Only 5 subs allowed in the league...

[mersey86]

In my day there was only 1 sub allowed, and if you lost your goalkeeper, tough! And there were less softies.

[dww]

Sorry mate.
Still dont agree, as has been suggested, there are ways in which teams could get up 7 players, there are very limited cases of players not having 7 subs available. For such a competitive and physically demanding league like the Premiership, I do not understand why they still have 5 subs.

I have said that I would consider allowing an extra two youth players which does seem a reasonable compromise but I'm not convinced there is any particular argument for growing the number of substitutes named.

Why would the physical demands of the PL demand more match day substitutes to be named if we can still only put three on the pitch?

[BrooklynRed]

I also agree and think it would add to the managerial chess game and make the game more interesting, allowing managers to counter one another's substitutions with a wider array of players and, possibly, storylines. Mourinho brings on a smaller center back for an exhausted Terry and Rafa suddenly counters with Crouch, say. Just an example, but you get the gist. I like the idea very much and agree that youngsters would also benefit.

[carrsim]

In my day there was only 1 sub allowed, and if you lost your goalkeeper, tough! And there were less softies.

well said

would clubs like everton even be able to put 7 players on the bench?

it would give them something else to be bitter about

"them fooking red****e have got 7 fooking internationals on their bench, we've got 5, that lad from the u-12s and the fooking tea lady. if it weren't for houlding/heysel/istanbul we'd have fooking won the quadruple every year since 1066"

[rushscored4]

In my day there was only 1 sub allowed, and if you lost your goalkeeper, tough! And there were less softies.

In my day there were no subs, proper ankle length boots and real leather casies with laces...

[bazza76]

I have said that I would consider allowing an extra two youth players which does seem a reasonable compromise but I'm not convinced there is any particular argument for growing the number of substitutes named.

Why would the physical demands of the PL demand more match day substitutes to be named if we can still only put three on the pitch?

A succession of injuries to a certain position would cause problems, red cards etc. Also, must have been hard, like Marky was saying, leaving out certain members.

[mersey86]

In my day there were no subs, proper ankle length boots and real leather casies with laces...

They don't know they're born, this lot.

[Nic83]

I disagree.

If all the big clubs had bigger squads then there's got to be less quality in the teams/squads lower down Nic.

Yeah but what I'm saying is I Don't think it will make the bigger teams have bigger squads. but that's just my opinion and you have the opposite one and that's life!

[Iceman]

At Valencia Rafa used the extra 2 subs places (7 subs allowed in Spain), to give youngsters a go, if you are 2/3/4 nil up and cruising you can introduce the kids with 15 minutes to go they get valuable experience, the management get to have a look at them in a pressure situation

Why the UK persists in living in the dark ages is baffling, we we virtually the last country in europe to increase the number of subs from 1 to 3 then up to 5.

Sadly I can remember matches at Anfield where you had a 12 man squad











(feels really old now )

[magicalbarnes]

Too many subs would mean even bigger squads and then the big clubs would just get bigger and bigger.....

Think of the smaller clubs.


Oops!

Yeah i really feel for Everton

[magicalbarnes]

As i touched on yesterday, i think this rule is pathetic. I don't see why the premier league don't allow more than 5 subs like UEFA do in the European competitions. It's a real hinderence for us as it means a few big name players will be left out of the squad altogther in every league match ala Crouch, Kewell, Masherano and Yossi on saturday.
These are big names so i can't imagine many of them will put up with being left out altogher on a regular basis, they're clever enough to understand the squad rotation policy but to be left at home is bound to hurt and thus team morale may suffer if/when these players throw there toys out of the pram.
It's a concern.

Dont forget it was only our first game of the season and Rafa had a full squad to choose from. When the games come thick and fast and there are injuries, everyone will get their turn.

Look at Man U for example. Rooney ruled out for 2 months - you can never predict what is around the corner

[Diego]

I tend to agree with you but I think that if we allowed the bench to increase with two players who qualified as home club trained in europe and who were say under 21 then this would benefit all teams who invested in youth (such as Middlesborough and even Villa).

I don't think the fact that we can't have our ideal bench is a very valid argument for the league as a whole but I do think that more options can improve games as it allows managers who are behind more alternative to try and get back into a match.

i was thinking about this myself the other day, 7 subs put one are homegrown under the age of 21-22, i think everyone would be happy with that. i also remember last season with that turd warnock at sheffield he played with 5 outfielders on the bench and no goalie, i know he's crazy but that wouldnðt have happened if he had had 7 subbs, only having for outfielder could be a problem if you loose two of your players to injury...

[Dero]

I've been saying this for years, (even if i haven't been asked) but the idea of 2 under 21 players expanding the bench can only be good for their development, plus i don't think that subbing your keepers should be "charged" as one of your 3 subs.

[Red_Al_77]

Subs are for wimps

[rushscored4]

Subs are for wimps

And Shaggy (12" 'Meatball Marinara' especially)...