7 Substitutes

[Keefaz]

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.

 

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think it will make a massive improvement from where they stand currently in terms of better subs. I honestly think it will help bold managers affect games regardless of the size of their squads.

 

If anything, I think it should help better managers get results as they'll be able to make proper tactical substitutions without being limited.

[Mowen]

Didn't we name four players on the bench on occasion under Souness? I've got a feeling we may have done it in a UEFA game when Lewis Guy got on the pitch.

 

Probably a good thing overall, but as others have mentioned it will make it easier for Chelsea and ManU to sign players so others can't have them, and keep them happier than they would otherwise.

[indi]

It's a shit idea, designed to appease the big clubs meaning it'll punish the smaller clubs.

[Mowen]

It's a shit idea, designed to appease the big clubs meaning it'll punish the smaller clubs.

 

I agree to an extent, but I quite like the idea of us having Lua Lua/Tozer etc. on the bench more often and giving them the opportunity to show what we can do in games we've already won. It will benefit the biggies more, but it isn't without its advantages for the rest of us.

[Guest Sam]

About time, should've been done years ago.

[Guest Edd]

It's a s*** idea, designed to appease the big clubs meaning it'll punish the smaller clubs.

 

I agree to an extent, but I quite like the idea of us having Lua Lua/Tozer etc. on the bench more often and giving them the opportunity to show what we can do in games we've already won. It will benefit the biggies more, but it isn't without its advantages for the rest of us.

When this was first rumoured the other 2 slots supposedly had to be filled by youth team players (under-20's or something).  That would have been perfect as younger players would get experience like you say, and it wouldn't have benefited the big clubs quite as much.

[Guest optimistic nit]

It's a shit idea, designed to appease the big clubs meaning it'll punish the smaller clubs.

 

its hardly going to be the reason the big clubs get bigger and the small clubs get smaller though is it? more subs means more flexibility, for both big teams and small teams, small teams will have a better chance to give their youngsters a run out. you can now give promising youngsters a place on the bench for if you're 3 up with 20 to while having quality on the bench incase you need a goal, or to defend a narrow lead. it'll help the development of players imo for those reasons.

i can't really see the bigger teams gaining too much out of this.

[Parky]

BIgger sides will benefit.

 

I'd have 3 subs + keeper.

[Guest Knightrider]

4 subs plus 3 academy prospects should have been the policy.

[indi]

It's a shit idea, designed to appease the big clubs meaning it'll punish the smaller clubs.

 

its hardly going to be the reason the big clubs get bigger and the small clubs get smaller though is it? more subs means more flexibility, for both big teams and small teams, small teams will have a better chance to give their youngsters a run out. you can now give promising youngsters a place on the bench for if you're 3 up with 20 to while having quality on the bench incase you need a goal, or to defend a narrow lead. it'll help the development of players imo for those reasons.

i can't really see the bigger teams gaining too much out of this.

 

It's just one more of the bazillion little things that help the big clubs and all add up to make it nigh on impossible for anyone outside the big-four to have any chance of winning the league, or even qualifying for the Champions' League.

 

The more players there are on the bench the less it becomes about the eleven players on the pitch and the more it becomes about how many zeroes there are on the end of the club's balance sheet.

 

The big clubs already have huge squads of quality players, so can essentially injury-proof themselves, basically if one international gets crocked, then another takes his place. We've seen just how badly injuries can affect a club's season when they have a small squad and little strength in depth and the majority of clubs are a lot less well off than we are.

 

To allow them to have getting on for a full team on the bench just adds to the advantage they have from having a huge squad and it's another step along the road to money being the only way to bring success. It's a huge advantage for the bigger clubs, I'm amazed that most people are so blind to this!!

 

We've already got a situation where the Big Four are hoovering up all the young talent and most of them are spending their formative years playing reserve team football, not only that, but teams are seemingly buying players simply to prevent them signing for their rivals, and this is just going to make it easier for them to do that. How is that possibly a good thing!?!

 

Football is getting progressively more and more about money and money alone, this is just another example of the authorities pandering to this, it's a very bad idea indeed.

[indi]

I forgot to say that the whole bringing on youth thing is a total red herring, it won't make any difference, in fact it'll probably make things worse.

[Thespence]

I like less subs, makes a manager think about his bench & has to shuffle his team around if it goes wrong. If we go 7 may as well go 11.

[Guest optimistic nit]

i very much doubt that it will make things worse. i still don't see 2 extra men on the bench being as big an advantage to the bigger teams as you say. stopping it wont stop big clubs monopolising all the talent and wont stop big clubs being able to replace one international with another.

[Tooj]

I like less subs, makes a manager think about his bench & has to shuffle his team around if it goes wrong. If we go 7 may as well go 11.

 

I agree with that like.

[Taylor Swift]

4 subs plus 3 academy prospects should have been the policy.

 

 

I think it will end up being this way anyway. Firstly, you limit the 'main' subs and thus the size of the squads of the big teams, and secondly, you give a chance for the youngsters to be thrown in.

[Guest shearer_united]

I think from a manager's perspective, it would be better.

But from a player's perspective, i think its a bad idea.

[Guest]

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.

 

 

This. Walter Smith mentioned it a while back as he has to do the same with Rangers, and I'd imagine one or two other managers feel the same. If it's just a matter of picking your best 7 subs though with no restrictions, then fair enough.

[Parky]

It's a shit idea, designed to appease the big clubs meaning it'll punish the smaller clubs.

 

its hardly going to be the reason the big clubs get bigger and the small clubs get smaller though is it? more subs means more flexibility, for both big teams and small teams, small teams will have a better chance to give their youngsters a run out. you can now give promising youngsters a place on the bench for if you're 3 up with 20 to while having quality on the bench incase you need a goal, or to defend a narrow lead. it'll help the development of players imo for those reasons.

i can't really see the bigger teams gaining too much out of this.

 

It's just one more of the bazillion little things that help the big clubs and all add up to make it nigh on impossible for anyone outside the big-four to have any chance of winning the league, or even qualifying for the Champions' League.

 

The more players there are on the bench the less it becomes about the eleven players on the pitch and the more it becomes about how many zeroes there are on the end of the club's balance sheet.

 

The big clubs already have huge squads of quality players, so can essentially injury-proof themselves, basically if one international gets crocked, then another takes his place. We've seen just how badly injuries can affect a club's season when they have a small squad and little strength in depth and the majority of clubs are a lot less well off than we are.

 

To allow them to have getting on for a full team on the bench just adds to the advantage they have from having a huge squad and it's another step along the road to money being the only way to bring success. It's a huge advantage for the bigger clubs, I'm amazed that most people are so blind to this!!

 

We've already got a situation where the Big Four are hoovering up all the young talent and most of them are spending their formative years playing reserve team football, not only that, but teams are seemingly buying players simply to prevent them signing for their rivals, and this is just going to make it easier for them to do that. How is that possibly a good thing!?!

 

Football is getting progressively more and more about money and money alone, this is just another example of the authorities pandering to this, it's a very bad idea indeed.

 

Totally agree.

 

 

[Guest]

4 subs plus 3 academy prospects should have been the policy.

 

 

I think it will end up being this way anyway. Firstly, you limit the 'main' subs and thus the size of the squads of the big teams, and secondly, you give a chance for the youngsters to be thrown in.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/6947723.stm

 

Smith blast for SPL under-21 rule

 

 

Rangers manager Walter Smith has condemned the SPL rule which forces clubs to include three under-21 players in a matchday squad.

Smith insists it should be the quality of the players rather than their age which dictates team selection.

 

"A lot of younger players are getting involved in first-team games far too easily," he told Rangers News.

 

"It's simply because of their age and not because they're making the demands of football. That's wrong."

 

Smith had Steven Lennon, Jordan McMillan and Steven Kinniburgh among his seven substitutes for the league opener at Inverness.

 

Lennon, McMillan and Paul Emslie were selected for Saturday's Ibrox clash with St Mirren.

 

But none of the youngsters got any further than the bench, while more established players sat in the stand.

 

"I feel that the under-21 ruling pushes you to put a young player in there and lets them think they've achieved a certain level without them actually doing anything to achieve that level," added Smith.

 

"We've had young players come in to our team over the years - Barry Ferguson, Charlie Miller and Steven Pressley, for example - and every one of them has done so regardless of their age.

 

"In the next few years I'm sure we will have several young players here pushing their way into the first team but they won't do so because they are under 21 but rather because they are good footballers.

 

"That should be the criteria for picking a team, not because of someone's age."

 

Charlie Adam, who hit 14 goals from midfield for Rangers last season, was a spectator for the St Mirren match, along with Ian Murray and summer signing Alan Gow.

 

"It would be better if the players could feel like they were involved, even as a substitute," said Smith.

 

"As it stands just now you have to leave out reasonably experienced players who then feel like they're not getting any opportunity to get close to the team."

 

I think his assessment of it is spot-on.

 

[Cajun]

Well I like the idea. As others have said youth are going to get more of a chance than they do now imo.

[Guest]

Well I like the idea. As others have said youth are going to get more of a chance than they do now imo.

 

If they're good enough, they'll get a chance, regardless of age.

[Cajun]

I'm not sure thats always the way tbh, I think some managers can be scared to risk playing youngsters over players who are maybe as good but don't have the experience.

[Guest]

I'm not sure thats always the way tbh, I think some managers can be scared to risk playing youngsters over players who are maybe as good but don't have the experience.

 

Which surely adds to the manager's importance in terms of decision-making, etc. doesn't it? Making a rule forcing 2-3 Academy players or whatever will just make the decision easier for the manager.

[Cajun]

I don't understand? If he has 5 players he can choose himself and then has to choose 2 youth players where is the problem?

 

From what I can see it just means that the youth players have more chance of getting on the bench and therefore more chance of getting in the team. People argue that this may mean they turn out into arrogant little fuckers but on the other side of the coin it means they will also believe they have the chance to make it and it won't be a dent in confidence never seeming to make a breakthrough.

 

Personally I would love to see more of our youngsters in or around the first team. From the little cameos we have seen from Carrol he looks a better bet than Smith but I can understand (sort of) why Keegan would have thought it may be a bit too much of a gamble over someone with experience in the league. People like N'Zogbia and Milner have proabably been left out and frustrated at times this season as players with more experience have been preffered over them.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

7 subs is a decent idea, but total squad sizes should be capped to prevent the hoovering up of talent etc