5 Substitutes - What will be the impact? | Page 2 | Vital Football

5 Substitutes - What will be the impact?

If 5 subs is to save players from overuse, shouldn't the really tired players who have taken off 4th and 5th be automatically out of action for the next game on grounds of health/fitness?

Based on recent studies and feed back from every level of the game, there are some early efforts being made to get the ECA to back a 'can't play' mandate.

If players stats point to them being in the red zone or they 'break' outine rules i.e. too many games/minutes in too short a time, that these players will be forced to take a mandatory short break i.e missing a game etc

Some believe that is the only way it will stop coaches continuously picking a player irrespective of what the critical stats say about their health status.

It could throw up some serious issues of course, for example it was known that Salah played in the CL final, but really wasn't fit to play...

This one is going to be a long debate. It's only at proposal stage and is being explored, b ut of course it's being supported by the 'big' European clubs.
 
I'm interested in what this will do to the viewing of the game. If we get to 60 mins without a sub we could then have one every 3 mins until the end! Zzzzzzz
 
I'm interested in what this will do to the viewing of the game. If we get to 60 mins without a sub we could then have one every 3 mins until the end! Zzzzzzz

It's a great call. 2 years ago, IFAB had an opportunity to deal with the time wasting on the substitutions. It took the easy way out and asked players to leave at the nearest point on the pitch. It doesn't seem to have made any difference.

At the time, I said that the players should be made to run off the pitch as soon as their number is held up. Failure to do so would be a yellow card. In my opinion we now need to do that. All this walking off, applauding all 4 corners of the stadium, shaking hands with everyone that will let them has to stop. It makes no difference where they leave the pitch.
 
I'm interested in what this will do to the viewing of the game. If we get to 60 mins without a sub we could then have one every 3 mins until the end! Zzzzzzz

I highly doubt that would happen, as the ref should only be allowing a sub on when there is a natural break in the game, possible of course, but unlikely.

That said, nothing would surprise me any more, if a coach thought that making that many changes with 30 mins to go and risking ending up with an injury that could leave them with 10 men, who knows? They might just take that risk!
 
I highly doubt that would happen, as the ref should only be allowing a sub on when there is a natural break in the game, possible of course, but unlikely.

That said, nothing would surprise me any more, if a coach thought that making that many changes with 30 mins to go and risking ending up with an injury that could leave them with 10 men, who knows? They might just take that risk!

Thinking about it, wasn't there some rule where you could only make your 5 subs if you change one at half time? I assume that has been lost in this latest round of changes?
 
Thinking about it, wasn't there some rule where you could only make your 5 subs if you change one at half time? I assume that has been lost in this latest round of changes?
I don't remember the half time ruling. But during Project Restart - when the 5 subs was first used - a team could could only use 5 subs in three intervals i.e. a team couldn't make five individual substitutions. So at least two of the substitutions had to involve substituting at least two players. The thinking was to prevent a team a running down the clock at the end of a match with a stream of substitutions.
 
I don't remember the half time ruling. But during Project Restart - when the 5 subs was first used - a team could could only use 5 subs in three intervals i.e. a team couldn't make five individual substitutions. So at least two of the substitutions had to involve substituting at least two players. The thinking was to prevent a team a running down the clock at the end of a match with a stream of substitutions.

Stop the time for substitutions. It's not rocket science, but it is FIFA.
 
I don't remember the half time ruling. But during Project Restart - when the 5 subs was first used - a team could could only use 5 subs in three intervals i.e. a team couldn't make five individual substitutions. So at least two of the substitutions had to involve substituting at least two players. The thinking was to prevent a team a running down the clock at the end of a match with a stream of substitutions.

Wasn't it what you said, but half time didn't count as one of the 3? That way you could get the 4th interval.
 
Due to the discussion on subs impact. I need to understand what strategy Conte may have. Especially now we have 5.
If you scan the usual starting 11 some players have great engines and will nearly always stay on unless they are playing bad or a tactical change is needed.
Currently my perception is that Sess, Son, Kulu and Bentancur might run out of steam.
Whereas Royal is like a Duracell. Dier and Romero pretty indestructible and Kane paces himself possibly on instruction.
If we know who is likely to get subbed we probably have a fair idea who their replacements will be also. ?

If a player and manager knows a sub is likely, would that player be asked to give everything plus a bit more maybe for 60 minutes or whatever. Sess for example could know that Perisic is good for 30 minutes and so on.
 
Due to the discussion on subs impact. I need to understand what strategy Conte may have. Especially now we have 5.
If you scan the usual starting 11 some players have great engines and will nearly always stay on unless they are playing bad or a tactical change is needed.
Currently my perception is that Sess, Son, Kulu and Bentancur might run out of steam.
Whereas Royal is like a Duracell. Dier and Romero pretty indestructible and Kane paces himself possibly on instruction.
If we know who is likely to get subbed we probably have a fair idea who their replacements will be also. ?

If a player and manager knows a sub is likely, would that player be asked to give everything plus a bit more maybe for 60 minutes or whatever. Sess for example could know that Perisic is good for 30 minutes and so on.

If you go through it, as follows

GK - only if there's an injury
Back 3 - no need to change it unless moving to a back four. Even then, the 3 would probably stay on and one of them would shift to wing back.
Wing-backs - always favourite to be replaced
2 Man midfield - one will always be replaced. Perhaps 2 when Skipp is back in contention for a place. That opens up options
Wide players - I would always expect one of them, if not both to be switched.

When you think about it, it is Kane that becomes the big debate. He needs rest as much as the next man, especially when we are on a 2 games a week schedule. We also need him to have more touches of the ball, to effect games more. I'm still a little bit stumped what gets him there as he looks to be playing within himself in the first 2 games of the season. It may not get better as the games come thick and fast.
 
I think the whole issue of timekeeping needs to be reviewed. In what is the richest and most watched sport in the world, it seems crazy that the only person who knows how much time has elapsed or how much actual time is left in the game, is the referee.

Don't they have large clocks in rugby union/rugby league that monitor the time? That's what I'd like to see; large clock(s) dotted around the stadium, visible to all, showing how much of the 90 minutes is left. I'm sure it would be a simple enough operation for the referee to carry a device to control the clock(s).

As soon as the game starts the countdown from the 90 minutes begins. Then when any stoppage occurs that is not considered to be part of the play the referee just stops the clock and it doesn't restart until play continues. This would wipe out all elements of time wasting because there will be nothing to be gained. And we will have transparency and accuracy. As it stands the referees only estimate how much time there is to be added on to a match and you can be sure it never matches the actual amount of time that is wasted. It will actually help the referees as well.
 
I'm not opposed to 5 subs per se, but we don't need more playing time wasted. Why stop the game? Allow only with the ball in play. Players would have to sprint off

I think they have to happen in no more than 3 phases which equates to the max previously. But the process could do with speeding up.
 
I think the whole issue of timekeeping needs to be reviewed. In what is the richest and most watched sport in the world, it seems crazy that the only person who knows how much time has elapsed or how much actual time is left in the game, is the referee.

Don't they have large clocks in rugby union/rugby league that monitor the time? That's what I'd like to see; large clock(s) dotted around the stadium, visible to all, showing how much of the 90 minutes is left. I'm sure it would be a simple enough operation for the referee to carry a device to control the clock(s).

As soon as the game starts the countdown from the 90 minutes begins. Then when any stoppage occurs that is not considered to be part of the play the referee just stops the clock and it doesn't restart until play continues. This would wipe out all elements of time wasting because there will be nothing to be gained. And we will have transparency and accuracy. As it stands the referees only estimate how much time there is to be added on to a match and you can be sure it never matches the actual amount of time that is wasted. It will actually help the referees as well.

I've often thought it bizarre that we've adopted goal line and VAR technology but won't stick up a big time clock that works to the whistle...

How easily this nonsense could be ended.
 
How long is this 5 sub thing going to be in place. ? If its permanent it could influence signings. Players who perhaps are more effective as subs might be in demand ?
 
I think the whole issue of timekeeping needs to be reviewed. In what is the richest and most watched sport in the world, it seems crazy that the only person who knows how much time has elapsed or how much actual time is left in the game, is the referee.

Don't they have large clocks in rugby union/rugby league that monitor the time? That's what I'd like to see; large clock(s) dotted around the stadium, visible to all, showing how much of the 90 minutes is left. I'm sure it would be a simple enough operation for the referee to carry a device to control the clock(s).

As soon as the game starts the countdown from the 90 minutes begins. Then when any stoppage occurs that is not considered to be part of the play the referee just stops the clock and it doesn't restart until play continues. This would wipe out all elements of time wasting because there will be nothing to be gained. And we will have transparency and accuracy. As it stands the referees only estimate how much time there is to be added on to a match and you can be sure it never matches the actual amount of time that is wasted. It will actually help the referees as well.
I've always though the rugby principal of time off and time on for stoppages would be a good idea but you have to remember with the potential number of stoppages for injury, substitutions, pitch invaders etc. it could mean matches overrunning by considerable amounts, whether that would be more than under the current system I don't know.
 
I've always though the rugby principal of time off and time on for stoppages would be a good idea but you have to remember with the potential number of stoppages for injury, substitutions, pitch invaders etc. it could mean matches overrunning by considerable amounts, whether that would be more than under the current system I don't know.


A lot of sports use time stoppage. It eliminates stuff like Fergie time. But it would mean stopping for fouls as well.
 
I've always though the rugby principal of time off and time on for stoppages would be a good idea but you have to remember with the potential number of stoppages for injury, substitutions, pitch invaders etc. it could mean matches overrunning by considerable amounts, whether that would be more than under the current system I don't know.
But I'm only suggesting the ref stops the clock for the reasons for which he/she currently has to add on time for anyway (according to the rules). This includes things like timewasting at free kicks, throw ins, feigning injury etc.. And I think if the referee is seen to be enforcing these rules the time wasting will stop anyway. The only 'overrun' will be the time that should legitimately be added on by the ref.