More players needed..

[singe]

Well down in a BBC article is the fact the FL have agreed to Derby's request that the FL will be allowed to field 7 subs next season!

So after not panicking about only having two I am just a bit worried Just kidding

 

It is getting a bit American Football-ified. 7 players is over the top!

Quite ridiculous in fact.

Mind you it wasnlt that long ago we couldn't put 4 out.

 

Quick we need at least another 11 players!!!

[LaticsLee]

I think its stupid. whast the point in having 7 subs when you can only make 3 changes ?

 

i think they should just keep it to 5

[nava]

I dont think you will find any managers complaining as it gives them more options to win games. I bet though Warnock still doesnt put a keeper on the bench

[scotty doesn't know]

I think its stupid. whast the point in having 7 subs when you can only make 3 changes ?

 

i think they should just keep it to 5

it gives a manager more choices with which to change a team when needed, it provides opportunities for competition, helps to keep players happy and give youth players experience

[JohnnyPimp]

It also means that more fringe players will receive appearance money for making the matchday 18.

 

I think, therefore, we can expect a fair number of bench places being warmed by youth team players right across the Football League.

[creepy]

It also means that more fringe players will receive appearance money for making the matchday 18.

 

I think, therefore, we can expect a fair number of bench places being warmed by youth team players right across the Football League.

 

undecided about the subs thing, but would that be a bad thing for lower league clubs?

 

As long as they can cut it and they are not making the numbers up?

 

But why would they be at the club in the first place?

[De_La_Vega]

Mourinho once made a good point on this subject, where he advocated it on the grounds that by allowing 7 subs you give the manager tactical freedom that can only improve the spectator experience - in his case this was that he couldn't field specialist full-backs on the bench as his 4 outfield players needed to cover the "key" areas down the spine of the team. Therefore if he lost right or left back the attacking component of his team was lost and a guy just filled in, primarily to cover the defensive duties.

 

I thought that was fair enough, and a good argument for. At our level not so important, but it does give a manager the option of having younger guys like (in our case) Black, Stephens or Brooke on the bench to throw on should the game be going our way.

 

So to be honest I'm all for. Unless we have to buy a bigger bus and that comes out of the transfer kitty. That would be rubbish.

[opinions4u]

So to be honest I'm all for. Unless we have to buy a bigger bus and that comes out of the transfer kitty. That would be rubbish.

Do they own the bus they use for away games?

[KUNGFOO]

dont see a problem really more players to choose from so happy days its not going to hinder us so dont try and make a argument out of nothing ur all female's there ace at doing that

[Lookers_Carl]

We dont have to name 7 subs though, remember 2007/2008 when on a few occasions we only named 4?

[Ackey]

I'm astounded by the amount of support the 7 sub rule has got from this board, and thus by proxy the lower reaches of English football. This rule was created to benefit the biggest clubs alone. The smaller clubs were never in their plans. How can this rule be a benefit to a team like ours which struggles to put together a match day squad of 23, usually including several young players who have no real chance to play.

 

In the Premier League for example how is this a fair rule when United could realistically play two first teams which would still be good enough to make the top 4 whilst West Brom on such a meagre budget can only just afford to play a team at all.

 

It's another case of the rich getting richer. They can appease big name players by saying they're in the squad/on the bench. They can increase their options of attack/defence when playing a team that doesn't even have options to start with.

 

I hate it and everything it represents.

[Dave_Og]

Quite right - it's only for the rich. All that logic says have a bench of 11 players so that every position is covered. And it would deprive us of the spectacle of Jon Hallworth coming very close to scoring when coming on as an emergency at Selhurst a few years ago.

[dave_ragg1984]

Should go back to 2 subs.

 

And while I'm at it, scrap squad numbers. 1-11, with the subs 12 and 14. It wasn't broke, so why fix it!?!?

[De_La_Vega]

I've got to say I don't see the arguments against. The rich aren't going to get richer, because all it means is that they can play more of their reserves from the bench should they so want to. The biggest will already have these players, and in any event there is no money attached to this so they aren't going to have increased resources with which to support larger squads. If anything all it means is that there is an increased chance of younger lads making the bench and possibly getting a run out.

 

As for us, if we can only field 4 subs then this won't affect us will it? There are still only 11 on the pitch, and you don't need more players to fill the spaces. As I said previously, surely we'd use this increase to field young lads like Brooke or Stephens on the bench which will increase their opportunities to get on. If you have only 4 outfield players on the bench then there is an element of safety first that affects who you choose.

 

We haven't got the cash to pay squad players so I cannot see that we'd do anything else, and I cannot see why we'd be anti the increase. You can only get three on in any game, so in theory your team still only needs to be fifteen strong - starting XI, 3 outfield players and a sub keeper.

[Ackey]

I've got to say I don't see the arguments against.

Example 1;

 

You're Man United and you're playing West Brom. You're ideal is to only use your second string players (Ref'd as "reserves", but in reality the "second squad" United have) and save your bigger names for the Liverpool game next week.

 

As ManU you previously played a 8-3 split with 2 reserves & 3 first teamers on the bench.

~ Ideally you would bring on the two reserves as you were winning.

~ If not you had 3 first teamers to choose from.

 

As ManU you now play a 9-2 split with 2-5 on the bench

~ You can take a bigger gample in game, knowing you have better options on the bench

~ You can still have 2 reserves on the bench who can have a run if you have the game under control

~ With additional first team options on the bench, whilst not able to use them all, you know that you can change a game in more ways. Before you had a striker, a midfielder and a defender. Now you can have two types of striker to change the game in different ways or a winger and a central midfielder instead of just a central player.

 

As WestB you have the same options. You don't have the strength in depth that ManU do and so despite being able to have additional players on the bench they don't change your options in an effective or significant way.

 

 

Example 2;

 

ManU are looking to sign a player. He's 17 and seen as a quality player. At ManU he previously was looking at 2 years of occasional bench appearences before making the break through to a regular reserve position and another year before he could hope to be a starter.

 

He is also offered a deal by a midtable team, Villa or Everton perhaps, where he could expect to be a first teamer in a much shorter timeframe.

 

With additional subs he can expect to break the first team bench at a much quicker pace.

 

ManU are now much more attractive to him.

 

This one has a knock on effect for Latics too - as the bigger teams will have more success at attracting players, as a result you will have less squad players at the smaller teams, making loan signings more difficult to come by at the lower levels.

[Delfer]

Should go back to 2 subs.

 

And while I'm at it, scrap squad numbers. 1-11, with the subs 12 and 14. It wasn't broke, so why fix it!?!?

 

It's called progress

[Ackey]

It's called progress

Or role-justification.

[opinions4u]

It's called progress

Let's go the whole hog and have 12 subs.

 

One to cover every outfield position and two goalies.

 

Progress it further and allow them all on the pitch instead of just 3.

 

Indeed, what the hell, let some of the 5,000 in the stands get a game when the season has reached that mid-table mediocrity moment.

 

Me? I'd go back to 1 sub. Amazing how players and managers could cope back in the 70s and 80s but can't now.

Edited June 14, 2009 by opinions4u

[leeslover]

Quite right - it's only for the rich. All that logic says have a bench of 11 players so that every position is covered. And it would deprive us of the spectacle of Jon Hallworth coming very close to scoring when coming on as an emergency at Selhurst a few years ago.

I was thinking along those lines. To use the earlier example, supposing Mourinho has to put a midfielder at left back for half an hour, so what? Yes, he might lose an attacking option, just as he will gain one when the other side have to do the same. I like it when a centre half plays up front or you see someone struggling to cope in an unfamiliar role, making sure every position is covered sounds more like American Football to me.

[Dave_Og]

It's called progress

That's called naivete

[De_La_Vega]

At the end of the day football exists to please the fans, and should a full-back get injured and a centre-mid get sent in there to cover it can spoil a game. That was Mourinho's point, and I see it as valid - I'm not crying a river for the woes of super rich clubs but I am seeing his point.

 

As for the arguments for the West Brom vs. ManUre game - I see your point and I can agree with them in a fashion. However surely what you are essentially saying is that United are miles too strong for West Brom, and that isn't an issue brought about by subs. It is also a very specific and highly subjective example. What is more likely to happen is that United would have room to have quality cover for every position on the bench, with match changing subs along with workhorses thus making them more able to cope with the vicissitudes of fate. But then the fact is that by having 4 outfield subs of vastly superior quality they would have that advantage anyway.

 

You'd hope that the Premier League would dovetail this allowance with the rules about homegrown players to insist that young, English qualified talent is given a place on the benches, and so long as it is then I think the impact will be tiny, and the potential benefits clear to see when the England team of the future contains more quality players who got a chance early.

 

As for us, I don't think in practice it will affect our squad balance.

[Delfer]

Let's go the whole hog and have 12 subs.

 

One to cover every outfield position and two goalies.

 

Progress it further and allow them all on the pitch instead of just 3.

 

Indeed, what the hell, let some of the 5,000 in the stands get a game when the season has reached that mid-table mediocrity moment.

 

Me? I'd go back to 1 sub. Amazing how players and managers could cope back in the 70s and 80s but can't now.

 

Indeed and why don't we have all standing, more older stands with stanchions ( I miss them in the RRE) proper old uncomfortable kit, brylcreem haircuts, leather balls, muddy pitches, rickets, whooping cough etc etc

 

Oldham is a backward looking town, and I include Saddleworth, with a lot of Latics fans being the epitome of that statement.

[Delfer]

That's called naivete

 

No, I think you'll find it's the inevitable next step having been developed in internationals, the premier League etc. I think all you luddites are forgetting the obvious thing, all these proposals are voted on fairly, we have a vote in the football democracy, so we trust Alan Hardy & his pals.

 

Sometimes these over-egged arguments about the gaps in football are in my opinion excuses for the fact that our average crowd continues to dwindle which reflects our :censored:ty town. I'd be surprised if other clubs fans are getting their knickers in a twist like some of you herberts on here.

 

I'll await the backlash.......................

[opinions4u]

Sometimes these over-egged arguments about the gaps in football are in my opinion excuses for the fact that our average crowd continues to dwindle which reflects our :censored:ty town.

How much did average crowds at BP reduce by last season?

Edited June 14, 2009 by opinions4u

[CP_OAFC]

Picture this from Ryan Brookes point if view. tuesday night match away at gillingham, 18 man squad and you go all the way down there, warm up and then get told your not on the bench today lad, because that is what happens now, 18 man squad, 16 only for a match. i am sure players like him would rather have the oppourtunity to go on, instead of 7 hours down there on a coach .. get changed, jog about, without the chance of even playing, go and get changed, wait to watch the team, and then go back 7 hours after a totally pointless night.