Impact of 5 subs across the whole of next season

[Uptherams]

Just interested to see people's thoughts on it's impact in regards players going out of contract, signings, youth, tactics, our season overall, etc,  as it's almost certain to be implemented.

[Animal is a Ram]

I don't see it continuing into next season. It was designed to prevent/mitigate injuries to players coming back with zero match fitness.

[Dimmu]

I'm definitely pro 5 subs. Why not?

The use of squad would still prevent injuries and younger players would have more opportunities.

[brady1993]

1 minute ago, Dimmu said:

I'm definitely pro 5 subs. Why not?

The use of squad would still prevent injuries and younger players would have more opportunities.

It seems good to me provided it's like now where it can only happen in 3 windows.

It is worth noting though that it does favour bigger teams somewhat.

[Kernow]

I don’t really see the need to change it permanently, it was just meant to help manage fitness after a long break. But if they’re adamant on keeping it I’d like to see the following conditions.

1. Still keep it to 3 pauses in the game as it was before Covid.

2. Two of the 5 substitutes must be U21. Would encourage more use of academy/younger prospects and aid development.

[Gone]

I don’t see the point, it totally disrupts  and ruins games. Stop it now for me 

[RoyMac5]

Even more disparity between rich and poor teams. Imagine who Man City would be able to bring on as opposed to say Burnley.

[Sparkle]

Totally favours the teams with more money and world class players on the bench especially in the premiership, in fact let’s go back to the good old days - no substitutes - then there is less need to have so many players and the fancy dans are less likely ever to get selected and we could win the league again !

[GlastoEls]

Firm preference to stay with 3 for me.

[1967RAMS]

I don’t see it continuing because the need won’t be there. If it did it work against us, previously would have been a massive advantage. It depends on squad depth, we have in previous seasons had 4,5,6 million pounds worth of “talent” not even making the bench. At the moment we don’t really have enough talent in depth for 3 subs to make much impact never mind 5 

[oomarkwright]

I like it and would stick with 3 changes. I even like the drinks break. 

[Millenniumram]

It’s gonna mean squad depth is more important than ever. Right now we have absolutely none of it, which makes me even more surprised we’ve let Huddlestone go. We’re really gonna have to build the squad up a bit over summer imo. It means there’s gonna be even more chances for youngsters too, so it’s a good job we’ve got a good academy. It could really pay off given how the game has changed because of recent events. 

[bimmerman]

Like the idea of 5 but some stipulation to it,like all before 75th minute or something to stop time wasting

[europia]

7 hours ago, Dimmu said:

I'm definitely pro 5 subs. Why not?

The use of squad would still prevent injuries and younger players would have more opportunities.

If you have decent quality on the bench then OK, but not if just making changes in the hope that something might happen....

[Mckram]

Stick with 3 for me.

Like others have said it favours the bigger squads.

Also I know it shouldn’t effect time wasting as it’s only 3 windows but i still feel like it has added to time wasting since the restart. 

[G-Ram]

Stick with three. Five & teams lose shape. Feels like international friendlies too many changes for my liking 

[RadioactiveWaste]

I understand the reason for it being brought in for the covid mini-season, but na, not for me.

The fast, fluid and fatiguing nature of the game is part of the sport and I'm generally against things that interfere with that. Being able to play 90mins+stoppage is the point.

[angieram]

I think that when you get  a player injured early doors, (especially when this is down to the thuggery of the opposition), then having only three subs can really limit you in making tactical changes. This has never felt fair to me. So I would be in favour of additional subs to cover injuries at the very least.

[Addingham Ram]

I'm not really sure on this. When we have a fully fit squad, it sounds like a great idea to be able to make lots of changes if we need to chase, or close out a game. But then when we are short on fit players, it's of little use.

What I have never understood though is why, since the introductory of the fourth official, does the referee have to stop the game for substitutions? Surely the game can carry on, and the fourth official deals with all substitution matters. That way there wouldn't be any time wasting. Am I missing something as to why this can't work?

[DCFC_Sloth]

I’m really against 5 subs. It favours teams with bigger squads of better players too much. If one team can take off Aguero, Sterling, and Sane and replace them with Jesus, Marhez, and Silva but the other is taking off MaArther, Benteke and, van Aanholt and replacing them with McCarthy, Townsend, and Mitchell, the advantage is going to the bigger team. The top clubs are so much wealthier, their squads are already miles ahead and this will only serve to continue or exasperate the problem of hoarding the better players. Simultaneously it will make them harder to beat as they can just throw on more and more world class players.

A secondary problem comes with the game being too broken up as up to 10 players, half the outfield players on the pitch, have to get used to the game. It often leads to the second half of games, especially the last 30 minutes, losing all momentum and falling flat. When Manchester United were playing Aston Villa, they took off half their team and their dominant performance (when it looked like they could go on to score 5/6) collapsed and the game just became slow and bitty as the new players tried to get up to the speed the remaining ones were at.