The Game's Gone

[Wurzel]

I am one revamped super league, or "big teams get automatic place in competition " away from giving up on football. I have already started to move my free time interests in another direction as my interest in football withers. I know it means nothing in the bigger picture, but the complete **** of the game of football by the Prem, UEFA & FIFA in pursuit of cash has killed my passion for the game.

[AJ]

41 minutes ago, Wurzel said:

I am one revamped super league, or "big teams get automatic place in competition " away from giving up on football. I have already started to move my free time interests in another direction as my interest in football withers. I know it means nothing in the bigger picture, but the complete **** of the game of football by the Prem, UEFA & FIFA in pursuit of cash has killed my passion for the game.

Feeling pretty much the same.

I have started following Rugby League again.

[Hornso]

2 hours ago, Tommo_b said:

I don’t understand…. There’s 3 set times to make substitutes, is that what they are saying?

I believe you have 3 opportunities to get all 5 subs made. There is not set time, you can make them when you want. But for instance you can't bring on 1 player at a time if you are making all 5. Just my understanding, not sure if 100% correct.

[VillaChris]

On 30/03/2022 at 16:00, Stevo985 said:

It'll go through. And it's an absolutely shit idea.

It couldn't favour the big clubs more

Really?

It's only really the top 3. I mean five subs for Man. United this season would've meant more minutes for Lingard, Mata and Matic so hilarious to think that would strike fear into opposition minds.

Arsenal's unused outfield subs v us last week were: Nuno Tavares, Lokonga, Elneny, Zak Swanson and Omari-Guardi-Hutchinson. Will be same for Spurs next week with likes of Dane Scarlett on bench as back up CF.

I don't think it favours top teams as much as people say as there's only so many attackers you can put on if you're a goal down (and only so many defensive players you can take off). I mean if Spurs were a goal down to us with 15 minutes left and had 5 subs they wouldn't be taking off Kane or Son would they if not injured.

Also when we lost Digne at West Ham recently after 10 minutes that limited what we could do rest of the game, think Traore was unused sub in the end and he would've got on in normal circumstances with us losing so I think it's o.k personally particularly as we have endless players who've cost loads who are barely playing currently and will probably still have some of them next season.

[VillaChris]

On 30/03/2022 at 17:46, Genie said:

I think City are the biggest winners, they have the deepest quality squad but yes, Liverpool, Chelsea and United will be delighted.

Man. United's first 11 is barely passable currently.

Actually just checked back to when Man. City won 2-1 at VP a few months back and the only change they made was putting on Grealish right at the end. That night they named two keepers in the 9 subs plus Luke Mbete, Cole Palmer, James McAtee, Romeo Lavia and Josh Wilson-Esbrand. Foden was also on the bench and unused for some reason.

So yes Pep would be putting some of those on 5 up v Burnley but he obviously didn't want to risk it holding on to a hard fought away win (considering we played a really good second half that night).

Whereas we had Jacob Ramsey, AEG and Davis all unused. With 5 subs we could've thrown two of those on and one may have scored to get us a point.

 

[VillaChris]

6 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

It’s counterintuitive in terms of entertainment too. Too many substitutes ruins the flow of the game sometimes.

I'm pretty sure when the rule came in after lockdown you could only make it in three stages so same as now rather than five separate subs.

Again yes you could put on four extra attackers but you actually have to take some attackers off unless you're basically leaving no-one in defence so managers still have to juggle those options.

I would say it only gets ridiculous in european competition when matches go to extra time and you can make a 6th sub. Happened with Spurs in europe last year not that it did them much good....

Dinamo Zagreb 3-0 Tottenham aet (agg: 3-2): Mislav Orsic stuns Spurs in Europa League - BBC Sport

Quote

Dinamo Zagreb 3-0 Tottenham aet (agg: 3-2): Mislav Orsic stuns Spurs in Europa League - BBC Sport

Mourinho made 6 subs and ended up with Kane, Bale, Carlos Vinicius, Bergwijn and Ndomble all on the pitch at the end. Zero goals.

[hippo]

3 hours ago, Wurzel said:

I am one revamped super league, or "big teams get automatic place in competition " away from giving up on football. I have already started to move my free time interests in another direction as my interest in football withers. I know it means nothing in the bigger picture, but the complete **** of the game of football by the Prem, UEFA & FIFA in pursuit of cash has killed my passion for the game.

I'm the same.

5 subs was a red line for me. 

In practice it means a lot of games will effectively end after an hour. With time wasting injuries and substitutions making it impossible to build any momentum in what should be the most exciting part of the game.

[Stevo985]

4 hours ago, VillaChris said:

Really?

It's only really the top 3. I mean five subs for Man. United this season would've meant more minutes for Lingard, Mata and Matic so hilarious to think that would strike fear into opposition minds.

Arsenal's unused outfield subs v us last week were: Nuno Tavares, Lokonga, Elneny, Zak Swanson and Omari-Guardi-Hutchinson. Will be same for Spurs next week with likes of Dane Scarlett on bench as back up CF.

I don't think it favours top teams as much as people say as there's only so many attackers you can put on if you're a goal down (and only so many defensive players you can take off). I mean if Spurs were a goal down to us with 15 minutes left and had 5 subs they wouldn't be taking off Kane or Son would they if not injured.

Also when we lost Digne at West Ham recently after 10 minutes that limited what we could do rest of the game, think Traore was unused sub in the end and he would've got on in normal circumstances with us losing so I think it's o.k personally particularly as we have endless players who've cost loads who are barely playing currently and will probably still have some of them next season.

 

On 30/03/2022 at 16:09, Stevo985 said:

It's not just that, it's the sheer amount of options it gives them in a game. The bigger benches was the start of that, this just evolves it further.

Doesn't matter how good a squad is, on the day you only have 11 players out there and a few on the bench. So subs have to be picked tactically. You can't have everyone on the bench so who do you choose? Leave a defender off? Go with 2 strikers on there?
If Ruben Dias gets injured pep might have gone without a defender on the bench so they have to improvise.

That was how it used to be.

Now you can just put two players from every position on the bench. If someone gets injured or you want to change tactics you've got a lovely array of players to choose from. Meanwhile Burnley still only have Ashley Westwood and Jay Rodriguez on their bench.

It gives the small teams almost zero benefit. And the big teams an absolutely huge benefit.

It's bullshit

 

[ciggiesnbeer]

Minority opinion. I think 5 subs will help us because we can afford it. I also hope it will reduce injuries.

Anyone know did we vote for it?

[Genie]

6 hours ago, VillaChris said:

Man. United's first 11 is barely passable currently.

Actually just checked back to when Man. City won 2-1 at VP a few months back and the only change they made was putting on Grealish right at the end. That night they named two keepers in the 9 subs plus Luke Mbete, Cole Palmer, James McAtee, Romeo Lavia and Josh Wilson-Esbrand. Foden was also on the bench and unused for some reason.

So yes Pep would be putting some of those on 5 up v Burnley but he obviously didn't want to risk it holding on to a hard fought away win (considering we played a really good second half that night).

Whereas we had Jacob Ramsey, AEG and Davis all unused. With 5 subs we could've thrown two of those on and one may have scored to get us a point.

 

That must have been a bad week for them, generally they have an extremely strong bench. I think City could have 2 teams in the premier league and both be in the top 6.

Last game they played (v Southampton in the FA cup) they brought Foden, Mahrez, Zincenko, Ake and Fernandinho off the bench. Silva remained unused.  

Last PL game they had Jesus, Ake, Zincenko, Fernandinho, Sterling and Gundogan on the bench.

[Zatman]

3 hours ago, ciggiesnbeer said:

Minority opinion. I think 5 subs will help us because we can afford it. I also hope it will reduce injuries.

Anyone know did we vote for it?

Gerrard and McAllister have said they approve of the idea so I would imagine so. 

Smith was vocal against it last time so thats why we voted against it

[Phil Silvers]

3 hours ago, ciggiesnbeer said:

Minority opinion. I think 5 subs will help us because we can afford it. I also hope it will reduce injuries.

Anyone know did we vote for it?

 

36 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Gerrard and McAllister have said they approve of the idea so I would imagine so. 

Smith was vocal against it last time so thats why we voted against it

It will be good for us in the short term, not so good for others. It is though, part of a strategy to eventually get to unlimited subs, unlimited squad sizes, elite clubs in the next decade will probably be playing more then one game same day in different parts of the world in streaming giant tournaments, closed shop elite leagues etc. These big companies will do whatever it takes to remain in or more likely improve and guarantee their positions above what should be.

[lapal_fan]

My interest in football is pretty much minimal now.  I'll watch villa if they're on TV and I'll try to enjoy the game regardless off results.

My 7 year old plays football for a club and whilst it's good for him, the pressure on him and his teammates to perform on a Sunday is ridiculously high, and the coaches (usually on both sides) turn into condescending arseholes to their kids when they're not doing something right, rather than cultivating a culture of fun.

I've seen one, maybe two kids in this age group all season that I think are well above the normal standard and one of those kids now plays for baggies under 7s.. as a GK.  But the pressure from the coaches not to lose, instead of "go out there, express yourself and have fun" is really irritating.  If this is what it's like now, I dread to think what it'll get to once they get older.

I'm fully encouraging him to go down the cricket route.  He's been to summer camps whilst I work and the culture there is so much more positive and fun, the kids who coach my kids are lovely and patient.. why wouldn't I want him to go to cricket, rather than football, who's mostly filled with meat heads?

Edited April 1, 2022 by lapal_fan

[og1874]

Honestly, I'm fine with the 5 subs. Perhaps it would've been better if you could have 3 standard subs and then another 2 academy graduates that could be used (of any age, once they've been at the club from, say 16 years old) in addition to the 3 regular subs, but I'm fine with 5 subs in general, and I don't think it favours bigger clubs all that much. If anything it gives "smaller" clubs the chance to blood youngsters more than they otherwise would have

[VillaChris]

5 hours ago, Genie said:

That must have been a bad week for them, generally they have an extremely strong bench. I think City could have 2 teams in the premier league and both be in the top 6.

Last game they played (v Southampton in the FA cup) they brought Foden, Mahrez, Zincenko, Ake and Fernandinho off the bench. Silva remained unused.  

Last PL game they had Jesus, Ake, Zincenko, Fernandinho, Sterling and Gundogan on the bench.

Yeah I remember Pep crying because they had a few injuries in his press conference.

Of course Man. City have one of the strongest squads in the league, it's hardly a newsflash. But again 0-0 at Palace and he dosen't make one sub so it's not always a given whether you have 3 or 5 in play.

And with the options you've listed above the same principle applies....they're 1-0 down with 15 minutes left and he's hardly going to be putting on Nathan Ake is he? Perhaps Fernandinho if he wants to push KDB closer to the striker.

I really think it's a bit of a non issue as really the squad depths of sides who finish 4th-7th this season aren't all that and 5 subs wouldn't change anything when we play them and I agree with the others, 5 subs would benefit us with the model we now have and giving Carney, Kesler and JPB more prem minutes next season.

[Rds1983]

3 hours ago, Zatman said:

Gerrard and McAllister have said they approve of the idea so I would imagine so. 

Smith was vocal against it last time so thats why we voted against it

Well he's obviously only saying that to help Liverpool. 

[PussEKatt]

I like the idear of 5 subs,it makes the game more tactical/strategical.When you have 3 subs,you really only have 2 because you keep one back in case of injuries.

[Wainy316]

Lets just have 11 offence players and 11 deeeeee-fence players and just switch them round depending on which team has the ball.

[PaulC]

21 hours ago, Zatman said:

I give it a few months and they will be asking for 7 subs even when still using 2 a game

Yes its total bollocks imo 

[Wurzel]

2 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

Lets just have 11 offence players and 11 deeeeee-fence players and just switch them round depending on which team has the ball.

Yes, and lets have 3 timeout a half, and split the halves into quarters!