5 subs is stupid. 3 subs were far better. Now, you can replace half the outfield players, which basically means you can change tactics completely. It means more of the result is down to the manager. It also means there’s less need to prioritise which games are important, you can start with your best 11 every game, and just substitute later if the result allows it. It also benefits clubs with bigger budgets more, as they can afford having a higher quality bench.
basically means you can change tactics completely
What is bad about that?
I do not like 5 subs either. Both with the amount of matches they keep adding means it is a necessity.
The idea that it favors the clubs with higher budgets is not borne out by the statistics. The 4th & 5th subs on the going clubs are not so much better than the 4th & 5th subs on lesser clubs THAN the first three subs. Besides the amount of time they play (avg 10-12 minutes) does not give them much time to affect the game.
Big clubs were winning all the time before and they are winning all the time now.
5 subs within 3 time is fine with me. But I also feel that subbing in stoppage time should be disallowed as 90% of the time it is to waste time.
I’m going to be more radical, there should be unlimited replacements but in just three stops.
Are there stops chosen by the manager or are they decided beforehand (i.e. break the game into quarters where you can choose a new team for each quarter)? I kind of like the idea of the latter, but obviously injuries become an issue. Also opens up the idea of rolling subs. If the number of subs are increased again I feel like we might start seeing the option of subbing players back on