Five subs in Scottish football

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

I could understand it for the leagues that came back in June or July are were pretty much playing every weekend and midweek to get their seasons completed.

Scottish Premiership squads should be fitter than ever after four months out and having a month of training .

[Radford]

Who the hell voted for this? Old Firm (don't exist, mate) are obvious. Aberdeen and Motherwell are in Europe. You still need another five. 

Accies think it will let them get more of their academy boys involved? Hibs and United? 

I think Gary Holt, along with Callum Davidson, spoke out against it and I can't see why Steve Brown would want anything that might mean we need more players and can't loan youngsters out. 

Livi, Killie, St Mirren, County. Two of them at least must've voted for this.

Crazy.

[The Golden God]

Probably the best idea we’ve ever had, delighted it’s being implemented.

[ropy]

The better coaches will be able to impact the game in different ways.  They will also be able to rectify mistakes in the original line up. Doesn’t mean I support it but I can see why coaches may be in favour.

[Junior_Arab]

Imagine being 1-0 up away at Parkhead, hanging on grimly then after 75 mins they chuck on Griffiths, Christie, Klimala etc. 
 

I can’t see why anyone outside the OF would vote for this. It’ll even cost clubs more money in appearance fees etc. 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Junior_Arab

[Monkey Tennis]

51 minutes ago, ropy said:

The better coaches will be able to impact the game in different ways.  They will also be able to rectify mistakes in the original line up. Doesn’t mean I support it but I can see why coaches may be in favour.

Coaches of smaller clubs, whose squads naturally lack depth, would need to be stupid to favour it.

[craigkillie]

2 hours ago, Junior_Arab said:

Imagine being 1-0 up away at Parkhead, hanging on grimly then after 75 mins they chuck on Griffiths, Christie, Klimala etc. 
 

I can’t see why anyone outside the OF would vote for this. It’ll even cost clubs more money in appearance fees etc. 

I agree that over the season it favours the bigger clubs, but in these one off games you can also envisage a scenario when you're 1-0 up at Parkhead and are tiring due to an onslaught of attacks, where it would be useful to be able to bring on lots more fresh legs.

[FTOF]

10 hours ago, Radford said:

Who the hell voted for this? Old Firm (don't exist, mate) are obvious. Aberdeen and Motherwell are in Europe. You still need another five. 

Accies think it will let them get more of their academy boys involved? Hibs and United? 

I think Gary Holt, along with Callum Davidson, spoke out against it and I can't see why Steve Brown would want anything that might mean we need more players and can't loan youngsters out. 

Livi, Killie, St Mirren, County. Two of them at least must've voted for this.

Crazy.

Given that we'll be running with what will probably be the smallest squad in the league, I'd be very surprised if it was us.

Stranger things have happened though.

[accies1874]

Who the hell voted for this? Old Firm (don't exist, mate) are obvious. Aberdeen and Motherwell are in Europe. You still need another five. 
Accies think it will let them get more of their academy boys involved? Hibs and United? 
I think Gary Holt, along with Callum Davidson, spoke out against it and I can't see why Steve Brown would want anything that might mean we need more players and can't loan youngsters out. 
Livi, Killie, St Mirren, County. Two of them at least must've voted for this.
Crazy.

You're probably right about us. Allows them to tweet stuff about how many Academy players played or how many made their debuts even if it's 10 minutes at the end of a 3-0 defeat to Celtic.

[Northboy]

6 hours ago, craigkillie said:

I agree that over the season it favours the bigger clubs, but in these one off games you can also envisage a scenario when you're 1-0 up at Parkhead and are tiring due to an onslaught of attacks, where it would be useful to be able to bring on lots more fresh legs.

Alternatively, you're 1-0 up at Parkhead and holding on and Celtic bring on 3 established international players to break you down.

[Northboy]

9 hours ago, ropy said:

The better coaches will be able to impact the game in different ways.  They will also be able to rectify mistakes in the original line up. Doesn’t mean I support it but I can see why coaches may be in favour.

If you have to change 50% of your outfield line up your original selection must have been way off.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

9 hours ago, Junior_Arab said:

Imagine being 1-0 up away at Parkhead, hanging on grimly then after 75 mins they chuck on Griffiths, Christie, Klimala etc. 
 

I can’t see why anyone outside the OF would vote for this. It’ll even cost clubs more money in appearance fees etc. 

 

30 minutes ago, Northboy said:

Alternatively, you're 1-0 up at Parkhead and holding on and Celtic bring on 3 established international players to break you down.

Your 'alternative' has already been put forward. 

[Monkey Tennis]

8 hours ago, craigkillie said:

I agree that over the season it favours the bigger clubs, but in these one off games you can also envisage a scenario when you're 1-0 up at Parkhead and are tiring due to an onslaught of attacks, where it would be useful to be able to bring on lots more fresh legs.

It helps over the course of the season, due to an accumulation of 'one-off' games.

The fact is that Celtic would have more players of their first team standard than their opponent would of theirs.  Of course such a move accentuates the already vast disparity in resources.  

[partick_twinny]

16 hours ago, ropy said:

The better coaches will be able to impact the game in different ways.  They will also be able to rectify mistakes in the original line up. Doesn’t mean I support it but I can see why coaches may be in favour.

The best coaches will know how to influence a game with more limited resources. Always thought the huge subs benches in England and not recently in Scotland made the job far easier for managers and a more limited bench was a better test of a manager and their selections.

I don't see the point in this, the purpose of extra subs was down to low levels of match fitness and more frequent matches. That problem doesn't exist here.

[craigkillie]

The best coaches will know how to influence a game with more limited resources. Always thought the huge subs benches in England and not recently in Scotland made the job far easier for managers and a more limited bench was a better test of a manager and their selections.
I don't see the point in this, the purpose of extra subs was down to low levels of match fitness and more frequent matches. That problem doesn't exist here.

Both of those problems do exist here. We're cramming the same number of games into a shorter season, and players will be much less match fit given that they've gone nearly 5 months without playing, have had a shorter pre-season than normal and have only played a handful of bounce games before the season starts.

That's not to say I support the change, because I don't, but I think the argument for it holds.

[Monkey Tennis]

9 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Both of those problems do exist here. We're cramming the same number of games into a shorter season, and players will be much less match fit given that they've gone nearly 5 months without playing, have had a shorter pre-season than normal and have only played a handful of bounce games before the season starts.

That's not to say I support the change, because I don't, but I think the argument for it holds.

These extra games must be the later Betfred groups, and one or two extra Scottish Cup ties for three top flight clubs - is that right?   

It's not a huge change, meaning the argument for it is pretty flimsy. 

[craigkillie]

These extra games must be the later Betfred groups, and one or two extra Scottish Cup ties for three top flight clubs - is that right?   
It's not a huge change, meaning the argument for it is pretty flimsy. 

Yes, you've got those Scottish Cup games, the Betfred groups being played through the usual international break (and extra mid-season European games for those not in the groups). The international breaks themselves are also more packed than usual with Scotland (and 15 other countries) playing three times instead of two in the October window and hopefully again in the November one.

The congestion will be particularly noticeable in the winter, because the UEFA regulations block off most midweeks from August-November and again from February-May.

So there are definitely more games for clubs in the same period of time. Not lots more, but more nonetheless.

In a perfect world with a good winter and no further lockdowns (and none of our clubs having a good run in Europe) this congestion probably isn't going to be a major issue, but if you have to call games off for either or both of those it's going to be incredibly challenging given that the schedule is pretty much full to the brim in normal circumstances (recall that last season there was an outstanding Rangers v St Johnstone fixture they were going to struggle to get played before the split).

As a result of this, Ian Blair has already warned clubs that they might have to end up playing 3/4 games a week at times if there are postponements to deal with. Therefore I'm not at all surprised that the SPFL Board proposed this to the clubs, or that some clubs favoured it. I am slightly surprised that enough clubs backed it for it to pass though.

[Monkey Tennis]

39 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Yes, you've got those Scottish Cup games, the Betfred groups being played through the usual international break (and extra mid-season European games for those not in the groups). The international breaks themselves are also more packed than usual with Scotland (and 15 other countries) playing three times instead of two in the October window and hopefully again in the November one.

The congestion will be particularly noticeable in the winter, because the UEFA regulations block off most midweeks from August-November and again from February-May.

So there are definitely more games for clubs in the same period of time. Not lots more, but more nonetheless.

In a perfect world with a good winter and no further lockdowns (and none of our clubs having a good run in Europe) this congestion probably isn't going to be a major issue, but if you have to call games off for either or both of those it's going to be incredibly challenging given that the schedule is pretty much full to the brim in normal circumstances (recall that last season there was an outstanding Rangers v St Johnstone fixture they were going to struggle to get played before the split).

As a result of this, Ian Blair has already warned clubs that they might have to end up playing 3/4 games a week at times if there are postponements to deal with. Therefore I'm not at all surprised that the SPFL Board proposed this to the clubs, or that some clubs favoured it. I am slightly surprised that enough clubs backed it for it to pass though.

Yes, fair enough.  It's potentially a bit more congested than I'd indicated.

However, it still puzzles me that it gets voted through.  Listening to radio coverage and reading some comment on here though, it seems that there's a tendency among some to see such things in absolute, rather than in relative terms.  We also get it when clubs welcome the scraps they get for Celtic hitting the jackpot of reaching CL Groups. 

If it feels like it'll make things a bit easier for a lowly coach, it'll make things much easier for the more exalted ones, meaning the lowlier club suffers.

[Poet of the Macabre]

I read an argument that clubs would lose money due to additional appearance fees; you do realise you don’t *have* to use five subs?

I’m not a fan of five subs at all but the crying about it is way OTT. I’d even argue changing half your team is just as likely to make things worse than improve the situation, with lack of fluency etc.

[parsforlife]

18 hours ago, craigkillie said:

Yes, you've got those Scottish Cup games, the Betfred groups being played through the usual international break (and extra mid-season European games for those not in the groups). The international breaks themselves are also more packed than usual with Scotland (and 15 other countries) playing three times instead of two in the October window and hopefully again in the November one.

The congestion will be particularly noticeable in the winter, because the UEFA regulations block off most midweeks from August-November and again from February-May.

So there are definitely more games for clubs in the same period of time. Not lots more, but more nonetheless.

In a perfect world with a good winter and no further lockdowns (and none of our clubs having a good run in Europe) this congestion probably isn't going to be a major issue, but if you have to call games off for either or both of those it's going to be incredibly challenging given that the schedule is pretty much full to the brim in normal circumstances (recall that last season there was an outstanding Rangers v St Johnstone fixture they were going to struggle to get played before the split).

As a result of this, Ian Blair has already warned clubs that they might have to end up playing 3/4 games a week at times if there are postponements to deal with. Therefore I'm not at all surprised that the SPFL Board proposed this to the clubs, or that some clubs favoured it. I am slightly surprised that enough clubs backed it for it to pass though.

I don’t particularly understand how fixture congestion is suddenly a huge problem in the last few years for premiership sides when they have played the same number of league games and basically the same number of cup games August-May for 20 years.   The only real change had been adding a Betfred group in July, which we are now using international breaks for.  Is it just because UEFA have started to be dicks about when we can play the games?