs evident v Brighton yet we didn't use all our quota of subs.