I would increase the amount of substitutions to 6 for official games and tournaments all around the world just like they do with friendly matches. There is something wrong with the game when you have David Beckham puking on the field at the World Cup because of heat exhaustion and the 3 subs have been used, so none of those fresh reserves are allowed to replace him. Then every now and then you have the situation where the GK gets hurt during the game after the 3 subs have been used and a fresh GK gets to sit on the bench and watch a stand in GK play. Using 6 subs has never hurt friendly games in the past.
Both forms are correct. The was form is possible in informal, familiar conversation. The case of this thread.
I remember reading somewhere that there was talking of increasing the number of subs to 4 for World Cup qualifiers, but it was probably something out of Blatter's mouth, so it definitely wouldn't happen.
I don't think they need to do that, but they should be given 6 like in friendly matches. That won't hurt the game and add that much extra time. Even if you play 3 minutes of extra time instead of 2, it is no big deal. I don't see how anyone could be against it. That would be nice.
You seem to have missed my point, on ANY need to increase the number of subs allowed to be used in ANY game. Your proposal would change the game of football into one of who's got the biggest/strongest squad, rather than who's actually on the field of play. The old rule (3 subs maximum only, in all games) was changed when SGE changed the entire England team at half-time against Australia, in a friendly, thus making the game meaningless as a preparation for AUS & ENG. The extension (of the number of subs from 3 to 6 in friendlies), was a FIFA compromise to the bigger & more arrogant teams. It's perverse to NOW argue that since it's become 6 subs in friendlies, then it should be 6 subs in competitive games, when the extension for friendlies was a compromise in the FIRST PLACE. I (for one amongst many) would oppose your view, in order to retain as much of the essence of risk which managers must take into account with their game-time decisions.
I disagree. There is no need to leave all of those fresh reserves on the bench when Beckham is puking on the field after England is out of subs. Isn't sports about who has the biggest and best squad anyway? It won't change anything if they increase to 4, 5, or 6 subs. The USA lost to Brazil in the 1994 World Cup when they allowed 2 subs, then lost to them in the 2003 Gold Cup when they allowed 3 subs, and then lost to them in a friendly in 2007 when they allowed 6 subs. The best teams will still be the best no matter how many subs they have to use.
Great, just further increase the advantage of the teams with the biggest squads. It's not enough that the big teams can bring on fifty million pound worth of talent when they're losing, now then can bring on a hundred million. You see, just what football needs right now is for the top teams to be even more powerful, it's just too close and even at the minute.
I would have no problem with increasing the number of subs in the event of legit injuries, but when Drogba can flop around so much Guus Hiddink thinks he is really hurt, it sort of draws into doubt how strict clubs would be with the rule. If you get use an injury sub in a match, the player subbed can't play the next match. (Though that would be another compromise, something that seems to be a dirty word to some people.) Sorry to but into the conversation and change the topic a bit, but I really just dropped by because the question of what I would do as FIFA dictator was an interesting one. My plan would be simple, and once the changes were made I would gladly be deposed and thrown out of power. #1) Make sure Sepp Blatter and all his cronies go to prison for corruption. The smelly frenchman Platini and his cronies as well. Racketeering charges may also be brought if I'm feeling frisky. #2) I would take match fixing seriously, something FIFA clearly could care less about. #3) Goal line technology, and I don't mean an extra human or two. It fits in the ball and works. Getting the result right is what it is all about. It's basic, did the ball cross the line? We need the correct answer. Give me those three things and I'll be happy. (Though the power of the role may go to my head and I could shake things up even more.)
It won't increase the advantage. The best team will still win 9 times out of 10. When there is an upset, it isn't because of the amount of subs, it is because the underdog played good. It sucks when the entire field of players is out of energy and there are no subs left. The game is more fun to watch with fresh legs. I guess a good compromise would be 4 subs plus a straight goalkeeper sub where the goalkeeper on the field has to leave the game and not move to forward like Tony Meola did for Kansas City after Josh Wolff hurt himself when they were out of subs (MLS had a 3 subs plus Goalkeeper sub rule at one time). If the 3rd string keeper was then brought in then that would count as 1 of the 4 field player subs.
I think you are missing what the others are saying. You are arguing that even in the event of increased substitutions, stronger teams will generally still beat weaker teams. Other people are stating that increasing the number of subs increases the gap between strong and weak teams even more. Clubs with more money will be able to afford more talented players. Think about about a "strong" team replacing 6 of their best players on the field with an equally talented 6 players versus a "weak" team replacing 6 of their best players with reserves? It would make more sense to have a +1 sub during extra time rule.
It won't make much difference as long as the teams both have the same amount of subs because even if they are only allowed 3 subs, the 3 subs on the better team are still better than those on the weaker team. I think 4 subs plus a GK sub would work just fine, if they don't go to 6.
Actually these days the difference in quality in the subs is often greater than the difference in the first team.
I like the strategy of only using 3 subs. What I would change is I would go back to the Golden Goal rule. In matches where extra time is needed I would allow one extra sub per et/ot period. Regular matches 3 subs, if match goes into 1st et period you get 4 subs, for matches that go into 2nd et period 5 subs.
I decree that all subs (& starters) shall be yellow!... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCsYDZ2M04M&feature=related"]YouTube - The beatles yellow submarine[/ame] World will be way happier. Dictator’s stamp:
Well something needs to be done because stand in goalkeepers also suck. I remember seeing Manchester United have their goalkeeper taken out about 1 minute after the final sub was used and then a center back had to be the goalkeeper and they played down a man. That sucks. Like I said, they need to have 4 subs pus a GK sub, or 6 subs where the GK counts the same as a field player sub.
No, the one I am thinking of they used 3 subs on field players in the last 30 minutes and a few minutes after the last one was used the started got hurt, so the back up GK sat on the bench and watched.
Then they used their subs too early - took a risk and it back fired. That is all part of the game. That is why John Terry has had to play as keeper when both Cech and Cudicini were injured in the same game, even as a Chelsea fan I wouldn't change it - it adds to the excitement. I would like to see the bench enlarged but not the number of subs. That way if a team does have 2 centre backs injured they wont necessarily have to bring on a forward to do the defending, but still keep it at 3 subs total in the game. If players are too tired at the end then they are not fit enough. If it is because of the heat then bring in drinks breaks at 25min intervals (as they do in the A-League)
I disagree. I am not trying to turn it into American football, I just think there should be at least a straight GK sub added.
^^ there are too many subs as it is. A straight goalkeeper sub is stupid, a manager should live and die by his decisions. One thing in football that needs to be done is the modification of the loan system. That is you can only loan players who have come through the ranks at your club. All signings should be to aid the team, not so you can save money on a player somewhere down the line, or keep a player who you don't want a rival to have on your books. 22 man squads above 18. If you get injuries use youth players, encourages teams to have better youth programmes. Total TV blackouts if all games in a division aren't sold out. That means that all clubs have a vested interest in all teams within their league getting sell outs, and you lose the equivilent % of TV revenue for every game you don't sell out encouraging clubs to set realistic ticket prices. Also a minimum stadium capacity. Terrace areas where ticket prices are regulated by a european body, and old fairly to LOCALS!! That's just a couple.
that really depends on the nation. In England, for example, league games aren't ever on live at 3pm, so blacking out tv coverage of Newcastle v Man Utd kicking off at 5.30 isn't going to increase the crowd at Wigan. You also almost never get a week when all the games in the premiership are sold out, which would mean no games at all live, which would result in the premiership clubs going bust.
Bill Wirtz of the Chicago Blackhawks did this to a hockey club that sold out every game taking all the home games and not putting them on tv if they didn't sell out. What happened is there attendance went from 20K to 10K. After Bill Wirtz died, his son Rocky Wirtz immediately got all games on tv and attendance went from 10K to 20K selling out every game. The team is more popular as ever now. Having the games on tv is a running 2 to 3 hour commercial for your club it's stadium why you wouldn't take advantage of that and having the games on tv is beside me.
I am from London you know, born and raised like, i do know this. I think you don't understand the point, I am not saying that wigan don't sell out because of TV, I am saying that wigan don't sell out because they overprice their tickets (read the post you quoted again). If Manchester United knew they wouldn't be on telly if every game was sold out then they would pressurise Wigan to do more about it etc etc. Once again you clearly don't understand what i am saying... It's called an incentive!! It's not as if these clubs can't sell out, the only one i'd be iffy about is Wigan and they shouldn't be in the prem anyway (but that's another argument). What is now 1/3 of all revenue comes from TV, if that 1/3 was on the line week in week out, they'd sell out by any means necessary. If that means implementing kids for a quid etc. It's about time clubs got realistic in terms of pricing and looked to their future fan bases. Altrhough i know German clubs don't all sell out, they get huge crowds and have cheap tickets and don't go bankrupt. This is because they are run fiscally and for the game, not for profity and that is what is lacking in many countries! 1. American sports are different, you have one major Ice hockey team in the whole Chicagoland area, if they can't sell out there are fundamental problems... We don't work on the markets ideal etc... 2. Teams aren't on TV week in week out in England, and there is still a fundamental difference between going to live games and watching it on telly. Being on telly doesn't make people want to go to stadiums... 3. The reason why they say it doesn't work in the NFL is because owners don't have anything to lose if the game isn't sold out as they still get the TV revenue. So they keep prices at the same rediculous levels.