Today’s Football 2020/21 Season

[number4.]

Each club has a registered squad of 25 players.

At any given time, the Manager/Coach and his backroom team SHOULD have a handle on the fitness of each of those 25.

It is accepted that all of the 25 are not of an equal ability. Each Manager/Coach therefore has to operate within that constraint, taking into account also the differing abilities and playing positions of those in the squad.

This is a 100% 'red herring': '...a combination of fixtures, the return from Covid break & effectively extended season...' We are talking here about sportsmen at the highest position of their calling. They are the fittest of the fit, and had a 3 month break, longer than the normal summer break. They are asked to play (sometimes) twice a week.

The whingeing and crying of some Managers (you know who) just doesn't wash with me. Don't cry wolf when you run your players into the ground...

Firstly - completely in agreement with you on the whinging and cryarsing of you know who & ultimitely that has come back to bite him with others digging their heels, but your arguement of they have 25 players just rotate them doesn't wash.

The study that showed the 42% increase in soft tissue injuries also showed that, due to covid, no preseason and the rolling nature of last season into this, that the likelyhood of picking up an in-game soft tissue injury doesn't correlate with being rested the week before. Yes, it reduces the odds, but only slightly. It's about the fitness miles in preseason, the rested bodies etc; not simply rotating game to game.

If rotation was the solution, why would the "big six" be the most vocal here; they have the most rotatable squads.

 

[TheBigIguana]

No, you need to rest those players more. It’s not like gravity has increased.

90 minutes is still 90 minutes. If the player can't make it through 90 minutes they either aren't fit enough or are being overused. I just don't get how a team like City that basically has two XIs better than what 16 or so of the teams can put out at their best also needs to have more subs to keep it fresh. I mean we have to play Tosun if we want to rotate our full squad. It's pretty ridiculous.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Firstly - completely in agreement with you on the whinging and cryarsing of you know who & ultimitely that has come back to bite him with others digging their heels, but your arguement of they have 25 players just rotate them doesn't wash.

The study that showed the 42% increase in soft tissue injuries also showed that, due to covid, no preseason and the rolling nature of last season into this, that the likelyhood of picking up an in-game soft tissue injury doesn't correlate with being rested the week before. Yes, it reduces the odds, but only slightly. It's about the fitness miles in preseason, the rested bodies etc; not simply rotating game to game.

If rotation was the solution, why would the "big six" be the most vocal here; they have the most rotatable squads.

More subs means the big six can hoard more players as they have more gametime to keep said players happy. It means that they can have enough options off the bench to press even more aggressively than they do now since they have plenty of replacements when the starters wear out.

Honestly the best example of how this will go is the Springboks at the Rugby World Cup. They had so much depth that they packed their bench with essentially a second set of forwards better than any teams first. This allowed their starters to play at an unsustainable intensity and just go off for a second batch of guys ready to go 100% without dropping their level. The wealth gap in football pretty much ensures the RS, City and United will be doing this if 5 subs becomes permanent.

 

[number4.]

More subs means the big six can hoard more players as they have more gametime to keep said players happy. It means that they can have enough options off the bench to press even more aggressively than they do now since they have plenty of replacements when the starters wear out.

Honestly the best example of how this will go is the Springboks at the Rugby World Cup. They had so much depth that they packed their bench with essentially a second set of forwards better than any teams first. This allowed their starters to play at an unsustainable intensity and just go off for a second batch of guys ready to go 100% without dropping their level. The wealth gap in football pretty much ensures the RS, City and United will be doing this if 5 subs becomes permanent.

but your suggestion that teams should just rotate week to week and stop moaning furthers the Wealth gap even more.

This isn't about long term hoarding, this is about this season in light of all of the unusual circumstances and player welfare. I completely agree that long term 5 (non concussion) subs is a bad idea, but that is a completely different debate

 

[TheBigIguana]

but your suggestion that teams should just rotate week to week and stop moaning furthers the Wealth gap even more.

This isn't about long term hoarding, this is about this season in light of all of the unusual circumstances and player welfare. I completely agree that long term 5 (non concussion) subs is a bad idea, but that is a completely different debate

I also don't think the rules should be changed midway through a season. So since they didn't start the year with 5 subs they shouldn't go to it now and since it is a bad idea long term they shouldn't vote for that either.

Teams already should rotate every week and the gap is what it is. That isn't a change. But it is easier for Chelsea to keep Barkley for example if he's coming off the bench for 30+ minutes every game.

 

[number4.]

I also don't think the rules should be changed midway through a season. So since they didn't start the year with 5 subs they shouldn't go to it now and since it is a bad idea long term they shouldn't vote for that either.

Teams already should rotate every week and the gap is what it is. That isn't a change. But it is easier for Chelsea to keep Barkley for example if he's coming off the bench for 30+ minutes every game.

Again - I agree in principle, but rules change mid season every year. Refs are given different Guidance etc. I always go back to the penalty we had given against us at Brighton last season; that wouldnt have been given a week later.

This isn't a debate about what's best for the game long term, it's about helping players, which is a good thing. I think everyone agrees that this season, whatever the outcome, is covered in a few * already.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Again - I agree in principle, but rules change mid season every year. Refs are given different Guidance etc. I always go back to the penalty we had given against us at Brighton last season; that wouldnt have been given a week later.

This isn't a debate about what's best for the game long term, it's about helping players, which is a good thing. I think everyone agrees that this season, whatever the outcome, is covered in a few * already.

I don't agree with it whenever it happens. I don't agree with them adjusting the handball rule this season for example both on the actual rule side and the fact that it is the middle of the season.

I think that's what it is being framed as. I'm not convinced based on who is most outspoken about it that is what it actually is. We're what, two months removed from the big clubs trying to pass through an extortion of everyone else? They shouldn't be trusted on anything.

 

[tsubaki]

but your suggestion that teams should just rotate week to week and stop moaning furthers the Wealth gap even more.

This isn't about long term hoarding, this is about this season in light of all of the unusual circumstances and player welfare. I completely agree that long term 5 (non concussion) subs is a bad idea, but that is a completely different debate

It might - after all they all have big squads - but for whatever reason they aren’t doing it now even when the risks are so great.

FWIW I also think there’s no way that once five subs are brought in again that it will ever go back. There’s the same incentive next season as well (with the Euros, the winter World Cup and the knock on effect of this season); no doubt we’ll all be told that five subs hasn’t caused a problem so let’s use it permanently.

 

[TheBigIguana]

It might - after all they all have big squads - but for whatever reason they aren’t doing it now even when the risks are so great.

FWIW I also think there’s no way that once five subs are brought in again that it will ever go back. There’s the same incentive next season as well (with the Euros, the winter World Cup and the knock on effect of this season); no doubt we’ll all be told that five subs hasn’t caused a problem so let’s use it permanently.

People need to fully grasp that the big clubs in England are only looking after their own monetary interests so anything they propose is boiled down to thinking it is best for them on that front. Selling it as for player welfare or in the case of that ridiculous Football League bailout for the little guy is just them doing their best salesman act to convince people that they aren't doing it for themselves. But they always are.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Firstly - completely in agreement with you on the whinging and cryarsing of you know who & ultimitely that has come back to bite him with others digging their heels, but your arguement of they have 25 players just rotate them doesn't wash.

The study that showed the 42% increase in soft tissue injuries also showed that, due to covid, no preseason and the rolling nature of last season into this, that the likelyhood of picking up an in-game soft tissue injury doesn't correlate with being rested the week before. Yes, it reduces the odds, but only slightly. It's about the fitness miles in preseason, the rested bodies etc; not simply rotating game to game.

If rotation was the solution, why would the "big six" be the most vocal here; they have the most rotatable squads.

Your second paragraph: One would think, that with all the resources at their disposal, clubs/Managers/coaches would have ensured that the fitness of their squad was kept on an even keel, even during the three months of nothing happening on the pitch. That really is basic.

Your third paragraph: As exemplified by the goon across the park, they just want to play their top players all of the time, which should not be the name of the game. The prime example (and it pains me to write this!), is that since VVD has not played, they have not lost a Premiership game. He is not the be-all-and-end-all of their defence after all. One might say - hung by his own petard...

 

[number4.]

Your second paragraph: One would think, that with all the resources at their disposal, clubs/Managers/coaches would have ensured that the fitness of their squad was kept on an even keel, even during the three months of nothing happening on the pitch. That really is basic.

Your third paragraph: As exemplified by the goon across the park, they just want to play their top players all of the time, which should not be the name of the game. The prime example (and it pains me to write this!), is that since VVD has not played, they have not lost a Premiership game. He is not the be-all-and-end-all of their defence after all. One might say - hung by his own petard...

You say it's really basic. If so, why are soft tissue injuries up 42% spread across the league. It's now simply one club. It's cleary not; these clubs at both ends of the table throw huge money at expertise and equipment to ensure fitness & yet across the 20 clubs injuries are massive.

 

[catcherintherye]

Firstly - completely in agreement with you on the whinging and cryarsing of you know who & ultimitely that has come back to bite him with others digging their heels, but your arguement of they have 25 players just rotate them doesn't wash.

The study that showed the 42% increase in soft tissue injuries also showed that, due to covid, no preseason and the rolling nature of last season into this, that the likelyhood of picking up an in-game soft tissue injury doesn't correlate with being rested the week before. Yes, it reduces the odds, but only slightly. It's about the fitness miles in preseason, the rested bodies etc; not simply rotating game to game.

If rotation was the solution, why would the "big six" be the most vocal here; they have the most rotatable squads.

On the final question, they are most vocal as they would gain the most from having "in game" rotation. They don't want to rotate starting 11's. That is their choice.

 

[number4.]

It might - after all they all have big squads - but for whatever reason they aren’t doing it now even when the risks are so great.

FWIW I also think there’s no way that once five subs are brought in again that it will ever go back. There’s the same incentive next season as well (with the Euros, the winter World Cup and the knock on effect of this season); no doubt we’ll all be told that five subs hasn’t caused a problem so let’s use it permanently.

I'd agree, it's a dangerous precedent & I would not want to see it long term. But again the the debate here is about this season - that's speculation, possibly spot on, but still speculation.

 

[catcherintherye]

You say it's really basic. If so, why are soft tissue injuries up 42% spread across the league. It's now simply one club. It's cleary not; these clubs at both ends of the table throw huge money at expertise and equipment to ensure fitness & yet across the 20 clubs injuries are massive.

Injuries are up, probably because managers are not manahign their players properly within the existing rules.

Managers at times aren't making 3 subs, never mind 5. And ultimately and resting players anywhere near enough.

 

[catcherintherye]

you're argueing for teams to field a different 10 players game on game then; I know there are red zones etc; but essentially teams dont seem to have an idea of who or when a player breaks down. We saw that with Sheff united last night. There is zero fun or fairness in that.

So if it's just random, and we have "no idea...when a player will break down" what good is having more or less subs going to do?