How many subs next season?

[Davefevs]

Hopefully back to 7.  9 was too many, personally I think 7 is too.  I don’t mind if they go 5 from 7 rather than 3 from 7.  The increase to 9 was due to COVID and a more hectic schedule.

What do others think.

[Pezo]

I think the 5 from 7 wasn't bad as long as it sticks to 3 change windows. 

[Lrrr]

Back to 3 subs I'd say, I wouldn't mind a rule for keeping 9 if x amount of spots had to be filled by academy players (add some rule to avoid senior players who came through academy counting) perhaps minimum 2 U23 academy players, gives players a chance to get 1st team mins where possible. If they don't play they should still be able to then drop back in and play for 23's.

[Red Skin]

48 minutes ago, Pezo said:

I think the 5 from 7 wasn't bad as long as it sticks to 3 change windows. 

Agree, though averse to 5 from 9.  Keeps more of the squad feeling in lv d which can be a good thing. 

[havanatopia]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Hopefully back to 7.  9 was too many, personally I think 7 is too.  I don’t mind if they go 5 from 7 rather than 3 from 7.  The increase to 9 was due to COVID and a more hectic schedule.

What do others think.

3, no more of this nonsense.

[Spoons]

3 from 5. Puts teams on a even keel then. Some big squads with big budgets can gain advantage by naming 9 internationals on the bench. 

Also got to be better for players who were sat on bench to play reserve / u23 match rather than sat playing no minutes. 

[Pezo]

2 hours ago, Spoons said:

3 from 5. Puts teams on a even keel then. Some big squads with big budgets can gain advantage by naming 9 internationals on the bench. 

Also got to be better for players who were sat on bench to play reserve / u23 match rather than sat playing no minutes. 

I guess that's where the original logic came from for replacing a couple injuries and maybe a goalkeeper and 5 players should give limited coverage of the pitch.

I guess the concern is that we may now be moving away from just wanting to replace injuries with trying to make the game better/faster through subs. 

[GrahamC]

I’d presume 5 from 7 again.

As has been said above with just 3 opportunities to change, though personally I’d be happy with some extra common sense here, so if a side who had only made 4 subs then suffered a serious injury that stopped the game, at the referee’s discretion they should then be able to make a final sub as the guy is stretchered off.

The rule was introduced to stop the likes of Warnock making the last 5 minutes of a game simply a procession of substitutes, but in my scenario the game has already stopped anyway.

[Carey 6]

I've not seen too much regarding it, but did come across this article. 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/temporary-rule-covid-efl-scrapped-24267218

I think the 5 subs benefited relegated teams the most, I expect Norwich and Watford would've been up there regardless but with 5 subs it made it far too easy.

[SecretSam]

7 from 9 except in a Leap Year or on a day where the date is a prime number, unless the ref had cereal for breakfast. With the exception being made that if the cereal was had with non-dairy milk alternative, whereupon the match should be cancelled and replaced with hopscotch.