FL to revert to 7 subs next season

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

It's being reported that the FL have decided to revert to 7 subs next season.

Good move?

Personally, I think so. It should give younger players more of an opportunity to sample the atmosphere around 1st team games.

 

[DTS]

Much better idea five was so silly.

I agree two of the lads should be 18 or under.

 

[Jam_Man]

Can see the benefit, but the U18s play on a Saturday so sitting on the bench will be counter productive .

 

[BluesMike61]

7 subs should allow for a keeper to be on the bench, which was often not the case last season.

 

[ol blue eyes]

I recall that gaffer saying that if the rules reverted back to 7 on the bench he would then look to include a sub keeper and a younger player and I hope he sticks to that.

Although PS did not share my view that we need a sub keeper as it is a specially trained for position, countering that by saying the need to sub a keeper (injury or red card) is a rarity. I would still prefer us to be able to turn to someone who is a specialist for the job in such an eventuality. Paul also has a story related to a positive outcome when putting a rookie in goal. Maybe a wee birdie will get Cluniemore to remind us of that.

A youger player on the bench should give the likes of Alex Woodyard an encouraging lift rather than having to wait for those all too rare reserve matches.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Ridiculous decision, as I've said elsewhere on here.

If anything it encourages teams to give young players fewer opportunities as it encourages clubs to carry larger squads. What's wrong with letting players earn a place on the bench, rather than dragging them away from youth team football so they can make up the numbers and increase expenses?

 

[Jam_Man]

I dont really see the point of it when you can only use 3 subs but I doubt clubs in the lower leagues will buy extra players just so they can fill the bench.

It will allow us to add a keeper, which is useful so that only leaves us with one extra space.

I imagine theres nothing stopping a team only having 5 subs.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I dont really see the point of it when you can only use 3 subs but I doubt clubs in the lower leagues will buy extra players just so they can fill the bench.

It will allow us to add a keeper, which is useful so that only leaves us with one extra space.

I imagine theres nothing stopping a team only having 5 subs.

Other than fan's moaning about how we can't even field a full bench and clubs feeling pressurised to keep up with the Jones'.

 

[Jam_Man]

Other than fan's moaning about how we can't even field a full bench and clubs feeling pressurised to keep up with the Jones'.

Yes you will certainly get those comments, but that still doesnt mean you have to buy players.

With a keeper we would only have one gap anyway.

 

[Feathers]

I dont really see the point of it when you can only use 3 subs but I doubt clubs in the lower leagues will buy extra players just so they can fill the bench.

It will allow us to add a keeper, which is useful so that only leaves us with one extra space.

I imagine theres nothing stopping a team only having 5 subs.

I agree. I really cannot see teams in Leagues 1 & 2 buying extra players just to fill the bench. This therefore increases the chances of youth players making the bench, which for me is is a positive. I like the idea that good performances in the youth team can be rewarded with a chance to train with the first team at a packed (or half empty) Roots Hall on a match day. Its all part of the learning curve and they may even get a few minutes match time.

 

[dannypav]

I agree. I really cannot see teams in Leagues 1 & 2 buying extra players just to fill the bench. This therefore increases the chances of youth players making the bench, which for me is is a positive. I like the idea that good performances in the youth team can be rewarded with a chance to train with the first team at a packed (or half empty) Roots Hall on a match day. Its all part of the learning curve and they may even get a few minutes match time.

If games are tight , the best they will get is to able to enjoy the match day atmosphere etc , which is no bad thing for a youth team player.
But there will be the occassion where we may be say 3-0 or 4-0 up and little harm to give a youngster a run out for 10 minutes.
I think it could be very positive

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I agree. I really cannot see teams in Leagues 1 & 2 buying extra players just to fill the bench. This therefore increases the chances of youth players making the bench, which for me is is a positive. I like the idea that good performances in the youth team can be rewarded with a chance to train with the first team at a packed (or half empty) Roots Hall on a match day. Its all part of the learning curve and they may even get a few minutes match time.

Surely the learning curve would be better enhanced playing in a youth team match that they will be missing in order to sit on the bench.

If they impress in training they can force their way onto the bench on merit, rather than to make the numbers up.

 

[Cricko]

This is the first time in my life on here talking football that I have to agree YB is probably..........

Damn I just cant say it, I would never be able to face myself in the mirror again :sad:...

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Always felt not having a keeper on the bench is a risky venture - having said that give me the days when an outfield player had to put on the gloves any day - siege of mafeking anyone?

 

[Feathers]

Surely the learning curve would be better enhanced playing in a youth team match that they will be missing in order to sit on the bench.

If they impress in training they can force their way onto the bench on merit, rather than to make the numbers up.

But I am not saying the youths should automatically sit on the bench. I said "that good performances...can be rewarded" Therefore the place is earned on merit and with 7 places it easier to accommodate.

Very few young players have the mental capability to go straight from the youths/reserves into the 1st team (Kane Ferdinand being a notable exception) and the match day atmosphere can only be a positive learning experience. Franck Moussa's development was very much youth team, reserves bench, and then a few minutes at the end of games we were generally winning before he was given greater involvement/responsibility and it did not do him any harm.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Bring back the days of only 1 sub, that's what I say!!!

Ok, seriously though, I also think Yorkie Blue has a valid point here, with the lack of reserve team football at our level these days the only way that the youngsters get to play is in the youth games so hoiking them out to sit on a bench for the 1st team when they're not likely to get on is counter productive in my eyes. Personally, I thought 5 subs were too many as well! Would be far more challenge for places if there were a smaller number of subs.

 

[* ORM *]

This is the first time in my life on here talking football that I have to agree YB is probably..........

Damn I just cant say it, I would never be able to face myself in the mirror again :sad:...

Actually there's 2 or 3 recent posts that lead me to suspect that his account has been hacked.

 

[* ORM *]

And for the record I'd much rather there were 4 subs of which only 2 could be used outfield so if keeper gets injured he can be replaced. Might force a few to put that extra effort in on training.