Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scouser2

The new 5 sub change vote

Recommended Posts

Not sure I would agree with this but probably a good chance it getting past the 75% , in theory it might have its merits in regard to fitness issues with playing so many games ...but for me it favours the clubs with bigger first team squads and as seen down south this summer can also be used to waste time and often stops the general flow of a game especially in the second half 

#####

Scottish Premiership clubs are to vote on increasing the number of permitted substitutes from three to five in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The use of extra substitutes has been formally approved for League Cup and Challenge Cup matches. But a 75% majority will be required in the top flight.

Scottish Professional Football League chief executive Neil Doncaster said it was in response to "a more compressed fixture calendar". The league board had acted "primarily out of a concern for player welfare".

"With teams expected to play more frequently and with shorter periods for recovery, the use of additional players in matches will help clubs spread the load throughout the season," he said.

"It is also hoped that this amendment will assist player development, allowing more young players to get experience of competitive senior football during the 2020-21 season." The SPFL took the decision following a temporary amendment to Law 3 made by the International Football Association Board (Ifab).

The Premiership vote will take place before the opening fixtures on 1 August.

Edited by Scouser2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scouser2 said:

"With teams expected to play more frequently...."

Doesn't seem to me we are playing more frequently than in other years.

Five substitutes is too many imo. I know they have still to be made in three periods maximum but, if both teams make double substitutions at the same time or shortly after one another, it takes an age. The second half of matches is becoming a tough watch with all the interruptions for substitutions and a drinks break. 

As we know, the refs seldom seem to add on full allowance for all the interruptions.

Definite No from me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a really interesting one - I'm not sure where I stand on it. 

Rangers and Celtic bringing more players from their bench against us is a definite advantage. 

But as the same time, would mean more game time for young players and maybe increase the chances of players moving if there are more spots to fill and potential to come on. 

Someone like Connell more regularly getting ten minutes here and there and a platform to show what he can do seems a good thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now voted by top league to have this for new season 20/21 as from Saturday....

******

Scottish Premiership clubs have voted to increase the number of useable substitutions from three to five during the new season starting on Saturday.

Despite being able to make five changes, teams will only be allowed to stop play to make a substitution three times per game.

A total of nine players will be allowed on the bench, as the SPFL responded to a temporary amendment to Law 3 made by the International Football Association Board (Ifab).

The resolution for Premiership teams required 75% of the clubs to back it. The increase to five substitutions had already been approved for the League Cup and Challenge Cup.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting... Football's five substitutes rule doesn't benefit the big clubs – and here's why

 

Last month I was chatting to my friend Ernesto Valverde, the former Athletic Bilbao and Barcelona coach who I got to know well when I was Athletic’s head of talent ID. For once we were disagreeing. He, like many in football, thought that the temporary rule change to allow five substitutions from an extended bench of nine players favoured the big clubs. I insisted it wouldn’t.

At the time it felt like the debate didn’t matter much either way, given the rule was only expected to last until the end of the season. Now, however, Ifab has agreed to extend it, to the dismay of many. Burnley’s manager, Sean Dyche, and Aston Villa’s Dean Smith are prominent critics – and one well-regarded journalist recently claimed it “really does not take the brains of Lloyd George to work out that it is a rule which will favour richer clubs who have squads packed with larger numbers of higher-quality players”. However, this issue really is not as simple as it appears on the surface. Let me explain why.

My starting point is this: if being able to use five substitutes favoured the big clubs, you would expect them to make more changes compared with smaller teams. However, since the season resumed that hasn’t been the case. After lockdown was relaxed in the Bundesliga, for instance, the top four teams used 4.03 substitutes per game, while the bottom four teams used 4.59 substitutes per game. In the Premier League, Manchester City and Chelsea used fewer substitutes on average than Bournemouth and Norwich.

So what is going on? My argument is that the change in the number of substitutions neither harms nor benefits the teams according to their quality, but depends on other considerations.

Let me explain using a scenario I have discussed with a number of coaches, players, and analysts in the Premier League and La Liga. It is far simpler than real life, but hopefully it captures the essence of the situation.

Let’s take two hypothetical situations. In Situation A, substitutions during the game are forbidden. Teams start and end the game with 11 players. In Situation B, meanwhile, it is mandatory to replace the starting XI at half-time, and no other substitutions are allowed. Going from A (“No subs”) to B (“All subs”) means going from 0 to 11 substitutions, something undoubtedly much more drastic than going from three to five substitutions.

In Situation B, each team experiences a change in the quality of its players in the second half. The difference between the second half and the first half depends only on how good each team’s substitutes are relative to the starting XI.

In other words, whether a given team benefits depends on how its own relative change compares with the relative change of its opponent. Note that the words “strong team” or “weak team” are not used here, and therefore whether one team has a better or worse squad than another is irrelevant.

Let me put it another way. Let’s assume that every team’s first team and substitutes’ bench has a quality that is measurable and can be assigned a number from 0 to 100, with 100 being best.

Now imagine a match between a strong and a weak team, in which all the players are replaced at half-time. The strong team has 11 players of quality 100 and another 11 who are 60. On the other hand, a weak team has 22 identical players, all of quality equal to 20.

When the starting players have to be replaced at the break, the strong team plays with quality 100 in the first half and quality 60 in the second half, while the weak team plays with quality 20 in both halves. Contrary to what many might think, under these conditions, it is clear that the weaker team prefers the situation where there are more substitutions.

Of course Team B has a low chance of winning throughout. I am not disputing that. But, crucially, their chances of winning go up when 11 changes are made. The reason is that it has a more homogeneous squad, one with more similar player quality and is able to make more like-for-like substitutions.

Here is another scenario. All players in the strong team have an identical quality equal to 50, while the weak team has a quality of 20 in its first XI and of 15 in its 11 substitutes. Here again the more homogeneous team – which in this case is the strong team – benefits most from a situation where there are more substitutions allowed.

These simple exercises capture the essence of the impact of rule change. A team’s strength does not matter. Squads that can make more like-for-like substitutions are the ones that will benefit most from the possibility of a greater number of substitutions, regardless of their riches and thus overall level of quality of the squad. More uneven squads suffer from the rule change, regardless of how good their overall squad is.

At this point you are probably thinking: “Well, your theory sounds all well and good professor, but in practice the big clubs have more homogeneous squads than smaller ones?” I wouldn’t be so sure.

There is a well-known effect in football which economists refer to as the “superstar phenomenon” – whereby a small number of people earn enormous amounts and dominate the activities in which they engage. Of course it is not specific to football or even sports. There are countless examples from the world of arts and letters and showbiz where there is a strong tendency for rewards to be highly skewed toward the most talented individuals in the activity, with very large rewards at the top and a marked skewness in the distribution of salaries.

Nearly 40 years ago, Sherwin Rosen, an economist from the University of Chicago, proposed a brilliant theory to explain these general patterns. Applied to football, it means that essentially the best players reap a greater share of payroll, and this reduces the spoils available to the relatively less gifted in the squad. The superstar phenomenon, therefore, tends to increase the salary inequality both within squads and across squads.

As salaries are associated with quality and performance, this pushes richer clubs to tend to have more uneven squads than lesser – in terms of money – clubs. Richer clubs would then benefit less, not more, and tend to use fewer substitutes, which is what is happening. Of course it would make sense to go through each squad individually to make sure this is the case.

Incidentally, reports have suggested that only Aston Villa, Bournemouth and West Ham voted against the rule change. But if they have a relatively more balanced squad, they should have been among those to vote in favour.

Ignacio Palacios-Huerta is professor of management at the London School of Economics

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/blog/2020/jul/29/football-five-substitutes-rule-does-not-benefit-the-big-clubs-and-here-is-why?__twitter_impression=true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not convinced by it. From the football I’ve watched a lot of managers are making the changes for the sake of making them. Some of the more tactical managers have used it well but most just threw on another extra striker when chasing a game or defender when leading. Maybe it’ll benefit the youngsters getting on the bench and getting minutes if a games beyond doubt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably won't make any difference to us, we hardly made any last season. Hamilton if they could would probably make 11 individual subs as soon as they go 1-0 up.

I think it's a bit silly. Clubs have had a pre-season now so shouldn't need that many. Or just make it 4 rather than 5. It's just going to benefit the Old Firm 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, C4mmy31 said:

Does a change at halftime count as one of the three stoppages during the game ? 

It hasn’t in any of the other leagues which have used the system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, piffer said:

It hasn’t in any of the other leagues which have used the system. 

I was just discussing it there with the Mrs, she made the point, since its not really clear from the report above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, red_dug said:

Aberdeen allowed 5 separate players booked before subbing them off now.

Magic.

It wont affect Cosgrove until the turn of the year at the least.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, AngusCochrane said:

Time will tell I suppose but I hae ma doubts, especially in Scotland where the difference in squad strength in depth between the top teams and the rest is so vast.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2020 at 6:17 PM, Scouser2 said:

Despite being able to make five changes, teams will only be allowed to stop play to make a substitution three times per game.

So is this 3 during the match with an additional 2 only at half time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Pompey Exile said:

So is this 3 during the match with an additional 2 only at half time?

No , It just means a team can make up to 5 Subs but can only make these changes at 3 different points during a game .....for example Could make one sub at half time , 2 subs at 60 mins and 2 subs at 80 mins etc...........what has been shown in the recent games down south is second half is often stop/ start and littered with changes .... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2020 at 7:11 PM, AngusCochrane said:

Now imagine a match between a strong and a weak team, in which all the players are replaced at half-time. The strong team has 11 players of quality 100 and another 11 who are 60. On the other hand, a weak team has 22 identical players, all of quality equal to 20.

When the starting players have to be replaced at the break, the strong team plays with quality 100 in the first half and quality 60 in the second half, while the weak team plays with quality 20 in both halves. Contrary to what many might think, under these conditions, it is clear that the weaker team prefers the situation where there are more substitutions.

Of course Team B has a low chance of winning throughout. I am not disputing that. But, crucially, their chances of winning go up when 11 changes are made. The reason is that it has a more homogeneous squad, one with more similar player quality and is able to make more like-for-like substitutions.

 

Nonsense. 
Like for like substitutions don’t affect games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scouser2 said:

No , It just means a team can make up to 5 Subs but can only make these changes at 3 different points during a game .....for example Could make one sub at half time , 2 subs at 60 mins and 2 subs at 80 mins etc...........what has been shown in the recent games down south is second half is often stop/ start and littered with changes .... 

Ah thanks for clearing that up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can just imagine the fun Accies and Aberdeen will have with this...

Each time a sub is made the ref will just be about to re-start play after a Dons substitution when ratboy suddenly remembers he also wanted to sub the player now standing furthest away on the park etc. Cue 4 minutes passing by, but only one minute being added on by the ref.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EPL votes to revert to three substitutions next season.

Leaves the SPFL looking like dicks.

Edit - IFAB has changed the rule for 2020-21 to allow up to five substitutes, but each competition can make its own rule.

It will be interesting to see how many go for five.

 

 

Edited by skygod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2020 at 12:14 AM, Scouser2 said:

No , It just means a team can make up to 5 Subs but can only make these changes at 3 different points during a game .....for example Could make one sub at half time , 2 subs at 60 mins and 2 subs at 80 mins etc...........what has been shown in the recent games down south is second half is often stop/ start and littered with changes .... 

I don't think that's right. HT is a separate stoppage. If you bring on a sub at HT you can still call a further 3 stoppages. I'm sure in the Motherwell game the other night Lang came on at HT then they made 3 further stoppages for subs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

The Killie Trust

KFC Supporters Association

Young Kilmarnock

FC Kilmarnock

Kilmarnock FC (Official)

×