Number of Named Substitutes

Number of Named Substitutes

Is there any good reason why the A-League currently allows only 4 named substitutes for a match? In my opinion, each team should be allowed to name 7 substitutes for a match. It would allow the coaches more options to utilise for games plus give more opportunities to players, especially young players. I can see no disadvantages in increasing the number of substitutes, the English Premier League this season has fallen into line with European leagues in allowing 7 named substitutes instead of the 5 they were previously allowed. I wonder if Tony P and the other A League club CEOs have thought about lobbying the A League for such a change next season?

I think it has to do with travel costs?

like all things with a still young league (expansion, salary caps etc.), any changes should be brought about gradually, I'd like to see 5 subs next year, and then go from there.

I've brought this up before. It does seem somewhat restrictive. With the requirement that one sub has to be a keeper, then for the vast majority of games you only get to choose from three subs. To be sensible cover-wise, this is invariably a defender, a midfielder and a forward. Tactically, the ability to reorganise becomes restricted.

5 is good for next year. And forcing a secondary keeper is good in my opinion, or else clubs will just not include one and take the chance. 7 is to much for a squad of 22. 5 players would miss out and have an extra big negative effect. Rather than being reserves they're the crapness. :P

Jesus you're wise SiNZ . If travel costs are an issue, then maybe we need to keep the bench small, but maybe forcing a keeper isn't as good as people think, I mean if teams want to take the risk, then why not let them??

 

The other teams all get the youth league which they can play senior players in who aren't making the A-League  squad that week.

Is that right Bevan? Is there a limit or can they play all their unused subs?

I believe they can use 4 over-age players in the youth team.

I also suggested 7 subs on another thread, and Tegal or Oska kindly pointed out that travel costs were probably a factor.

I'd settle for 5, perhaps without the compulsory goalkeeper, as suggested here by Si and Oska. (Going on current form, we could always name Paston as a starter in the outfield, and not be much worse off )

Seriously though, more subs gives Ricki the option or adding younger players (Costa/Draper)to the bench, and being able to give them a run when we're 4-0 up with 20 to play.

Probably won't happen until next season, if at all.

Not if michael was referring to the 23 player maximum to aleague squads, not the samount of current Nix players

Though he did include the phrase: SiNZ2008-09-24 18:42:27

wait a sec, am I right that 23 is the maximum? Sure  I heard that somewhere but.. Oska2008-09-24 19:08:49

I am old school, and believe that if a team can only make 3 subs, they should only be allowed 3 players on the bench.  Reasons for this is it is a greater test of managerial skills, and it stops football becoming like American Football with about 40 players on the sidelines at any given time.

I remember the old british matches and the 'keeper copped it then seeing one of the outfield take over the green (as it usually was back then) jersey... it was great

Rubbish. A game changes and allowing a manager to make a tactical decision based on the way the game is being played allows for 'managerial skills' to be better displayed than your suggestion.

To be honest I prefer to tried what Rugby league does.

As I understand, there are four interchange players during the game and using up 12 interchanges allowed. This would have a more tactical coaching and gives players different combinations to attack and defend as well as including more of the squad in the game plan. More flexibility. If the whole squad is availiable on the bench and only a certain number of interchange is allow, then you can have as much on the bench that would include and cover most position angles.

So may be 10 interchanges and 7 interchange players. That would increase the game time for the interchange bench and be more of a squad approach of the match rather than team approach. Everyone has the ability to go in or go off the field as the game situation dictates the interchanges with more tactical decision, rather than strategy drawn by the coaches.

No way Jose, the great thing about football is it's simplicity, let's keep it that way.

Thats for the IFAB to decided on interchange laws really. The whole reason we had subs was to cover for injuries as the original rule was to finish the game the lineup you started with. So anyone injured had to hobble about until the final whistle because the team would end up with a person or two short in the game. As time goes on, the subs only were allow for injuries and then later it was allow for tactical changes and to retain/developed fitness for players. So they established a limit of subs available to cover for positions.

Therefore the laws of the game allows a max of three substitutes and a max of named substitutes up to 7 depending on the local competition rules. The reason why 7 is the max is because it covers each team block twice except keeper. The point is that a sub can also be injured as well and needs to be replaced without lowering the teams quality. Having a 7 membered bench achieves this. But then the advantage would be to the stronger club with depth on the bench over the weaker clubs. Having said that, the weaker clubs have more flexibility to change their strategy against the stronger club at short notice.

TBH, with the salary cap of the A-league, this should not be a significant factor overall on numbers of player depth in the club and so having 7 on the bench is better than 4. The substitutions will always be at the max of three so the choice is more tactical for the coach. It also develops the coaches and players to the international format and the coach with the more tactical substitution awareness will stand out.

However as someone has pointed out,it maybe a cost saving on the travel.

But how much would it be to cover about 30 extra airline return tickets and 10 extra accommodation rooms multiply by two or three night stay and three meal times two or three days for the season?

It would make the game much more of a free flowing spectacle. But also take the game away from the players and give it to the coaches.

I have to say I like to see it tried out. I think it would be the way of the future as well as TVO support on significant penalty incidents and balls crossing over goallines for on the spot decisions. Much easier than having players jump all over the field referee by referring it to the TV referee. It won't slow down the gametime and the players can't behave stupidly.