[Football] Five substuttes in the Premier League from 2022/23

[Acker79]

It should have been 5 subs but only 3 sub moments to reduce the time wasting nonsense. I can see many a game v Burnley being littered with 5 separate subs in the last 15 minutes. Bonkers.

It is.

Premier League clubs will be able to make five substitutions each game from next season after shareholders agreed to change the rules.

From 2022-23, clubs will be permitted to use five substitutes, to be made on a maximum of three occasions during a match, with an additional opportunity at half-time.

A total of nine substitutes can be named on the teamsheet.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Aside from injuries, if you feel the need to change half the team during the course of the game, then you've already royally cocked up.

Must be tempting for Pep to rest 5 outfield players when 5-0 against someone.

Poor lamb needs to manage his small resources.

 

[drew]

Premier League clubs will be able to make five substitutions each game from next season after shareholders agreed to change the rules.

From 2022-23, clubs will be permitted to use five substitutes, to be made on a maximum of three occasions during a match, with an additional opportunity at half-time.

A total of nine substitutes can be named on the teamsheet.

Obviously the big six have got their way on this. What would level it up a bit though would be if you could only name 5 subs in the first place plus maybe a concussion sub that can only be used under those circumstances!

Haven't read the whole thread so apologies if someone has already suggested this.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Means even more timewasting.

Introduce 5 subs by all means, but introduce a clock (a la Rugby/Basketball) at the same time.

At the moment we get approx. 50 minutes of actual 'ball in play' time

Condensed over 3 breaks in play or at half time only, so the same?

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Yes... so 17 outfield players, just like I said . Thought most clubs would be closer to 20 but might not be the case, cant be bothered either.

We do actually have the joint lowest number of players with 90 mins or more played this season, but when you look at the league positions of the sides we are tied with it doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. The full table is below with Newcastle, who had the busiest January window, top.

This doesn't account for players who have now left and includes every player who has played at least 90 mins for each club this season regardless of position.

 

[Swansman]

We do actually have the joint lowest number of players with 90 mins or more played this season, but when you look at the league positions of the sides we are tied with it doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. The full table is below with Newcastle, who had the busiest January window, top.

This doesn't account for players who have now left and includes every player who has played at least 90 mins for each club this season regardless of position.

View attachment 146516

It is also not necessarily a good thing. Just because it is very very difficult for fringe players to compete with the core squads in City and Liverpool doesnt mean its a great thing that it is difficult to compete with the core players in the Brighton squad. Example: when Momo Salah has a rough time, it means he might only score two or three goals in five games, which is still good and perhaps more than his competitors. When Maupay has a rough time, he'd be happy to be anywhere near scoring, and it would be quite nice if the options could outdo that.

 

[GT49er]

Brighton has 17 outfield players with 90+ minutes PL football... not sure I'd call that "strength in depth".

It's more like, lots of players in with a shout of getting game-time, but nobody (well, not many) nailing down a place of their own in the team?

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

It is also not necessarily a good thing. Just because it is very very difficult for fringe players to compete with the core squads in City and Liverpool doesnt mean its a great thing that it is difficult to compete with the core players in the Brighton squad. Example: when Momo Salah has a rough time, it means he might only score two or three goals in five games, which is still good and perhaps more than his competitors. When Maupay has a rough time, he'd be happy to be anywhere near scoring, and it would be quite nice if the options could outdo that.

I wasn't thinking Man City and Liverpool, obviously they have a way better talent pool to call from than we do (their pools are miles better than every other PL side), but Wolves and West Ham haven't used any more players than us and look where they are. They are showing it's possible to to compete for Europe with a relatively small squad. The extra two subs only improves the options for all teams, including us, to change things to their advantage in a game, it's about who uses it best and Potter has already shown in project restart that he can utilize the extra 2 subs very very well.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Condensed over 3 breaks in play or at half time only, so the same?

I didn't know that - thanks.

Still think my point about having an (independently controlled) clock stands.

 

[brightn'ove]

I think it is a good thing. It means players can carry on for more years and still play an important role in the squads. Nothing I hate more than going down to 10 men due to injuries.

 

[brighton_tom]

Not a fan of the 5 subs rule. It favours the big teams who can field an 11 and a bench full of international stars. & it means a manager who has completely ****ed their starting 11 can think 'oh well I can just change half the outfield players whenever I want'. It takes the art of picking an 11 and tailoring tac tics to suit your opposition out of it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Means even more timewasting.

Introduce 5 subs by all means, but introduce a clock (a la Rugby/Basketball) at the same time.

At the moment we get approx. 50 minutes of actual 'ball in play' time

Instead of a touchline, we could have a massive fence so the ball never goes out of play.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think it is a good thing. It means players can carry on for more years and still play an important role in the squads. Nothing I hate more than going down to 10 men due to injuries.

This.

Also, limiting the number of moments when tactical subs can be made, as they have, will reduce time wasting.

 

[brightn'ove]

Not a fan of the 5 subs rule. It favours the big teams who can field an 11 and a bench full of international stars. & it means a manager who has completely ****ed their starting 11 can think 'oh well I can just change half the outfield players whenever I want'. It takes the art of picking an 11 and tailoring tac tics to suit your opposition out of it.

The only team this really applies to is Man City, once you go past many top teams first 11 they of course have good players but the standard drops off rapidly. Good players don't want to sit on the bench.

 

[schmunk]

Not a fan of the 5 subs rule. It favours the big teams who can field an 11 and a bench full of international stars.

We had 6 full internationals on our bench for our last PL match, plus Lamptey who probably will be at some point.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Some general thoughts:

1. Good news for sicknote players like Lallana, Jack Wilshere and Andy Carroll as reduces risk of leaving team in the lurch and means they'll never have to play another full 90 mins of football.
2. Not good news for EFL clubs that may see the pool of Prem loanees reduced by this move.
3. Not good news for newly-promoted clubs, especially the club going up via the play-offs as matchday squad sizes just got bigger.

 

[Badger Boy]

Instead of a touchline, we could have a massive fence so the ball never goes out of play.

I think you just described a cage match.