Should All Sports Having Rolling Subs

[GB72]

Just a thought, and not one I am sure that I agree with but should all sports have rolling subs rather than permanent changes.

The stresses on the body, and in particular the head, are becoming greater and greater in professional sport and so is there any argument for all sports to have rolling substitutions to reduce the stresses and strains on players. After all, how many times have you seen a player struggling through an injury to keep a full quota on the pitch and potentially causing further damage because all of the subs have been used up. It would also potentially allow more emerging talent on the pitch as subbing them on or starting with them would not be a disadvantage if it shows that they are not quite ready.

Could it even allow for a better spectacle as tactical changes can be made on the fly and then changed as necessary.

As I said, not sure I agree with it but thought it an interesting topic.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

They introduced it in hockey at the end of my playing days and it worked very well. I would have no problem with it. As long as the total number of subs is limited still there is no reason not to do it.

 

[GB72]

They introduced it in hockey at the end of my playing days and it worked very well. I would have no problem with it. As long as the total number of subs is limited still there is no reason not to do it.

Was thinking a set number of players on the sideline who could sub on and off as often as was needed. Seeing as most rugby teams change half the players on 60 minutes, I cannot see the harm in it. It would also get rid of this trying to run off an injury. Get the player off, get them looked at and treated and if they are OK, get them back on again rather than risk making it worse or playing through the pain.

 

[Orikoru]

In football that would be absolutely awful. Picture every relegation-battling team starting the game in 6-3-1 formation, then if they eventually go behind, take two defenders off for two forwards. Nick an equaliser then make the same subs in reverse and go 6-3-1 again. It would be terrible.

 

[Papas1982]

In football that would be absolutely awful. Picture every relegation-battling team starting the game in 6-3-1 formation, then if the eventually go behind, take two defenders off for two forwards. Nick an equaliser then make the same subs in reverse and go 6-3-1 again. It would be terrible.

Or every top team rotating their strikers every 20 mins knowing the drop off in quality of the oppositions defenders would mean they'd soon gain advantage.....

 

[Hobbit]

I'd vote yes but up to a limit and for someone who has been taken off not to return.

With regards to the argument for concussion subs. Take them off and keep them off. No are they ok to continue. Head injury, you're off pal.

From personal experience, I got knocked out playing rugby in the late 70's. Came round after a few minutes then carried on only to keel over 20 mins later. It was before the mandatory 6 weeks out following a knockout. I played the following Saturday, and keeled over on the Sunday. 10 days in intensive care and 2 years to recover.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

I'd keep the 3 tactical subs but have medical subs. If injured another sub is allowed

However u just know teams would abuse it

 

[Orikoru]

I'd keep the 3 tactical subs but have medical subs. If injured another sub is allowed

However u just know teams would abuse it

Yeah, it's hard to police it, I think the only way you could have an additional sub for concussion is to have an independent doctor at every game (not linked to either club) to do the examination. If the doc says they're concussed, then the team gets an additional sub.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

In football that would be absolutely awful. Picture every relegation-battling team starting the game in 6-3-1 formation, then if they eventually go behind, take two defenders off for two forwards. Nick an equaliser then make the same subs in reverse and go 6-3-1 again. It would be terrible.

Or every top team rotating their strikers every 20 mins knowing the drop off in quality of the oppositions defenders would mean they'd soon gain advantage.....

I can only go off my own experience but this did not happen. People expected all sorts of armageddon scenarios but none of them took place. You would get the odd extreme but things soon settled down.

Take two defenders off for two attackers, what is stopping the opposition from walking through them at that point? I'd be very happy if a team wanted to go that top heavy, it leaves them lightweight at the back.

Papas obviously you can keep strikers fresh but they may not get the pace of the game, they may not get on the same wavelength as the midfielders etc if they only come on for bursts. Equally, the opposition can bring on fresh defenders to counter if they wish. Many strikers wont want to come on for short bursts as their muscles would stiffen up, they would ping constantly. Michael Owen would have spent even more time in the treatment room .

I think you would be surprised about how little would change in practice.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Hockey use the rolling subs but I think the way the game is played is significantly different to the way football is played to make rolling subs not work as well in football - it also doesn’t need the game to be stopped to allow a rolling sub to be made in hockey

I think what needs to happen is a “concussion” sub is used and that doesn’t count towards the three allowed subs - and as Hobbit has already said - potential concussion you are off and that’s it

 

[Orikoru]

I can only go off my own experience but this did not happen. People expected all sorts of armageddon scenarios but none of them took place. You would get the odd extreme but things soon settled down.

You were talking about hockey though? Being a totally different game I think it's hard to compare.

Take two defenders off for two attackers, what is stopping the opposition from walking through them at that point? I'd be very happy if a team wanted to go that top heavy, it leaves them lightweight at the back.

In my example that would have taken them from 6-3-1 to 4-3-3 which is a conventional formation. It was more a case of parking the bus by being able to bring on extra defenders whenever you need to.

Papas obviously you can keep strikers fresh but they may not get the pace of the game, they may not get on the same wavelength as the midfielders etc if they only come on for bursts. Equally, the opposition can bring on fresh defenders to counter if they wish. Many strikers wont want to come on for short bursts as their muscles would stiffen up, they would ping constantly. Michael Owen would have spent even more time in the treatment room .

I think you would be surprised about how little would change in practice.

But again, I think you would see a vast amount of subs because there is no risk involved. As it stands managers can throw a striker on, but know that if they do equalise they may have to play players out of position to see it out, so they'll often delay the sub until 10 or 15 minutes to go. If it's rolling subs they can chuck the striker on whenever they like, and just take him off again once they score. I think an element of tactical decision-making is lost.

 

[Papas1982]

I can only go off my own experience but this did not happen. People expected all sorts of armageddon scenarios but none of them took place. You would get the odd extreme but things soon settled down.

Take two defenders off for two attackers, what is stopping the opposition from walking through them at that point? I'd be very happy if a team wanted to go that top heavy, it leaves them lightweight at the back.

Papas obviously you can keep strikers fresh but they may not get the pace of the game, they may not get on the same wavelength as the midfielders etc if they only come on for bursts. Equally, the opposition can bring on fresh defenders to counter if they wish. Many strikers wont want to come on for short bursts as their muscles would stiffen up, they would ping constantly. Michael Owen would have spent even more time in the treatment room .

I think you would be surprised about how little would change in practice.

I'd have thought the disparity between squads isn't as significant as it would be between city and saints for example. Our 1st choice cb's couldn't cope with their 5th attackers. Subs wouldn't help us lol

 

[SteveW86]

Maybe they could introduce this to take the talking points away from VAR

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I'd have thought the disparity between squads isn't as significant as it would be between city and saints for example. Our 1st choice cb's couldn't cope with their 5th attackers. Subs wouldn't help us lol

I doubt there is a league in any sport that doesn't have a disparity somewhere along the line. Better players are attracted to winning teams, whether at pro or amateur level. Perhaps the differences would be exaggerated more, maybe not.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

You were talking about hockey though? Being a totally different game I think it's hard to compare.


In my example that would have taken them from 6-3-1 to 4-3-3 which is a conventional formation. It was more a case of parking the bus by being able to bring on extra defenders whenever you need to.


But again, I think you would see a vast amount of subs because there is no risk involved. As it stands managers can throw a striker on, but know that if they do equalise they may have to play players out of position to see it out, so they'll often delay the sub until 10 or 15 minutes to go. If it's rolling subs they can chuck the striker on whenever they like, and just take him off again once they score. I think an element of tactical decision-making is lost.

11 v 11, 10 outfield players, 1 goal keeper, 1 ball, put it in the opposition net. More similarities than not.

All of the formation issues you mention happen in hockey, they even scrapped offside and it works really well, but they did not turn the game upside down. If you roll on a load of defenders they would just get in each others way, the ball would keep coming back at you, there would be no release from pressure.

I'm not saying it is perfect and there would be wrinkles to iron out but it is feasible. You just need to modern up and get with the times .

The next step in reality is as per LP, the use of a concussion sub. I'm sure that can not be far away.

 

[Papas1982]

11 v 11, 10 outfield players, 1 goal keeper, 1 ball, put it in the opposition net. More similarities than not.

All of the formation issues you mention happen in hockey, they even scrapped offside and it works really well, but they did not turn the game upside down. If you roll on a load of defenders they would just get in each others way, the ball would keep coming back at you, there would be no release from pressure.

I'm not saying it is perfect and there would be wrinkles to iron out but it is feasible. You just need to modern up and get with the times .

The next step in reality is as per LP, the use of a concussion sub. I'm sure that can not be far away.

I quite simply meant the difference between top and bottom clubs would be more vast, in the pl certainly. I can't claim to watch a lot of hockey, but i'd be amazed if the was a such a difference.

I agree fully about a concussion sub.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I quite simply meant the difference between top and bottom clubs would be more vast, in the pl certainly. I can't claim to watch a lot of hockey, but i'd be amazed if the was a such a difference.

I agree fully about a concussion sub.

I couldn't tell you to be honest but even during my time, sadly a few years ago now, there would be a gap. Perhaps think in rugby terms, the difference between a Saracens and a Worcester. The sums of money may not be as large as in football but in relative terms the difference is still marked. There are always haves and have nots.

 

[Foxholer]

I'd vote yes but up to a limit and for someone who has been taken off not to return.

With regards to the argument for concussion subs. Take them off and keep them off. No are they ok to continue. Head injury, you're off pal.

From personal experience, I got knocked out playing rugby in the late 70's. Came round after a few minutes then carried on only to keel over 20 mins later. It was before the mandatory 6 weeks out following a knockout. I played the following Saturday, and keeled over on the Sunday. 10 days in intensive care and 2 years to recover.

Explains a lot since!

On a 'proper' note....I totally agree - with appropriate post-trauma checks! No difference between what happens in Boxing and any other head injury!

 

[Vikingman]

Major downside of this to me is you are removing the fitness element from the sport.