That’s why 5 is good it allows the manager to have options. If they prefer to only have 3 they can, 5 they can etc
I was 6 when I went to my first match, the opening game of the 55/56 season. We beat Leeds 2-1. The legendary John Charles was playing for Leeds.
3 subs. The more subs available plays into the hands of wealthier clubs who have more quality available on the bench. An astute manager of a wealthy club can therefore exploit that much more easily.
Why didn't clubs take advantage last season with 5 subs? Or are we saying Valerien is more astute than most of the other managers in the Championship? Yes, I do believe he is
When I first started watching football there were no goalposts only jumpers and we had to clean the dog poo up before the game started. Hang on I’m getting confused was that Oakwell or Locke Park, God I must be getting old!
Three subs means clubs (who are generally skint) don't need such big squads so save money. It means players have to stay fitter knowing they are more likely to play full games then tiring themselves out in a hour knowing they can be one of five replacements.
I used to play with my elder brother and his mates. I was always put in goal because, being 4 years younger than the others, I was, understandably, shorter, and the crossbar was deemed to be as high as the lad in goal could reach, so our goal was smaller than that of our opponents.
Correct mate. 1965 in English football. (I’m old enough to remember n’all) But subs had been brought in. In the 54 World Cup tournament and had been played around a bit prior to that. for me. 3 from 5 is enough providing one is a goalie rather than take the risk.
Conversely, Ian Holloway at Grimsby said at the start of last season that he could run with a smaller squad by using 5 subs. His reasoning was that players would be playing less and less likely to get injured. Hence, he got rid of a load of fringe players