Championship will have five subs from end of November...

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Aug 16, 2018
8,064
4,937
113
So why is it suddenly overworked in games compared to usual so more subs needed?

If more subs will prevent it, why do we rarely make many?
Games being played with greater frequency because season started late so less rest time.

You could also say the lack of break between last season and this, although by the same degree us having significant injuries when we had an extended break wouldn't support that. But then how many of our injuries are 'new' and how many are ongoing issues from last season or unrelated ones like Hilssner's breathing problem.

At the moment due to the games not being played during lockdown last season even though there wasn't much of a break for the players overall as the continued training the lack of high intensity from games reduced the wear and tear from overexertion while the training kept the muscles supple and it could in some respects be considered like an end of season break.Then five subs to finish last season did the same to reduce over-exertion.

So at the end of the year that would be consistent with a 'normal' length season and you'd have to see the effect on injuries beyond that time, but if they bring in five subs it won't be consistent with previous years.

IMO those clubs most calling for it have the largest and most capable squads anyway and could much more afford to rotate the team in certain games without losing much quality to avoid injuring players if they chose. Fact they're not willing to and want more subs instead is having your cake and eating it. If you're not willing to play these squad players to protect your stars then don't employ them and let others teams enjoy a bit of cake as well.
 

Hadji's_Goatee

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2016
463
435
163
Yes, we don't have the depth and quality of the top teams. The silver lining for us is we can swap out our wing-backs. We potentially have 4 very good ones (Dacosta unquantified as of yet).

Also means we can keep rest of the mids happy with appearances when we sign Walsh in Jan 😉
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
27,378
18,037
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
Just totally disagree. Regardless of who is starting, those were the benches we had and there's more than 3 players on each bench who could have some sort of impact coming off the bench. To think that they couldn't is naive.

We've got the squad that we've got right. Are Baka, Pask and Kasta Championship level players? Maybe not for 90 mins, two games a week. Could any of them make a difference with 10 mins to go one way or another, yes.

And people need to remember, this has been voted for by the clubs. It's not like there's 71 bigger clubs in the EFL who will benefit more than us. The clubs have voted for this...the majority want it otherwise it would've been rejected for a 3rd time.

The way some people are wetting the bed over this is incredible....
Im not wetting the bed. I think it’s a sensible move generally in a compressed season. I just think Robins has shown that subs aren’t really our issue. When he’s spoken it’s been about not having the squad depth rather than us using three subs and wanting more.

So I don’t think we have the options other teams do and I think we’ll benefit less from this than teams with large deep squads.

Also we are less likely to be coasting in a game. Blackburn could’ve rested half their team against us with most of the match to go.

Obviously every rule that doesn’t limit our opponents will help them more than us because we’re so skint. That’s not a reason to pretend it’s not widening the gap though. Same as if tomorrow they allowed 11 loan players. We couldn’t afford to compete on loan fees or wages and it would widen the gap further. Regardless of whether it was a good idea overall or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frostie and Nick

RegTheDonk

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2011
2,975
1,212
163
Any idea on the ratio of how many EFL members have voted for this, or is it pretty much all of them?
 

Skyblueweeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2011
7,595
5,140
263
Portsmouth
Any idea on the ratio of how many EFL members have voted for this, or is it pretty much all of them?
No but it would be interesting to see how voted what way. I suspect it must have been a clear majority for them to make it the new rule. Haven't seen anyone (bar Rafa Benitez) moan about it and he only moaned because of the time-wasting aspect.

Players health and well-being supercedes any other arguments over squad depth, fairness, time-wasting etc. It really is as simple as that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RegTheDonk

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
113,423
36,130
1,063
Coventry
No but it would be interesting to see how voted what way. I suspect it must have been a clear majority for them to make it the new rule. Haven't seen anyone (bar Rafa Benitez) moan about it and he only moaned because of the time-wasting aspect.

Players health and well-being supercedes any other arguments over squad depth, fairness, time-wasting etc. It really is as simple as that.
Im not sure it's life threatening to players is it?

A few managers have moaned about it. Think it was lower end Prem.

Also, it's going to be the end of playing with 10 players after a player gets injured and you used all your subs.

It won't be long until we have a sin bin like they have in Sunday League. Nothing better for the muscles of a Sunday League player than to make them go off and stand about for 10-15 minutes and then come back on.
 

Skyblueweeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2011
7,595
5,140
263
Portsmouth
Im not sure it's life threatening to players is it?

A few managers have moaned about it. Think it was lower end Prem.

Also, it's going to be the end of playing with 10 players after a player gets injured and you used all your subs.

It won't be long until we have a sin bin like they have in Sunday League. Nothing better for the muscles of a Sunday League player than to make them go off and stand about for 10-15 minutes and then come back on.
C'mon Nick...of course they're not life threatening injuries. That doesn't mean that it's ok for players to get injured. Players welfare, rightly, should be the most important factor - whether this is guarding against cardiac disease or a strained toe nail.

A report by Premier Injuries found an increase of injuries in the first 6 rounds of EPL games this season of 15%. That doesn't include those who tested positive for the 'rona. Muscle injuries up by 42% and a 27% increase up on the first 6 games of Project Restart when the clubs were allowed to use 5 subs. I don't have EFL stats but I couldn't see any reason why they wouldn't follow a similar trend.

Again, forget how it 'might' benefit those with better squad depth (although I still disagree with many about that). Players play knowing they get injured, sure. But if there's something put in place to try and lower injury rates, I cannot see how that's not viewed as a positive.

Particularly for a club like ours that's had lots of injuries over the years (or seemingly so). I'd rather have a full squad of 25 fit players than 21 fit/4 unfit and if the stats show the increased subs could minimise injury numbers, it's a no brainer.

Anyway, I'm out on this one now.
 

Frostie

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2011
1,524
1,301
163
As I expected, Robins echoes most of our sentiments on it, favours the big clubs:

“The rule benefits the bigger squads and the bigger clubs without a shadow of a doubt, but it gives us another tool, we can work with it and try and make the best of it.

“How people are going to use it remains to be seen, it was brought in because of fatigue to players so you can take players off if they’re really struggling, but you’ve got to have players who can come on and strengthen your team which is where it favours the bigger squads and bigger clubs.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky_Blue_Dreamer

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2011
27,378
18,037
263
Coventry, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
As I expected, Robins echoes most of our sentiments on it, favours the big clubs:

“The rule benefits the bigger squads and the bigger clubs without a shadow of a doubt, but it gives us another tool, we can work with it and try and make the best of it.

“How people are going to use it remains to be seen, it was brought in because of fatigue to players so you can take players off if they’re really struggling, but you’ve got to have players who can come on and strengthen your team which is where it favours the bigger squads and bigger clubs.”
Cant believe Robins is wetting the bed ;)
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2011
55,348
14,603
763
Im not sure it's life threatening to players is it?

A few managers have moaned about it. Think it was lower end Prem.

Also, it's going to be the end of playing with 10 players after a player gets injured and you used all your subs.

It won't be long until we have a sin bin like they have in Sunday League. Nothing better for the muscles of a Sunday League player than to make them go off and stand about for 10-15 minutes and then come back on.
You can still only make 3 actual subs so if you bring 3 on and a players gets injured you can’t replace him I assume
 

lord_garrincha

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2010
844
1,168
143
St. Andrews
Nothing better for the muscles of a Sunday League player than to make them go off and stand about for 10-15 minutes and then come back on.
It would have been a game changer for most of us to come off after 5 mins to throw up the drink from Saturday night and a 10 minute breather!
 
  • Like
Reactions: wingy