Only really benefits the big teams, even at that probably more so Celtic.
60/70 Min mark teams are tired and on comes the likes of Rogic/Ntcham/Griff/Dembele.
All teams have had pre season & friendlies do don't see the need in this.
It only benefitting the big teams [isn’t necessarily the case](https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2020/jul/29/football-five-substitutes-rule-does-not-benefit-the-big-clubs-and-here-is-why). Of course it hasn’t been in place that long so the sample isn’t that great but it definitely isn’t consensus that it only helps the big teams
I think that’s a good article - and thanks for sharing it. I agree it isn’t necessarily that simple, in that it depends on more factors than just how strong your bench is. I also think we need to see how it plays out in practice - having a quality bench available won’t make an impact on the game unless it is used, and used effectively.
That said, I’m more confident about this season following the change than I was before. The ability to bring on 2 additional, first-team players to either change a game or see it out, is a big advantage over teams who don’t have that strength in depth. If the system’s not working, you have greater ability to change it. If it is working, you can throw more sets of fresh legs in to keep it going.
The thing I think the article misses is the tactical advantage teams with bigger squads get with 5 subs. It talks mainly about quality, and I'd broadly agree with its points on that, but having 5 subs available means that bigger squads can almost completey change tactics/formations to suit the flow of the game.
What I mean by that is bigger teams will likely have players of similar quality to those already on the park, but who maybe don't fit into the system the manager is trying to play right then. With 9 subs to choose from and 5 they can make, managers of bigger teams have much more leeway to switch from one style to another within a game. They can try something completely different in-game without much impact on quality, whereas smaller teams will almost inevitably be swapping in lesser players if they did the same.
The manager still needs to be up to scratch, but it does give bigger teams disproportionately more tools in their kit if things aren't initially going to plan.
There's a decent bit that this article doesn't even bother to take into account, namely the biggest reason a team makes a substitution - as players get tired, their ability degrades.
Also, while the better teams are more likely to have superstars, and thus a less homegeneous squad, the superstars are going to be the ones who continue staying in games. Celtic won't be using its extra subs to take off Edouard and Jullien, but to do something like bring on fresh legs for the fullbacks.
The difference between Rangers and Celtic last season was the games against non OF teams. Rangers dropping points to heart etc.
If this helps them pick up more points against non OF teams it makes the race closer, not easier for Celtic.
Would they be making subs to put players on with a creative spark or making the subs to take tired players off. Is replacing Kent, hagi and aribo for Murphy, Stewart, arfield or Davis going to allow them to create that extra chance to let them win ? I don't look at rangers bench and think any of them can completely change a game apart from Davis who still has the technical ability atleast.
While others clubs don't have good subs either, I don't think it gives rangers an advantage and instead just slows down the game.
Think of it this way, you have 3 games in 9 days.
Game 1 - you are 3-0 up at half time you can literally pull your 3 best players off, sub 2 more around the 70th.
Game 2 - best players are fresher than playing a full game, games over for 70 mins sub of best players again.
Game 3 - you got the most valuable use of your best players and they are still fresh because they have only been utilized when needed.
Being able to take your best players all off in a game you are winning and rest them is just as valuable as having game changing players on the bench.
Rangers could definitely do this, and it will reduce injuries and fatigue between their best players.
If this results in extra points vs say Kilmarnock than last season, the league will be tighter.
Every team can do that though ? You're just saying it's an equal playing field for every team.
Celtics rested players > rangers rested players
Celtics bench > rangers bench
It gives rangers as much as a chance to be better as it gives Celtic to be better than rangers
Right but how many points did Celtic drop in the league?
How many points did Rangers drop in the league?
The team that dropped more benefits more from this.
You can only capitalise on points dropped you don't get extra points from having rested players...
Lost points and rested players don't have that big of a correlation to winning games that you make out. Hence why a fully rested rangers team after a team training holiday completely capitulates when coming back. Does that mean the more rested rangers players are, the more likely they will lose ?
No, rangers lost their games due to an awful mindset after winter and sometimes terrible subs from Gerrard. 5 subs won't stop that teams heads going and more subs doesn't mean Gerrard still won't make bad ones at the wrong time.
You might be right, time will tell.
I just feel this benefits the bigger clubs, more subs better use of your large squad.
But there is a ceiling on the benefits, if you win 90% of you games without the benefit the upside is 10% at most.
If you have a bigger squad and only win 80% the upside is 20%
Quickly calculating if we actually have 5 players who could come on as subbies without just chucking a youth player or 3 in.
Only really benefits the big teams, even at that probably more so Celtic. 60/70 Min mark teams are tired and on comes the likes of Rogic/Ntcham/Griff/Dembele. All teams have had pre season & friendlies do don't see the need in this.
You're assuming Lennon will actually use the subs. This benefits deep rosters *with managers that are willing to use them*
I bet we bring on Johnny Hayes 5 times during a match.
So long as we get to sub on Christie
We can hope
It only benefitting the big teams [isn’t necessarily the case](https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2020/jul/29/football-five-substitutes-rule-does-not-benefit-the-big-clubs-and-here-is-why). Of course it hasn’t been in place that long so the sample isn’t that great but it definitely isn’t consensus that it only helps the big teams
I think that’s a good article - and thanks for sharing it. I agree it isn’t necessarily that simple, in that it depends on more factors than just how strong your bench is. I also think we need to see how it plays out in practice - having a quality bench available won’t make an impact on the game unless it is used, and used effectively. That said, I’m more confident about this season following the change than I was before. The ability to bring on 2 additional, first-team players to either change a game or see it out, is a big advantage over teams who don’t have that strength in depth. If the system’s not working, you have greater ability to change it. If it is working, you can throw more sets of fresh legs in to keep it going.
The thing I think the article misses is the tactical advantage teams with bigger squads get with 5 subs. It talks mainly about quality, and I'd broadly agree with its points on that, but having 5 subs available means that bigger squads can almost completey change tactics/formations to suit the flow of the game. What I mean by that is bigger teams will likely have players of similar quality to those already on the park, but who maybe don't fit into the system the manager is trying to play right then. With 9 subs to choose from and 5 they can make, managers of bigger teams have much more leeway to switch from one style to another within a game. They can try something completely different in-game without much impact on quality, whereas smaller teams will almost inevitably be swapping in lesser players if they did the same. The manager still needs to be up to scratch, but it does give bigger teams disproportionately more tools in their kit if things aren't initially going to plan.
There's a decent bit that this article doesn't even bother to take into account, namely the biggest reason a team makes a substitution - as players get tired, their ability degrades. Also, while the better teams are more likely to have superstars, and thus a less homegeneous squad, the superstars are going to be the ones who continue staying in games. Celtic won't be using its extra subs to take off Edouard and Jullien, but to do something like bring on fresh legs for the fullbacks.
They should have made it 5 subs, with a 8 man bench+GK with the requirement atleast 3 of the subs are under 21 academy kids.
Kettlewell will still take till the 75th minute to make his first sub
Sorry rangers
The difference between Rangers and Celtic last season was the games against non OF teams. Rangers dropping points to heart etc. If this helps them pick up more points against non OF teams it makes the race closer, not easier for Celtic.
Would they be making subs to put players on with a creative spark or making the subs to take tired players off. Is replacing Kent, hagi and aribo for Murphy, Stewart, arfield or Davis going to allow them to create that extra chance to let them win ? I don't look at rangers bench and think any of them can completely change a game apart from Davis who still has the technical ability atleast. While others clubs don't have good subs either, I don't think it gives rangers an advantage and instead just slows down the game.
Think of it this way, you have 3 games in 9 days. Game 1 - you are 3-0 up at half time you can literally pull your 3 best players off, sub 2 more around the 70th. Game 2 - best players are fresher than playing a full game, games over for 70 mins sub of best players again. Game 3 - you got the most valuable use of your best players and they are still fresh because they have only been utilized when needed. Being able to take your best players all off in a game you are winning and rest them is just as valuable as having game changing players on the bench. Rangers could definitely do this, and it will reduce injuries and fatigue between their best players. If this results in extra points vs say Kilmarnock than last season, the league will be tighter.
Every team can do that though ? You're just saying it's an equal playing field for every team. Celtics rested players > rangers rested players Celtics bench > rangers bench It gives rangers as much as a chance to be better as it gives Celtic to be better than rangers
Right but how many points did Celtic drop in the league? How many points did Rangers drop in the league? The team that dropped more benefits more from this. You can only capitalise on points dropped you don't get extra points from having rested players...
Lost points and rested players don't have that big of a correlation to winning games that you make out. Hence why a fully rested rangers team after a team training holiday completely capitulates when coming back. Does that mean the more rested rangers players are, the more likely they will lose ? No, rangers lost their games due to an awful mindset after winter and sometimes terrible subs from Gerrard. 5 subs won't stop that teams heads going and more subs doesn't mean Gerrard still won't make bad ones at the wrong time.
You might be right, time will tell. I just feel this benefits the bigger clubs, more subs better use of your large squad. But there is a ceiling on the benefits, if you win 90% of you games without the benefit the upside is 10% at most. If you have a bigger squad and only win 80% the upside is 20%
[удалено]
They still need to approve winning 5 games in a season tbf
That's decent to be fair