Certainly in the age stakes there isn’t a lot between us and Watford.
One big difference no matter how poor the recruitment might be is ,there has been trust between the board and its manager . And although it’s off thread a bit to say so here that is the only thing that floats Palace right now.
The last nine matches played at virtually two a week has exhausted nearly all of the smaller squads, the older ones most of all.
I felt Watford would survive, given normal circumstances, but the old legs did go.

Or knew Dawson was one of the biggest thugs in football. Sorry but that is true... watch the assault on Speroni which went unpunished by that t**t Clatternburg

I think back to 3 subs but keep the drinks break.
Seems to work well having a break imo.

I hope so. If they want to keep the Premier remotely competitive ,it has to remain at three. It already has some benefits for the bigger clubs. When you consider we only had subs, to stop teams playing ten men because of injury. Fair enough that’s an improvement.
Three can become a tactical advantage, surely five would only be a further tactical measure to suit the clubs with big pockets,

Five subs should be kept because it enables the smaller clubs to improve their squads with actual game experience, the big clubs can do what they like on the pitch anyway.

That's actually not a bad idea. A goalkeeper is almost never subbed off for anything but an injury so it makes sense to keep the playing field level by always making sure a team has one. In fact the last time I remember seeing a tactical sub the goalkeeper refused to leave the pitch. I forget who it was... might have been De Gea?

Success will lie to you but failure always tells you the truth.