Disappointed to see this being introduced. The big clubs at the top of the prem whose benches are full of players that would be starting in many smaller clubs will just get stronger.

Agree although Pep didn’t use any at Selhurst.
This is another example of giving the bigger clubs an advantage.

See TAA back-in training having not been fit enough to join up with England

On the face of it it would appear to favour clubs that can fill its bench with better players . However

Playing high tempo high pressing is becoming the norm for a lot of teams including ours and from a spectators standpoint an all action 90 minutes bringing on fresh legs has got to be good for us .

Also gives more players game time which must help squad moral and dont forget when we are regually playing twice a week being able to rest and rotate players will be a big help .

Its the way the game has been going for some years ,the faster it gets the more players that are needed over the course of the game . Its not going to change much as far as our chances go

And we still need a striker

Time will tell if it gives clubs with bigger, stronger squads an advantage. My gut instinct is that the big clubs will only make 5 subs once they're in cruise control, thus making the move pretty redundant. Most smaller clubs will probably lack the quality on the bench to risk making five changes, but it might give the youth players a bit more hope of game time. I also think most teams will still make most of their changes after the 70th minute and we'll probably see a lot of time wasting (even though I presume it'll be restricted to three occasions where subs can be made?)

The big clubs could field two teams capable of challenging for honours, so if they really wanted to they could field a different team every game so their complaining falls on deaf ears. From a spectator's point of view I actually think this is a bad move. I've never seen a game where more subs has improved the action, with it usually resulting in the game losing its rhythm (plus we are unlikely to have five better options on the bench).

If the football bodies are really concerned about player welfare I do think there are better options open to them. For example, there could be a minimum rest period between games imposed of say 4 days. There could also be a limit on the number of games a player is allowed to play within any given month (including domestic, European and international games). If a player is injured in a game and requires treatment then a club could be allowed to put on a temporary sub until the physio gives a green light for the player to return.

But let's not pretend this isn't just the authorities bending to the complaints of the big clubs. Within a few years I reckon they'll push to have the PL reduced to 18 teams and they'll probably get their way.

Edited by taylors lovechild (01 Apr 2022 9.17am)

It provides the bigger clubs that extra flexibility to make late changes, ( beyond the normal 3 subs) it gives them an extra "get out of jail free" card on those rare occasions when something unforeseen happens.

That would be annoying though having 5 separate subs in the last 10 mins when losing 1 nil and trying to build some momentum.

I have been against the 5 subs rule as it favours the better equipped teams but hopefully it doesn’t alter too much