General Premier League Thread 2020-21 - Mod Notes in 1st post. [Updated 17/12/20]

Fitz* · 17-11-2020 08:07PM

Given the number of injuries this season so far, and future injuries that will happen, how many times will the 'nightmare' scenario actually happen that the smaller clubs are trying to avoid?

1-0 up at home to Man City or Liverpool and they bring on 4 fresh attacking players to run at tired defenders? I'm not sure the top clubs are capable of even being in that kind of position this season.

Only 8 games played in the season and we've already seen injuries to Aguero, Jesus, Salah, Mane, Bale, KDB, Pulisic, Havertz, Ziyech, Vardy for example. That's just the attacking players. All those players are playing European games and more susceptible to injuries than the other 15 clubs who are not in Europe. The top 6 or 7 are generally missing an attacking player.

17-11-2020 08:35PM

Fitz* wrote: »

Given the number of injuries this season so far, and future injuries that will happen, how many times will the 'nightmare' scenario actually happen that the smaller clubs are trying to avoid?

1-0 up at home to Man City or Liverpool and they bring on 4 fresh attacking players to run at tired defenders? I'm not sure the top clubs are capable of even being in that kind of position this season.

Only 8 games played in the season and we've already seen injuries to Aguero, Jesus, Salah, Mane, Bale, KDB, Pulisic, Havertz, Ziyech, Vardy for example. That's just the attacking players. All those players are playing European games and more susceptible to injuries than the other 15 clubs who are not in Europe. The top 6 or 7 are generally missing an attacking player.

Not sure how playing loads of games caused half of the players you've mentioned above to contract Covid, bar them obviously doing more travel. Bale and Ziyech arrived injured. The only players you've mentioned there who've actually been injured during this season for more than one game are Aguero, Pulisic and Jesus.

DM_7 · 17-11-2020 09:07PM

Fitz* wrote: »

Given the number of injuries this season so far, and future injuries that will happen, how many times will the 'nightmare' scenario actually happen that the smaller clubs are trying to avoid?

1-0 up at home to Man City or Liverpool and they bring on 4 fresh attacking players to run at tired defenders? I'm not sure the top clubs are capable of even being in that kind of position this season.

Only 8 games played in the season and we've already seen injuries to Aguero, Jesus, Salah, Mane, Bale, KDB, Pulisic, Havertz, Ziyech, Vardy for example. That's just the attacking players. All those players are playing European games and more susceptible to injuries than the other 15 clubs who are not in Europe. The top 6 or 7 are generally missing an attacking player.

It is not about advantage in any single game. It is about perception that it is a change that benefits the stronger sides to a greater degree over the course of a season. I imagine Sheffield United, Leeds or Villa would be asking questions about the true need for 5 subs and are injuries used to help the case for bringing in more subs as it helps some teams more than others.

We already have the example on thread of Villa making one sub v Arsenal. Villa did not see the need to use 3 subs nevermind 5.

Take Trent. If Liverpool had 5 subs to make all season then perhaps Klopp would leave him on the bench more safe in the knowledge he has 5 subs to play with to get him into the game later on. How is that good for say Leeds?

Like Rugby or GAA, teams who have stronger squad depth have a clear advantage and can actually gear players up to play an hour before bringing a fresh player on. They can bring players of comparable high quality in and use the extra subs as part of a gameplan.

TheadoreT · 17-11-2020 09:11PM

Isco to Everton is a horrible signing if it goes through. That sort of player profile, talented but perennial bench dweller with a questionable attitude is never gonna be fired up for a significant step down in level. Might show a bit in short term like James did but hunger shows over a long season and these type of players nearly always taper off.

For the money Everton have they need to be investing in young ambitious players whose trajectory is on the up, not money hungry stars looking to stay on the gravy train for little effort a bit longer.

They'll probably buy Dele Alli next lol.

Fitz* · 17-11-2020 09:22PM

Liam O wrote: »

Not sure how playing loads of games caused half of the players you've mentioned above to contract Covid, bar them obviously doing more travel. Bale and Ziyech arrived injured. The only players you've mentioned there who've actually been injured during this season for more than one game are Aguero, Pulisic and Jesus.

I was just giving examples of the injuries that the top clubs have had in attacking positions so far this season. They don't have to be directly related to muscle injuries. Just that there is actual injuries and attackers are missing from their squads. Attackers are generally the match winners and the main argument of the lower table clubs against bringing in the 5 subs is that it gives the top clubs the ability to bring on world class subs in attacking areas to change a game.

Andros Townsend said as much last week.

“You desperately want 5 subs but don’t even use the 3 you’re given!?” “They want to bring on 5 world class attackers to break down smaller teams!”

5 subs is not for that reason as that scenario he gave is pretty rare. How often is it even possible to make 5 attacking subs. Because of the injuries to attackers this season, the most that can be made is 2 or 3. And even if 3 attackers are changed, it's running the risk over the other areas of the pitch.

The 5 subs is to bring off players who are close to breaking point in terms of muscle fatigue. Top teams will make attacking subs in every game anyways. 1 at least, sometimes 2. The 5 subs won't change that a whole lot IMO. I think we'll see more substitutions in fullback and midfield areas as games play out in the expected manner.

Fitz* · 17-11-2020 09:38PM

DM_7 wrote: »

It is not about advantage in any single game. It is about perception that it is a change that benefits the stronger sides to a greater degree over the course of a season. I imagine Sheffield United, Leeds or Villa would be asking questions about the true need for 5 subs and are injuries used to help the case for bringing in more subs as it helps some teams more than others.

We already have the example on thread of Villa making one sub v Arsenal. Villa did not see the need to use 3 subs nevermind 5.

Take Trent. If Liverpool had 5 subs to make all season then perhaps Klopp would leave him on the bench more safe in the knowledge he has 5 subs to play with to get him into the game later on. How is that good for say Leeds?

Like Rugby or GAA, teams who have stronger squad depth have a clear advantage and can actually gear players up to play an hour before bringing a fresh player on. They can bring players of comparable high quality in and use the extra subs as part of a gameplan.

The perception of advantage is a good one. The example of Arsenal v Aston Villa is the perfect example. Arsenal had 8 games in 24 days. Aston Villa had 4 games in 23 days. I had said that Aston Villa had a clear advantage here as the Arsenal players had double the workload but was shot down because 'Arsenal could rotate' but what is not mentioned here is that Aston Villa had a full week to prepare tactics for the single game, extra days rest etc. The perception is that Arsenal should be sound because they can rest players but is that the full picture?

Arsenal went into training on the Monday to recover from the weekend game, Tuesday & Wednesday they prepare for both the Thursday & Sunday games, maybe get one day each for each game and set out their team line up plans. They maybe even travelled foreign on the Wednesday. Play the game Thursday and maybe travel home. Late Friday have a recovery session and Saturday do one day of preparation work for the game Sunday. Arsenal players might have been tested in terms of game time on the field but they were working all week in terms of game preparation etc.

Aston Villa probably had a recovery day Monday. Tuesday & Wednesday prepare for Sunday game. Clear set game plan worked on for their single game of the week. Thursday maybe a day off or half day or a set pieces day. Friday preparation again for Sunday, another half day Saturday.

That's a massive difference there. And I know that there are European games every season but every season there is 1 European game every 2 weeks. For the same 8 games last season (the period of 3 European group stage games and the league games before and after the international breaks) took 43 days. 8 games in 43 days so the teams could rotate aptly but also have strong sides out.

This season the group stages are condensed into 3 weeks back to back and this game was the 8th of 8 games in 24 days. That's a big increase in terms of potential for burnout.

That's a massive difference for the top teams and burnout is going to happen. Aston Villa could rest up for that game and hit Arsenal on the counter at speed due to their higher energy levels. Villa didn't need to make 3 subs. They are playing 1 game a week! Let's see how the smaller teams cope with 3 games a week for the same period.

If there is 5 subs, I think teams would use them more. People lose to use the Man City - Liverpool game as an example of clubs not using their subs. Liverpool already had one enforced injury substitute in that game. What happens if Klopp makes a sub a minute later (let's say Keita for Gini) and has all 3 subs made on 65 minutes. Next thing on 70 mins, another player gets injured and all of a sudden it's 11v10 for 20 mins away to Man City. There is a reason why managers hold back a sub to keep in those type of games where there is a lot at stake. If Liverpool were losing or winning, he probably uses the 3rd sub.

Klopp has actually used the maximum number of subs in nearly game this season.

DM_7 · 17-11-2020 10:17PM

Fitz* wrote: »

The perception of advantage is a good one. The example of Arsenal v Aston Villa is the perfect example. Arsenal had 8 games in 24 days. Aston Villa had 4 games in 23 days. I had said that Aston Villa had a clear advantage here as the Arsenal players had double the workload but was shot down because 'Arsenal could rotate' but what is not mentioned here is that Aston Villa had a full week to prepare tactics for the single game, extra days rest etc. The perception is that Arsenal should be sound because they can rest players but is that the full picture?

Arsenal went into training on the Monday to recover from the weekend game, Tuesday & Wednesday they prepare for both the Thursday & Sunday games, maybe get one day each for each game and set out their team line up plans. They maybe even travelled foreign on the Wednesday. Play the game Thursday and maybe travel home. Late Friday have a recovery session and Saturday do one day of preparation work for the game Sunday. Arsenal players might have been tested in terms of game time on the field but they were working all week in terms of game preparation etc.

Aston Villa probably had a recovery day Monday. Tuesday & Wednesday prepare for Sunday game. Clear set game plan worked on for their single game of the week. Thursday maybe a day off or half day or a set pieces day. Friday preparation again for Sunday, another half day Saturday.

That's a massive difference there. And I know that there are European games every season but every season there is 1 European game every 2 weeks. For the same 8 games last season (the period of 3 European group stage games and the league games before and after the international breaks) took 43 days. 8 games in 43 days so the teams could rotate aptly but also have strong sides out.

This season the group stages are condensed into 3 weeks back to back and this game was the 8th of 8 games in 24 days.

That's a massive difference for the top teams and burnout is going to happen. Aston Villa could rest up for that game and hit Arsenal on the counter at speed due to their higher energy levels. Villa didn't need to make 3 subs. They are playing 1 game a week! Let's see how the smaller teams cope with 3 games a week for the same period.

In match day one of the Europa League Arsenal played Rapid Vienna. Arsenal went a goal down before winning 2-1. Guess which team made 5 subs and which only made 3? Arsenal were able to swap 4 attackers and replace Cedric at right back with Bellerin. I don't see why non euro qualified teams would want to invite similar opportunities.

In the recent games, Arsenal changed 9 players v Molde from the one that played United.They then swapped them all back in v Villa. Two players played all 3 games, one was the keeper. Before that, one player who started v United started v Dundalk.

Aston Villa do not care how many games Arsenal have to play. They could rightfully have the view that squads who can rotate more should do so and it is not on Villa to make those choices easier (about when to rest players).

Arsenal have played 3 competitive games more than Villa this season and Villa started a week later (4 if we count the community shield). We already saw the level of changes Arsenal could make to heavily negate the impact of extra games (the extra games being Europe where 5 subs are allowed).

I don't think clubs like Villa, Leeds, Palace, Sheffield United, WBA or other non European Qualified teams are feeling sorry for teams like City, United, Chelsea or Liverpool when those sides clearly have great squad depth. I don't see a reason they necessarily need to vote for extra subs unless they feel it benefits them.

I am not arguing against the idea of possible or actual burnout. I am saying the majority of the premier league may not want to help those European Qualified teams if it mainly benefits them and helps them most.

Agent Coulson · 18-11-2020 03:38AM

Forget the 5 sub rule I just looked at my FF team and 7 of my team are out injured or with COVID.

FF is going to have to add a dozen more wildcards for players to use.

fyfe79 · 18-11-2020 07:57AM

DM_7 wrote: »

In match day one of the Europa League Arsenal played Rapid Vienna. Arsenal went a goal down before winning 2-1. Guess which team made 5 subs and which only made 3? Arsenal were able to swap 4 attackers and replace Cedric at right back with Bellerin. I don't see why non euro qualified teams would want to invite similar opportunities.

In the recent games, Arsenal changed 9 players v Molde from the one that played United.They then swapped them all back in v Villa. Two players played all 3 games, one was the keeper. Before that, one player who started v United started v Dundalk.

Aston Villa do not care how many games Arsenal have to play. They could rightfully have the view that squads who can rotate more should do so and it is not on Villa to make those choices easier (about when to rest players).

Arsenal have played 3 competitive games more than Villa this season and Villa started a week later (4 if we count the community shield). We already saw the level of changes Arsenal could make to heavily negate the impact of extra games (the extra games being Europe where 5 subs are allowed).

I don't think clubs like Villa, Leeds, Palace, Sheffield United, WBA or other non European Qualified teams are feeling sorry for teams like City, United, Chelsea or Liverpool when those sides clearly have great squad depth. I don't see a reason they necessarily need to vote for extra subs unless they feel it benefits them.

I am not arguing against the idea of possible or actual burnout. I am saying the majority of the premier league may not want to help those European Qualified teams if it mainly benefits them and helps them most.

The highlighted bit is true but I bet the smaller PL clubs just love all the money that's rolling into their clubs, mainly because of the bigger clubs attracting the punters and the riches that go with that which filters to every team in the league! Ultimately, if the bigger clubs consistently end up fielding weaker teams, or offer an inferior brand of "entertainment" (see 2nd half of Man City vs Liverpool), due to chronic fatigue thoughout their squads then the overall game suffers. In the end, the smaller clubs will suffer where it hurts too, as the money starts to dwindle.

DM_7 · 18-11-2020 08:33AM

fyfe79 wrote: »

The highlighted bit is true but I bet the smaller PL clubs just love all the money that's rolling into their clubs, mainly because of the bigger clubs attracting the punters and the riches that go with that which filters to every team in the league! Ultimately, if the bigger clubs consistently end up fielding weaker teams, or offer an inferior brand of "entertainment" (see 2nd half of Man City vs Liverpool), due to chronic fatigue thoughout their squads then the overall game suffers. In the end, the smaller clubs will suffer where it hurts too, as the money starts to dwindle.

That is not going to happen based on a short term 5 sub option.

In all the years Liverpool were not at the top of the league or in the years where United have struggled since SAF left, the money kept growing year on year from TV.

This season has been great for entertainment so far. The second half of City v Liverpool is no unlike games such clubs had before imo.

8-10 · 18-11-2020 08:35AM

4 subs should have been a palatable compromise

CSF · 18-11-2020 08:48AM

8-10 wrote: »

4 subs should have been a palatable compromise

I’ve still no idea why smaller clubs would vote for any of these changes.

The big clubs will be talking about European breakaway leagues etc trying to flex their muscles, but if those materialise anyway, the big clubs aren’t gonna turn those down on the basis that the smaller clubs helped them with the 5 subs.

18-11-2020 09:11AM

Arsenal have quite literally fielded a different team for their Europa League games, I wouldn't be feeling sorry for them.

Fitz* · 18-11-2020 09:22AM

AdamD wrote: »

Arsenal have quite literally fielded a different team for their Europa League games, I wouldn't be feeling sorry for them.

Do you feel sorry for the players who are getting injured as a direct result of having to play a higher number of games in a shorter timeframe.

plibige · 18-11-2020 09:24AM

I hate the idea but think it will happen at some stage this season.

It does throw the smaller squads under the bus, liverpool are down 0-1 to Brighton and can now change half their outfield players to fix it, seems a bit much to me.

In saying that with how paper thin Liverpools squad is right now I doubt it would make much of a difference to us!

I suppose my biggest fear is something like this that is brought in as a necessity becomes part of the norm because it suits enough. And I never want to 5 subs be the norm

CSF · 18-11-2020 09:25AM

Fitz* wrote: »

Do you feel sorry for the players who are getting injured as a direct result of having to play a higher number of games in a shorter timeframe.

Yes, the clubs should rotate to look after their well-being.

Fitz* · 18-11-2020 09:26AM

I wonder how much opposition there was when the subs bench was increased from 5 to 7 players a good few years ago in the PL?

And how much opposition there was in every other European league that has this 5 subs rule?

Fitz* · 18-11-2020 09:40AM

CSF wrote: »

Yes, the clubs should rotate to look after their well-being.

Maybe that's possible in the Europa Leaue group stage where the standard is low, but it's a lot easier said that done when playing in the Champions League where the standard is higher.

It's also a lot harder to 'just rotate more' when clubs are blighted by injuries in the same area on the field.

There is a reason why TAA had to play every game for Liverpool in the last run of games, as Liverpool had so many other injuries in defence. Similarly, there is a reason why Luke Shaw had to play all the Man Utd games as Telles was out with COVID. Both suffered muscle injuries in their last club games because they were playing every game.

There's a lot more to it than just saying 'rotate more'.

DM_7 · 18-11-2020 09:45AM

CSF wrote: »

Yes, the clubs should rotate to look after their well-being.

I think the authorities have failed the players overall with Internationals, the domestic and euro schedule. I think 5 subs would help.

But as you say, if a Man Utd feel players need a rest then they should play Van de Beek instead of Bruno or play Williams instead of Shaw.

Liverpool can use Jota, Shaqiri, Origi or Minamino instead of Mane.

CSF · 18-11-2020 10:06AM

Fitz* wrote: »

Maybe that's possible in the Europa Leaue group stage where the standard is low, but it's a lot easier said that done when playing in the Champions League where the standard is higher.

It's also a lot harder to 'just rotate more' when clubs are blighted by injuries in the same area on the field.

There is a reason why TAA had to play every game for Liverpool in the last run of games, as Liverpool had so many other injuries in defence. Similarly, there is a reason why Luke Shaw had to play all the Man Utd games as Telles was out with COVID. Both suffered muscle injuries in their last club games because they were playing every game.

There's a lot more to it than just saying 'rotate more'.

I mean, doing so would be creating a disadvantage for themselves. In the same way that signing up for rules that don’t benefit them at all would be a case of many non-European clubs creating a disadvantage for themselves.

I see no reason why Aston Villa or Burnley or Southampton should care an iota about what the top 4 clubs or Southgate think about the 5 subs rule.

citytillidie · 18-11-2020 10:15AM

Pundits are calling it an unfair advantage for the big teams, come the summer they will be complaining about a poor Euros if it goes ahead as all the players at it from the PL will have been flogged to death.

Fitz* · 18-11-2020 10:17AM

CSF wrote: »

I mean, doing so would be creating a disadvantage for themselves. In the same way that signing up for rules that don’t benefit them at all would be a case of many non-European clubs creating a disadvantage for themselves.

I see no reason why Aston Villa or Burnley or Southampton should care an iota about what the top 4 clubs or Southgate think about the 5 subs rule.

And ether did West Ham, who quickly changed their tune.

FWIW, when 5 subs were available, Villa made on average 3.6 subs per game, and used 4 or more subs 8 times in 11 games.

CSF · 18-11-2020 10:19AM

Fitz* wrote: »

And ether did West Ham, who quickly changed their tune.

FWIW, when 5 subs were available, Villa made on average 3.6 subs per game, and used 4 or more subs 8 times in 11 games.

If teams want to change their tune, they are fine to do so. I’m just questioning why many of them would be motivated to do so.

8-10 · 18-11-2020 10:24AM

CSF wrote: »

If teams want to change their tune, they are fine to do so. I’m just questioning why many of them would be motivated to do so.

Player welfare

All PL teams have the same squad size. People pretend like lower half teams don't have internationals regularly sitting on their bench

Esse85 · 18-11-2020 10:34AM

8-10 wrote: »

Player welfare

All PL teams have the same squad size. People pretend like lower half teams don't have internationals regularly sitting on their bench

Yeah but internationals from 3rd and 4th tier countries. Let's not define an international to be of a certain standard.

A starter for Belgium is an international the same way a squad player for Moldova is.

CSF · 18-11-2020 10:39AM

8-10 wrote: »

Player welfare

All PL teams have the same squad size. People pretend like lower half teams don't have internationals regularly sitting on their bench

Why do those clubs need 5 subs? They play once a week. The other clubs can look after their own player welfare by managing minutes. If they don’t want to do that, it’s them that are failing player welfare, not the smaller clubs.

8-10 · 18-11-2020 10:49AM

CSF wrote: »

Why do those clubs need 5 subs?

I'm not saying they need them but I think the pros outweigh the cons even for smaller clubs

CSF · 18-11-2020 10:50AM

8-10 wrote: »

I'm not saying they need them but I think the pros outweigh the cons even for smaller clubs

What are the pros for the smaller clubs? Player welfare is not at risk for these clubs.

8-10 · 18-11-2020 10:53AM

Esse85 wrote: »

Yeah but internationals from 3rd and 4th tier countries. Let's not define an international to be of a certain standard.

A starter for Belgium is an international the same way a squad player for Moldova is.

The player from Moldova has further to travel for games most likely.

There's been 6 games in 2 international breaks so far this season. That's a lot of travel and during a pandemic the virus doesn't care if you're a starter or a bench player you're still more at risk than staying home and we've seen plenty of cases from smaller clubs when you look at the Irish squad alone

8-10 · 18-11-2020 10:54AM

CSF wrote: »

What are the pros for the smaller clubs? Player welfare is not at risk for these clubs.

Of course it is!

General Premier League Thread 2020-21 - Mod Notes in 1st post. [Updated 17/12/20]

Comments