Klopp seems to be the biggest advocate, or at least the most vocal on this:
"Everybody knows my opinions about it," Klopp added. "Everyone knows 10 clubs voted against it. It was not about advantages, it was only about player welfare. And they voted against it.
But vs Spurs he made no subs. So where was the player welfare then? Why is he so adamant about 5 subs. Why do you need five when you're not even using one.
I can understand that making the third sub is always a bit of a risk as an injury after that can leave you short, or a player having to play through injury, but its the same for everyone and the same as it has always been.
Surely he can see what an advantage it would give a larger team with a massive squad. Spurs could bring on 5 of Bale, Lucas, Lo Celso, Alli Lamela, Doherty and Vinicius if they want, all top performers. Compare that to Sheff Utds bench options.
Personally i do not think the bigger clubs can bleat about player welfare as they have massive resources - its their choice to use them properly or not.
Klopp and the 5 sub thing
posted on 18/12/20
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
Teams would be celebrating the win if Spurs brought on Bale and Alli
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess Arsenal voted against it along with their fellow relegation strugglers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure how one man can be so wrong so often as Devonshire is
posted on 18/12/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 hours, 50 minutes ago
No team has a "massive" squad, all squads have the same limits.
Sheffield United had their record signing on the bench, as well as a pretty decent standard of player compared to the ones on the pitch. Considering they had to use a sub after just 12 minutes and then replaced that player chasing the game, I do not see the disadvantage they face over a team like Liverpool having Origi, a couple of inexperienced defenders, and then Keita, Minamino and Ox who have hardly impressed.
Yes, the bigger the club the better players on the bench. But then the players on the bench would only be replacing even better players who started. It is all relative.
Honestly think the likes of Wilder have cut off their nose to spite their face.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on.
posted on 18/12/20
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
Teams would be celebrating the win if Spurs brought on Bale and Alli
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess Arsenal voted against it along with their fellow relegation strugglers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure how one man can be so wrong so often as Devonshire is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You need only look in the mirror, although i wouldnt advise it as youre an ugly M0F0
posted on 18/12/20
The manager and his team have to strategise and play the team according to the game plan, more than three changes removes the risk and will make the game that much less interesting.
-----------------------
Why?? Doesnt make sense.
It would make it more complicated as the game and strategy can be changed 5 times rather than 3
posted on 18/12/20
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 28 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 7 seconds ago
But vs Spurs he made no subs. So where was the player welfare then? Why is he so adamant about 5 subs. Why do you need five when you're not even using one.
----------------------
Because of all the facking injuries, thought that much was clear. FFS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You had a subs bench right? with some players on it?
What about the welfare then, or only when it suits him?
Klopp moaning about this youd think he'd sued 3 subs every game. He hasnt. Spurs haveJose not whinning about this!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's because you had options on your bench due to your lack of injuries. We wanted to win this game and we were dominating so kept things as they were, and it worked.
posted on 18/12/20
comment by Dr Sheldon Cooper (U1217)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 28 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 7 seconds ago
But vs Spurs he made no subs. So where was the player welfare then? Why is he so adamant about 5 subs. Why do you need five when you're not even using one.
----------------------
Because of all the facking injuries, thought that much was clear. FFS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You had a subs bench right? with some players on it?
What about the welfare then, or only when it suits him?
Klopp moaning about this youd think he'd sued 3 subs every game. He hasnt. Spurs haveJose not whinning about this!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's because you had options on your bench due to your lack of injuries. We wanted to win this game and we were dominating so kept things as they were, and it worked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This must be one of sandy's sock accounts.
Nobody else could write so much drivel
posted on 18/12/20
Slightly different question, but why were these "small clubs" happy to extend the number of subs named to 9? Surely that gives the "big clubs with massive squads" more options, while the "smaller clubs" are obviously filling their 9 with the chief steward and tea lady
posted on 18/12/20
Every european league is having five subs, the championship have five subs, and 50% of the premier league want five subs.
There must obviously be a welfare aspect for players in this.
10 premier league clubs think it’s better not to, guarantee most of those 10 are those not playing in europe that hope their fewer games will mean they can play against more jaded opponents and pick up some points.
This also impacts the premier league clubs that are in europe.
Other european leagues will allow their clubs to rest more players before a big european game. Whereas the premier league clubs won’t have this benefit.
Fack wilder and his single point. He’s going to the championship where they have 5 subs.
posted on 19/12/20
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 1 day, 3 hours ago
The manager and his team have to strategise and play the team according to the game plan, more than three changes removes the risk and will make the game that much less interesting.
-----------------------
Why?? Doesnt make sense.
It would make it more complicated as the game and strategy can be changed 5 times rather than 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you do not get that many chances in real life, you cannot keep shifting the goal posts! Professional sports was used as a staging post for war games at one point, and the ability to access and alter tactics is paramount, hell outstanding teaching practice will tell you that the ability to change a lesson mid way through is the difference between needs good and Outstanding.
But how many opportunities do you want? The game will become dire if you can just endlessly switch things up.
And who are we protecting? Players do not need it, they never have in over one hundred years of professional level in this game. Over paid cry babies do not need more protection.
You get three... that’s it! Those are the rules and the rules make the game more interesting. It’s like playing a video game and cheating, might make it more enjoyable for you to play having unlimited ammo but it’s not more satisfying in the end.
posted on 19/12/20
comment by (U21781)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 1 day, 3 hours ago
The manager and his team have to strategise and play the team according to the game plan, more than three changes removes the risk and will make the game that much less interesting.
-----------------------
Why?? Doesnt make sense.
It would make it more complicated as the game and strategy can be changed 5 times rather than 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you do not get that many chances in real life, you cannot keep shifting the goal posts! Professional sports was used as a staging post for war games at one point, and the ability to access and alter tactics is paramount, hell outstanding teaching practice will tell you that the ability to change a lesson mid way through is the difference between needs good and Outstanding.
But how many opportunities do you want? The game will become dire if you can just endlessly switch things up.
And who are we protecting? Players do not need it, they never have in over one hundred years of professional level in this game. Over paid cry babies do not need more protection.
You get three... that’s it! Those are the rules and the rules make the game more interesting. It’s like playing a video game and cheating, might make it more enjoyable for you to play having unlimited ammo but it’s not more satisfying in the end.
----------------------------------------------------------------------