Seven subs

[Norwegian Jim]

The last few seasons in Italy clubs have been allowed 12 players on the bench. We have such a strong squad now that without serious injury problems we have to leave very decent players out of the match squad. I think the Italian way would be beneficial for a few reasons. The manager will have more opportunities to influence the game via substitutions (f.ex we could have Kane, Defoe and Ade on the bench without sacrificing midfield/defensive options). In addition it would be good for morale because more players will make the cut every week. Anyone here with ties to the FA?

 

[Norwegian_Yid]

It was Spurs who asked for it to be seven subs. It was only five subs per game up until a couple of years ag

 

[Blanchflower]

Less subs would mean more young players play first team football.........and do we really need more rules that favour Man City and Chelsea?!

 

[Greaves357_bestever]

I remember when it was no subs. When Dave Mackay had his leg broken at Old Trafford and we had to play with 10 men and Utd used that advantage to knock us out of the Cup Winners Cup after we'd built up a 2-0 lead in the first leg. Now that was cruel on so many levels, the biggest cruelty because it signalled the end of us being the best team in the country,

I think 7 subs is okay, but if they made it 10 I wouldn't mind, 12 seems extravagant, but no strong feelings either way. Maybe there's also a case for being allowed to use four substitutes in a game. then it would make more sense to have ten on the bench, for example.

 

[Norwegian_Yid]

I remember when it was no subs. When Dave Mackay had his leg broken at Old Trafford and we had to play with 10 men and Utd used that advantage to knock us out of the Cup Winners Cup after we'd built up a 2-0 lead in the first leg. Now that was cruel on so many levels, the biggest cruelty because it signalled the end of us being the best team in the country,

I think 7 subs is okay, but if they made it 10 I wouldn't mind, 12 seems extravagant, but no strong feelings either way. Maybe there's also a case for being allowed to use four substitutes in a game. then it would make more sense to have ten on the bench, for example.

Didn't the same thing happen to Leicester at Wembley in 1961?

 

[Norwegian_Yid]

Less subs would mean more young players play first team football.........and do we really need more rules that favour Man City and Chelsea?!

When Spurs asked for an increase of subs, the argument was that it would be more likely for young players to get involved with seven subs than five.

 

[Blanchflower]

When Spurs asked for an increase of subs, the argument was that it would be more likely for young players to get involved with seven subs than five.

More likely to be involved in a match day squad, yes - but not more likely to play games.

The increased subs bench has just meant clubs hoard players who before they would have left at lower league teams to play first team football until they were ready for the PL.

 

[Fryer]

Would make FM a shit load easier....and I won't have to do that thing where I don't have a sub keeper on the bench because I wanted to have 7 outfield players to choose from....

 

[Adam Clark]

Would make FM a shit load easier....and I won't have to do that thing where I don't have a sub keeper on the bench because I wanted to have 7 outfield players to choose from....

The fact that in 6 seasons playing as Spurs on fm13, Lloris (and my 2nd keeper) never got sent off shows that this is a good gamble.