by Bigman » 22 Jul 2011, 08:54
Personally I think that if a team can't afford 7 subs they won't have 7 subs, or they'll fill the last 2 slots with youngsters, thus giving them valuable experience. I don't think clubs will drastically overspend on 2 extra reserve players, especially when the number of subs they can make doesn't change.
It also seems like a stupid time to announce the rule change, after a lot of transfers and contracts have been sorted out, so if clubs were going to spend more to have a full bench of quality players they'll most likely have already done it.
Although I'm sure the football league didn't ask their members, I would've thought clubs would prefer to have 7 subs to give them more options (e.g. in the event of multiple injuries) and allow for youngsters to be involved in the matchday squad and potentially get playing time. Surely giving Saul Halpin 10 minutes when we're 3-0 up would be a good experience for him, whereas he's unlikely to be our first choice sub striker at the moment, and thus not make the match day 16 to have a chance of getting those 10 minutes.
I know it would never be implimented, but as a compromise could they not have a rule that subs 6 & 7 have to be under 21? This would also be in keeping with the recent changes in squad composition rules.
I can understand why they've made the change, and it does give clubs with a smaller squad more of a chance against the big spenders (having a first 16 of similar quality will be easier than an equal first 18), but I don't think it will save a lot money and I don't think it's so awful if the odd team occassionally doesn't have a full bench.
Personally I think that if a team can't afford 7 subs they won't have 7 subs, or they'll fill the last 2 slots with youngsters, thus giving them valuable experience. I don't think clubs will drastically overspend on 2 extra reserve players, especially when the number of subs they can make doesn't change.
It also seems like a stupid time to announce the rule change, after a lot of transfers and contracts have been sorted out, so if clubs were going to spend more to have a full bench of quality players they'll most likely have already done it.
Although I'm sure the football league didn't ask their members, I would've thought clubs would prefer to have 7 subs to give them more options (e.g. in the event of multiple injuries) and allow for youngsters to be involved in the matchday squad and potentially get playing time. Surely giving Saul Halpin 10 minutes when we're 3-0 up would be a good experience for him, whereas he's unlikely to be our first choice sub striker at the moment, and thus not make the match day 16 to have a chance of getting those 10 minutes.
I know it would never be implimented, but as a compromise could they not have a rule that subs 6 & 7 have to be under 21? This would also be in keeping with the recent changes in squad composition rules.
I can understand why they've made the change, and it does give clubs with a smaller squad more of a chance against the big spenders (having a first 16 of similar quality will be easier than an equal first 18), but I don't think it will save a lot money and I don't think it's so awful if the odd team occassionally doesn't have a full bench.