|
Given the option of changing the keeper that means a side could make as many as six changes in one match, over half the team.
Being a manager that likes to use all three permitted subs now, provided there are no youngsters on the bench, it is a fair bet that we would be one of the sides making all these changes in most games.
We asked you to vote on this and also for your thoughts. You voted against Stan with over 63% of you saying no to an increase in susbtitutes. When you submitted your opinions not one of you backed Stan.
Here were a selection of your comments:
I think it's totally unworkable and will never happen. There is a good balance at the moment but if it goes to 5 (effectively 6 if you include the keeper) then it could turn into farce. The game would be disrupted by the potential of having 12 subs coming onto the pitch. The high profile clubs may like the idea, given the quality of players they can have on the bench, but I can't see anyone else going for the idea. This could be a case of Stan wanting to raise his media profile, rather than making a serious suggestion.
Forget changes in football. 3 subs are more than enough. If Stan had his way he'd use all five to bring on defenders for the last 10mins to sit on his precious 1-0 lead. Football’s brilliant as it is, changes only make it worse and people who want to change football should seriously consider going to watch egg chasing coz they love all that crap. Footballs great leave it alone!
Totally Disagree with Five subs, if you are a manager you should to able to be tactical enough with 3 subs and if you suffer a sending off or injuries when you have used your subs, then you should have the skill to re arrange your team with the players on the pitch. If you had 5 subs a team could be totally changed within a match which would be a joke, I feel 2 subs were enough, if as a manager you cant manage with 2 get out of the game.
Stan’s gone off on one again and nobody will support him on this one. It is just too ridiculous for words. He has always had the ability to ruin performances with too many changes, if we had five he would probably just ruin them earlier.
Can you imagine the timewasting that would go on, with the potential for up to 12 subs to be brought on late in a game! 90 minutes would be more like 100 mins+ and a 5.15 finish every Saturday.
Three is more than enough. How often does a sub have an impact on a game unless they have at least 30 mins on the field? No manager would bring on 5 players all at once with 30 mins to go, therefore it will just become a disruption to the flow of the game and any pattern a team may have adopted. Plus the thought of more slow trots across the field as players are subbed is a painful thought.
Silly idea. Games go on too long and there's enough messing about with subs as it is. I never agreed with 3 subs. Substitutions should matter. They should be rare events, capable of changing the course of the game. Let's not have players wandering on and off like in friendlies.
I don't understand why Stan is in favour. Sometimes this season we have had barely enough players to make a first eleven. With five subs our paper thin squad would only be exposed more. While the big money clubs like Arsenal and Man Utd would have a massive advantage - even more than they do now. Personally I think the current three subs and a keeper is perfect. Please let's not end up like international football where the entire team gets replaced at half time.