More players needed..

[De_La_Vega]

I have been losing sleep over it - because I'm so excited. The best rule change to affect the English game in decades.

[opinions4u]

I have been losing sleep over it - because I'm so excited. The best rule change to affect the English game in decades.

[millsy82]

Having read through this thread, I must say I'm all for the rule change.

 

Look back to last years game at home to Hereford. We won the game 4-0 and was 3-0 up at HT, so effectivley the game was over. This would have been the ideal time to introduce one of the younger lads such as Lee, Stephens or possibley even Brooke. During that game however, we brought on Fleming (for Crossley inj), Smalley (for Liddell) and Allesandra (for Hughes), both outfield players have played more than their fair share of football througout the season, yet Stephens didn't play all season and Lee played 2(?) games. There was no reserve team and players who weren't being used as subs were just not playing football whatsoever.

 

Another way of looking at it is if you recall the Leciester game away last season. That night Shez braved it and didn't put a keeper on the bench (a specialist position, no?), Fleming gets sent off eary doors in the 2nd half and fat boy Wideass goes in net. Yes we all giggled and sang his praises at FT and everything was fantastic, but if we are all serious for just one moment we would realise that 95 out of 100 we probably would have lost that match. Shez took the gamble of not having a keeper and electing to have 5 outfield players instead, now with having 7 subs that situation should never happen again. If you really like the "drama" of watching some lumpy centre back with no skill playing up front because the main strikers gone off injured after 30 mins and there is nobody to replace him with then I find that a little weird. I like to see players playing to their best and with confidence. Two sides where the losing team can't make excueses for losing. If having 7 subs help eliminate some of these minor issues then that for me is progression.

 

Subs bench next season

 

1. GK (Specialist position)

2. ST (Specialist position)

3. FB (Specialist position)

4. CB (Specialist position)

5. CM (Specialist position)

6. Wing (Specialist positon)

7. Utility/Youth (Just in case/wining comfy)

 

Oh and one more point. In 1966 the 3rd highest goalscoring Englishman at international level of all time, with the most prolific scoring record for club and country, didn't recieve a World Cup Medal because there was no subs in them days. It was only until recently, a mere 43 years later, that Jimmy Greaves got his World Cup winners medal. Should he have waited so long to have colleceted his medal?

[wakefield-oldham]

Oh and one more point. In 1966 the 3rd highest goalscoring Englishman at international level of all time, with the most prolific scoring record for club and country, didn't recieve a World Cup Medal because there was no subs in them days. It was only until recently, a mere 43 years later, that Jimmy Greaves got his World Cup winners medal. Should he have waited so long to have colleceted his medal?

not before time,,,though i think he looked a bit embarrassed receiving it

[opinions4u]

Look back to last years game at home to Hereford. We won the game 4-0 and was 3-0 up at HT, so effectivley the game was over. This would have been the ideal time to introduce one of the younger lads such as Lee, Stephens or possibley even Brooke. During that game however, we brought on Fleming (for Crossley inj), Smalley (for Liddell) and Allesandra (for Hughes), both outfield players have played more than their fair share of football througout the season, yet Stephens didn't play all season and Lee played 2(?) games.

So we used a specialist goalie and 2 youngsters .... permed from 5 subs. I don't see your problem.

 

There was no reserve team and players who weren't being used as subs were just not playing football whatsoever.

Solution - bring back reserve team football! How much football would subs 4,5,6 and 7 actually play. Some games subs 1,2 and 3 don't get used!

 

Another way of looking at it is if you recall the Leciester game away last season. That night Shez braved it and didn't put a keeper on the bench (a specialist position, no?)

Clearly a specialist position. But it was clear that he didn't trust Josh Bell, otherwise he would have been picked on the bench.

 

Fleming gets sent off eary doors in the 2nd half and fat boy Wideass goes in net. Yes we all giggled and sang his praises at FT and everything was fantastic, but if we are all serious for just one moment we would realise that 95 out of 100 we probably would have lost that match. Shez took the gamble of not having a keeper and electing to have 5 outfield players instead, now with having 7 subs that situation should never happen again.

Why does 7 change the situation from 5? If the manager can't find room for a goalie in 5 subs because he doesn't trust him why would he select him in a 7? If we'd had 7 subs that day I suspect Shez wouldn't have sent Bell on because he didn't trust him!! If he had sent Bell on and we'd drawn 0-0, would that game have been any better or more exciting? Not having a sub goalkeeper made that game superb. Bringing on a sub-goalie and drawing would have made it a forgetable goalless draw.

 

If you really like the "drama" of watching some lumpy centre back with no skill playing up front because the main strikers gone off injured after 30 mins and there is nobody to replace him with then I find that a little weird.

1. Why is it weird? Weren't some of Joe Royle's greatest managerial moments at BP a result of doing this?

2. It's a scenario that no longer happens anyway due to the 5 subs already sat on the bench. The game is poorer for it.

 

I like to see players playing to their best and with confidence. Two sides where the losing team can't make excueses for losing. If having 7 subs help eliminate some of these minor issues then that for me is progression.

I really don't think it achieves anything. Bringing on O'Grady to replace an injured Hughes and losing - clearly having your main striker replaced by a non-scoring reserve striker remains an excuse for losing.

 

Subs bench next season

 

1. GK (Specialist position)

2. ST (Specialist position)

3. FB (Specialist position)

4. CB (Specialist position)

5. CM (Specialist position)

6. Wing (Specialist positon)

7. Utility/Youth (Just in case/wining comfy)

Number (7) would be better off playing competitive reserve football. A good manager will build a team that can quickly change formations to suit the substitutes available.

 

Oh and one more point. In 1966 the 3rd highest goalscoring Englishman at international level of all time, with the most prolific scoring record for club and country, didn't recieve a World Cup Medal because there was no subs in them days. It was only until recently, a mere 43 years later, that Jimmy Greaves got his World Cup winners medal. Should he have waited so long to have colleceted his medal?

And in recent World Cup's where squads of 20-23 players have been allowed the players not starting games were ALL subs. This wasn't the case in 1966. The Jimmy Greaves situation simply reflects rule changes over time. I don't understand why having 7 subs in League One next season is in any way connected to whether or not Jimmy Greaves deserves a medal from a competition 42 years ago. I suppose a suspended Keane and Scholes getting Champions League medals might contribute to the debate but I don't see how?

 

Some have called the change progress.

 

For me it's change for the sake of it and serves no practical purpose, other than to have 14 players jogging up and down the touchline, blocking the view of those in the front of the main stand with little hope of kicking a ball in anger, instead of 10.

 

Whichever, it's done now. Watch DP place a youngster or two on the bench next season and only use them on two or three occasions.

Edited June 23, 2009 by opinions4u

[millsy82]

So we used a specialist goalie and 2 youngsters .... permed from 5 subs. I don't see your problem.

 

 

Solution - bring back reserve team football! How much football would subs 4,5,6 and 7 actually play. Some games subs 1,2 and 3 don't get used!

 

 

Clearly a specialist position. But it was clear that he didn't trust Josh Bell, otherwise he would have been picked on the bench.

 

 

Why does 7 change the situation from 5? If the manager can't find room for a goalie in 5 subs because he doesn't trust him why would he select him in a 7? If we'd had 7 subs that day I suspect Shez wouldn't have sent Bell on because he didn't trust him!! If he had sent Bell on and we'd drawn 0-0, would that game have been any better or more exciting? Not having a sub goalkeeper made that game superb. Bringing on a sub-goalie and drawing would have made it a forgetable goalless draw.

 

 

1. Why is it weird? Weren't some of Joe Royle's greatest managerial moments at BP a result of doing this?

2. It's a scenario that no longer happens anyway due to the 5 subs already sat on the bench. The game is poorer for it.

 

 

I really don't think it achieves anything. Bringing on O'Grady to replace an injured Hughes and losing - clearly having your main striker replaced by a non-scoring reserve striker remains an excuse for losing.

 

 

Number (7) would be better off playing competitive reserve football. A good manager will build a team that can quickly change formations to suit the substitutes available.

 

 

And in recent World Cup's where squads of 20-23 players have been allowed the players not starting games were ALL subs. This wasn't the case in 1966. The Jimmy Greaves situation simply reflects rule changes over time. I don't understand why having 7 subs in League One next season is in any way connected to whether or not Jimmy Greaves deserves a medal from a competition 42 years ago. I suppose a suspended Keane and Scholes getting Champions League medals might contribute to the debate but I don't see how?

 

Some have called the change progress.

 

For me it's change for the sake of it and serves no practical purpose, other than to have 14 players jogging up and down the touchline, blocking the view of those in the front of the main stand with little hope of kicking a ball in anger, instead of 10.

 

Whichever, it's done now. Watch DP place a youngster or two on the bench next season and only use them on two or three occasions.

 

1. Yes we used a specialist GK and a yes in terms of physical age Allesandra and Smalley are classed as youngsters, but they have racked up (and had racked up) quite a number of games between them before that match, it would have been better to play Stephens and Lee, who had played virtually no first team football.

 

2. So he didn't trust Josh Bell. Fair enough. With 5 subs I can't blame Shez for not picking him. With 7 subs he would no doubt IMO have picked him and probably have brought him on in that match. At the end of the day, I'm quietly confident that Josh Bell would be a better keeper than Dean Windass. The fact we got through that match without getting embarresed let alone conceading had nothing to with Windass' ability as a GK but it was down to the excellent defending and at times sheer luck. Like I said before the majority of the time we would have lost that match.

 

3. Right so if you've only got 5 subs instead of 7 it give you less options. That is a fact. So therefore Sheriden did not have enough options to warrent putting Josh Bell on the bench. At the end of the day, only John Sheriden can actually tell you what he would have done if he was allowed to have 7 subs. I suspect that his footballing brain and knowladge of the game would have led him to put Bell on the bench and play him once Fleming was sent off. Football is first and foremost a results business, then and only then is it about entertainment. For some people that may be hard to accept but it is the truth. If he'd have had Bell as an option, not used him, then lost the game 6-0 he would have been slaughtered for it.

 

4. Its weird because I would much rather see players playing brilliantly. Players tend to do this when they play in their natural position. Would you like to see England playing Brazil in the World Cup with John Terry up front or would you rather have two or three striking options on the bench, ready and willing to take their chance. The game is most certainly not poorer for having 5 subs. Players play far more games these days, especially at the highest level. More than ever it is a squad game. Players need to maintain not only there fitness, but also their match sharpness, if this can be achieved by having more subs, then thats fine by me.

 

5. So O'Grady come on for Hughes and does nothing, lets say if young Brooke would have been on the bench that day. The manager looks over and see's O'Grady who's been un-motivated and Brooke who is dying to get onto the pitch and fulfill a boyhood dream of playing pro football. If you've got nothing to lose then you throw Brooke on. If your seeing a game out you can bring O'Grady and try and rebuild his confidence. It can work the other way as well, you can go with O'Grady and hope his previous experience or his style of play will change the game for you. More option, different players do different things. It also helps the first 11 as they know that with 7 subs virtually every position is covered by a substitute and they might just try harder to avoid getting dragged off and dropped for having a bad game. It creates competition.

 

6. Number (7) would be better of playing reserve team football. But a what point does he get his chance. Gone are the days when young kids are aimlessly thrown into the first team, they are blooded in, usually from the bench. The last game of the season against Wallsall I seem to remember Brooke being on the bench. Can you say it wasn't a good job he was. At the end of the day, playing if your playing in the reserves and then not getting selected for the bench on a Saturday it most become quite demoralising. If your talking about a utlity man, what are you expecting Prudie to be this season, surely not a reserve team player only. No doubt he will be the number (7) the man who can fill most positions on the pitch. Yes a manger should have a plan, b, c and possibly even d, but at the end of the day plan a was plan a for a reason and thats because the manager thought that was the best formation/system to beat the opposition on that given day.

 

7. The point about Jimmy Greaves that I was trying to highlight, was that 43 years ago you wansn't even allowed subs and it cost an excellent goalscorer his chance of winning a World Cup medal. Lesser player than Greaves have won a World Cup medal, like the entire 1986 Argentina side (barring Maradona)! My point being that football evolved and changed so that players like Jimmy Greaves would not lose out on fantastic oppotunities like World Cup finals etc. If we got to an FA Cup Semi Final and due to an injury crisis young Brooke started the game and scored a last minute winner against Stoke having played a blinder for the whole game, it then comes to cup final day and your first choice strikers are back to full fitness and are bang in form, your reserve striker is also doing well from the bench so there's no room on the bench for young Brooke, do you put Brooke on or the more experienced and just as in form reserve striker on the bench, or would it be nice to name them both as a sub and given them their day out at wemberly. Just like you correctly point out the Jimmy Greaves situation reflects rule changes over a course of history, something that has happened in every sport, its just Evoloution and progression, standing still and keeping things the same will never improve the game as a spectacle for the fans. Look how far behind football is compared to other sports such as Rugby and Cricket, hell even Tennis uses video technollagy now. Next season in the Europa league will see the introduction of two extra officals for penalty area decisions (goal line/pens/corners/goal kick etc). If 7 subs doesn't work next season (I'd be very suprsied if it doesn't) then they can always revert back. When you go to your first game next season and you read the line-up ask yourself, can you name the three players Dave Penny is most likely to bring on? Do that for every game you attend and see how many you get right, my guess is you wouldn't get more than 75% right.

 

8. Since when do all the subs go and warm up together? Its very rarely these days. Maybe two or three at a time but I can't remember seeing 10 subs running up and down the touchline at BP (or any other ground for that matter) last season, so surely 14 ain't gonna make a difference.

 

 

One final point, as a sub Ole Soljaker used to study the game whilst sitting on the bench. He did this for two reasons, i) if he came on he could on the pitch he would be ready and knew exactly what he had/wanted to do and ii) if he didn't get on he could watchs and learn from other's brillaince and mistakes. I would rather player on the very fringe of our first team do that, sitting on the bench then be sat at home with their feet up eating their fish supper or watching the game from the stands with their I-pod plugged in having a laugh and a joke with their mates.

 

Sorry for the ramble, I didn't realise I'd gone on for as long as I quite clearly have.

 

[millsy82]

woah!

 

just read that back, I apologise for all the spelling mistakes and a fair bit of bad grammer. Although in my defence, I've just finished a 14 hour night shift.

[opinions4u]

Don't agree with most of it but fair play in making your point!

[GlossopLatic]

Question for those against this proposal why do you think that both Dave Penney and Alan Hardy have backed this proposal?

[Ackey]

Question for those against this proposal why do you think that both Dave Penney and Alan Hardy have backed this proposal?

I assume because they think it's right for Latics. That like others they perhaps think it will give more choices from the bench and give Penney a way to please players who are happy to be on the bench.

 

Personally, I don't agree with them.

[leeslover]

Question for those against this proposal why do you think that both Dave Penney and Alan Hardy have backed this proposal?

As I understand it, the prime movers behind it are the evil 12 foot tall space lizards of who Alan is a key member, and he controls DP's mind through special Lizard powers.

[Ackey]

As I understand it, the prime movers behind it are the evil 12 foot tall space lizards of who Alan is a key member, and he controls DP's mind through special Lizard powers.

How do we know YOU'RE not the space lizard trying to throw us off the scent!?