7 Substitutes

[Beren]

Pilfered from .com:

 

As an aside, it's agreed that next season will see clubs allowed to name seven  substitutes on the bench rather than the current five, although only three can come on. 

 

That one passed me by. Can only benefit the superstar squads you feel.

[Keefaz]

Think it's a good move, tbh.

[Dave]

Where have you been?

[NG32]

I think its better, good move.

[Guest Jawesome]

Where have you been?

 

He's never hit the second season in the prem on FM, tbh.

[Dokko]

Man invents wheel etc...

[Willow]

I'm very happy with this, more chances for more players and tactically better replacements

[Beren]

Bastards. 

[Dokko]

I still think a better idea was to have the extra subs to be U21's from your academy, help boost english footie etc...

[Guest DazzaNufc1892]

I remmeber robson asking for this in 2002

[Dan Gleebals]

In our case (with current squad) it would not make any difference, it would only highlight what we do not have.  This will play into the bigger teams hands completely, cannot see it benefiting the lower teams as much.

[Cajun]

Hopefully we will increase the squad this summer. Also as TT says it will be good for the youngsters.

[Guest optimistic nit]

think its a very good idea.

[S.S.R.]

You'll get young players getting named as subs out of necessity, and it'll go to their heads. They'll think they've made it.

 

Balance is getting tipped even further in the biggest club's favour. I assume all the clubs had to agree on it, so it's their own fault.

[Alberto2005]

Pointless really.

[Keefaz]

Pointless really.

 

How so?

[Guest K9]

At last they'v changed it

[Yorkie]

You'll get young players getting named as subs out of necessity, and it'll go to their heads. They'll think they've made it.

 

You'd have to be pretty blinkered to believe you've made it, just cos you've got onto a bench of seven cos there's no one else.

 

Look at it from the other direction, and you could say it'll actually drive youngsters on even more, knowing that they've got more chance of getting pitch time.

[Alberto2005]

Pointless really.

 

How so?

5's more than enough, just gives the bigger clubs an advantage.

[junkhead]

Pointless really.

 

How so?

5's more than enough, just gives the bigger clubs an advantage.

i don't think 5 is enough, but yeah.. would be another little advantage for bigger squads

[Keefaz]

Pointless really.

 

How so?

5's more than enough, just gives the bigger clubs an advantage.

 

Not much; they can only ever use 3. Makes sense as you can now have cover for every position on the field, and gives managers more chance to influence a game, make bolder substitutions and be more flexible.

[Cajun]

I don't see how it will give the bigger clubs an advantage. They normally have 5 players on the bench that would walk into most sides and as Keefaz said you can still only use 3.

[Alberto2005]

I don't see how it will give the bigger clubs an advantage. They normally have 5 players on the bench that would walk into most sides and as Keefaz said you can still only use 3.

Gives them more quality options whereas the smaller teams will have to bring in youngsters.

[Baron von Fat]

I don't see how it will give the bigger clubs an advantage. They normally have 5 players on the bench that would walk into most sides and as Keefaz said you can still only use 3.

Gives them more quality options whereas the smaller teams will have to bring in youngsters.

 

Flimsy argument at best.  Chelsea's seventh sub will be better than ours, but then again, Chelsea's fifth sub is already better than ours.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Premiership manager who wouldn't want more options on the bench, big club or small.

[gray]

we could barely scrape 5 together at times over the last couple of seasons, will be interesting to see terry mac named on the bench