Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Football' started by embraceuk1, 7 February 2008.
Thats your lot.
A good thing.
Its about time too!
Great and all but what about the lower-leagues?
Well, alot of them dont have enough players at all times and they'd get fined so it wont work I guess.
Idea put forward by Spurs (who probably have the biggest squad in the country) and voted for by clubs.
Another rule passed in favour of the bigger clubs.
This sort of rule helps bigger clubs with better squads.
Also, I read a very good point on another forum; does this mean the end of the 'utility man' if you can have 1 goalkeeper, 2 defenders, 2 midfielders and 2 forwards on the bench?
Yeah, surely. Excluding the goalkeeper you could have an LB, CB, RB, LW, MD, RW and ST on the bench all at once - that's all the positions in a standard 4-4-2. So now clubs will be spending even more money so that they have a 5-star left-winger on the pitch and a 5-star left-winger on the bench - i.e. every Premier League club will have to become Chelsea. Quick, buy him before someone else buys him and *shock horror* plays him as a first-team player. We can't have that, a footballer playing football. Oooh he looks like a prospect, tap him up and get him here on a free! We won't get done for it or anything! Damn, he's shit, sell him back for £10m. We won't get done for that either.
Who gives a stuff about lower-league clubs anyway, right? How much money do they make per week? Enough to pay someone to turn the lights on and off? Guffaw guffaw guffaw. *Lights up cigar and swigs port from a glass with a dollar sign printed on the side*
Seriously, am I the only one who thinks that, in the near future, no football will exist in England bar Premier League football? I've predicted it for years and every time some FA suit opens his mouth it only seems to bring the day closer.
What a week, first English Premier League games being played in countries that aren't England, now this. They say it comes in threes so I'm predicting the next one will be... No transfer fees required for Premier League teams to buy lower-league players, because it's "inhuman that they would have to play football at such plague-infested arenas of pity in the first place, poor devils". Or goals being widened by six feet to make football "more exciting". Do all football chairmen think football is boring as fuck or something? Are they really all in it purely for the money, every last one of them?
And still nothing is said or done about diving, blatant cheating week in week out and it's just considered "cheeky". Wouldn't make money to stop that so who cares, right? Everyone will still watch the games anyway, football fans will always be football fans.
Do you know guys it's like that in all the other country??
nothing to do with the bigger clubs or bigger squads,or Money!!just the fact to do the same thing as the others countries
so maybe the chance for youngs players coming from the academies to get into the team
Yeah I know it's like that in other countries, but the point is that at the moment it isn't broke, so why fix it?
We have 5 subs, to mnake it 7 is to benefit bigger clubs at the end of the day.
Much as I agree with you in principal Jack, if we have even one 5 star winger in our ranks, could you please identify him to Avram immediately! I certainly haven't seen one!
It's a silly new rule - but I can't see any real benefit for bigger clubs to be honest. You're just adding 2 more frustrated players to the squad. I only assume it has something to do with the new rule about ensuring you have enough English players in the team. Stick a couple of YTS lads on the bench and hey presto - you comply!
It is if Birmingham are 1-0 against Chelsea for example with 20mins left and Chelsea have the option of bringing on Cudicini, Ferreira, Makelele, Kalou, Wright Phillips AND Anelka & Ballack.
Of course the same will benefit lesser clubs by giving more options, but not to the same level as bigger clubs with more money and better squads.
It's just 1 extra means for bigger clubs to utilise their power.
I personally think it's a pointless change and I also think it will benefit West Ham because we have a fairly big squad.
It's still generally unfair however.
I see your point, but it's not much different now. We always have 3 attacking options on the bench (injury permitting), but at the end of the day, you can still only use 3 subs.
There's an advantage, but a very small one in my opinion.
Its not unfair, the same rules apply foe every team.
malouda, joe cole, there are two, and then sean wright is probably a 4
This is a great deal for the Premiership.
Sir Alex Ferguson however thinks that having 11 subs on the bench is much more appropriate...I dont know if he had too much to drink but I kinda agree! :lol:
Yes of course, but it is unfair as bigger clubs get an extra advantage because of the quality available.
sir alex ferguson is a wise man.... and surehe knows football much more than levy and those clueless idiots who approved this stupid rule.
having 11 subs on the bench would really help the coach, in many ways and would motivate the players.
i just can't believe more than 14 clubs agreed with such a crazy proposal.
first, it's important to teach some football to "our" managers so that they know what to do when their teams are playing bad...
then, when the english coaches will know football, they'll realize that subbing more than 4 players in the same match means totally loosing the control of the team (and the grip on the match).
that's really a sad news, coz in the past few years (in the last 2 years especially) premiership football was really improving, talking about tactical knowledge.
this is a step backwards.
Lo Zio, can you explain why you think it's a crazy proposal?
sorry guys, i just realised that maybe i didn't get it right.
wich number will increase???? :confused:
the number of players on the bench (from 5 to 7)???
or the number of substitutions allowed during the match (from 3 to 7)????
coz i thought we were talking about the max number of sostitutions allowed (the article i read wasn't really clear)... but if they are talking about the number of the players on the bench... well that's everything but a bad news ....
...and it would also explain why the clubs approved the proposal.
Ben I think its 5 subs on the bench to 7, like the rest of Europe.
Very good idea and i don't see why it would benefit the big clubs...
i see. sure it makes more sense. Forget about my previous post then.:mrgreen:
for a moment i forgot u have just 5 men on the bench in england... so when i read about "increasing to 7 the number of subs", i thought they were talking about the number of substitutions.
my bad :mrgreen:
sure it is a good news. Especially for the players!
an 11 men bench would be even better (as ferguson pointed out), but i think it's just a matter of time.
i understand your point m8 but even with 5 subs it still has the same effect.. e.g. chelsea no doubt have 5 better players on their bench than what derby would so it wouldnt really change anything especially as they can still only use 3
Just a little idea I've had, I think clubs should be able to use all 7 subs, but if they do so then they get a point docked from them or maybe more?
Well it does change things, because just like Derby, Chelsea will have 2 more options to bring on players.
The difference is that Chelsea being the bigger more succesful club has the option to call upon 2 better options than a smaller team.
It may only be minor but it a benefit to bigger clubs without a shadow of a doubt.
It's more the point that regardless of how small, it is still something in favour of bigger clubs.
The 11 subs idea is just plain ridiculous. Who said it? Ferguson?
We'll be having offensive and defensive units next while our games are being watched in the Old Trafford Bowl with rich, prawn sandwich eating cunts with twinkies and big hands and fucking thundersticks sitting and watching the game, leaving 10 minutes before half time to get a hot dog and leaving 15 minutes before full time to beat the traffic.
All while the greedy wankers that we call chairmen of clubs and executives of the league fill their own pockets and price the real fans out of going to matches and the support and atmosphere suffers because of it.
It already is happening and with each little rule change that benefits the financial side for clubs, it happens even more and more.
I'm just getting fucked off with the whole thing and at the very minute they take a premier league game overseas, that's the day I stop going to football until they change it back.
yeah ferguson.... and lippi, guidolin, mazzarri, del neri, mancini, gasperini (in italy)
and i'm pretty sure most of the coaches in france, germany, and spain agree with it too.
this rule would help in involving more player in the clubs project, would make easier for the coaches to handle the dressing room, would help the youngsters in having more chances to play.
i really can't understand how this rule could be considered ridiculous.
and sure it hasn't anything to do with helping the big clubs. the advantage big clubs could get by this rule is ridiculous, and sure this rule introduction wouldn't have any effect on the competition.
almost every team in europe today has at least 30 players (derby county too). but every week just 16 of them are involved in the matches....
this is ridiculous imo
16 man squads are fine and have no problem at the moment, so why change it?
I understand that it may help develop players in certain respect, but what's the point when the younger players will still not get a sniff of the game when there are better options now?
What I mean is that despite Ferguson is doing all the sweet talking about youth development to favour his argument, I absolutely guarantee that he will have 11 stars costing millions on his bench rather than home grown players.
But who can blame him when the problem will also still remain that English players still won't get a chance because they are usually massively overrated and overpriced so the tendancy will still be for clubs to buy abroad because you can get equally good players for a fraction of the price.
The reason it's mainly bigger managers that want it is to give them more option to change a game if it isn't going well.
A club like Man Utd can fill up their subs bench with 11 big stars while a smaller club will be struggling to even get 5 players that could influence a game, let alone an extra 6.
Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal etc can go out and spend millions on players to have huge squads.
As my example suggested above... If Man Utd for example face a tricky game at home to Middlesboro and Ferguson chose to have Nani, Kuscak, Brown, Evra and Fletcher on the bench.
Fair enough, he has used his means to choose the best squad for each game.
But imagine if they had 11 subs?
During the game if Man Utd are losing they can throw just about everyone on the bench and have the extra choice of Scholes, Saha, Anderson and whoever for example to call upon... he will have more choice of better players than he does now to win him the game.
Middlesboro and other clubs of smaller size will still only struggle to have a couple of subs that can influence the game in the same way.
It's hard enough now facing big teams when they can bring on 3 subs from a possible 5, but imagine it that they have a choice of 11 stars to bring on to change the game?
Squads will get bigger, players will be rotated more and want to leave more and it will generally start to get a little out of hand in my opinion.
Of course Ferguson and other big managers want a bigger squad to choose from as he knows it will benefit him and his club more than any of his lesser counterparts.