No, but yes
Twelve clubs with a squad and a pitch, 11 men each on the day with three subs max, play spread over three quarters of a year, a bunch of refs and a rule book,,viola anything can happen, and usually does.
The basics of our pastime, we are so very used to, we enjoy it so much we annually long for the cycle to begin again.
The season started that way, and now at the halfway stage it’s tinker time.
Changing the rules halfway through is so very unsporting,
It’s very Scottish football.
5 subs it is then from any of the nine available, the matchday squad now up to a whopping twenty players. Twenty players!
There’s often fewer available once injuries kick in at our giant with it’s B team needing numbers also, obviously the same scenario across the city.
I can imagine smaller clubs simply making up the extra numbers with youth which might sound great for a kid to be in the matchday squad however a bench is no substitute for the lower level football where he could be playing and learning his trade.
Earning a first team spot has been diluted, literally. Knowing stories of Chairmen, he probably won’t get a bonus for making the matchday squad, sorry son news rules and all that.
Covid is of course at the heart of the issue, but please forgive me for being sceptical. More players offer more options.
More options means more chance you can influence the game in your favour.
No manager would turn that down, but then some clubs did.
It’s also very Scottish football to be split on the issue, quarter against as a matter of fact. A small voting block now established, and I think we all know who’s the leader of the pack. This kinda pours scorn on the Covid rationale, and helps me believe finishing positions was the main driver in this vote.
It’s really not important though, what’s done is done, it’s five subs from here on.
I’ll state for the record I’m surprised such an important decision did not require a unanimous vote,,changing rules mid season is no small matter.
So based on principle, the silly numbers of extra players now added, the prospect of stoppages then added time getting ridiculous, throw in a dollop of tradition and I must say no, I don’t agree and would not have voted for this change.
When you give it some thought, there are possible benefits from a Celtic perspective.
Ange wanted it, more strings to his bow of course he did. Livingston would much prefer only three fresh problems to nullify, Ange has five ways to change that game now.
Why would our title rivals vote against the measure when they also gain an extra two options for victory? To hurt others via less options for victory against them or ,, well it can’t be sporting integrity so what’s the alternative? Traditionalists? It’s an option and Lord knows they love repeating history, but there was no statement to deliver that viewpoint to their support so I must discount it.
Let’s face it, we do have options now. Our match day twenty (Jock used to look at 12 men 11 plus a sub now it’s almost double, he would be incredulous) is the finest in the land, we can fill ‘all’ those seats in the dugout (are there enough for this malarkey?) more than likely without dipping into the youth but with true first team ready players.
Easing a player into the side just became a lot easier, many a man would have gotten a run out only all three substitutes had been made. Now the manager can actually plan to give a final fifteen to Big Jules for three games in a row before contemplating a half.
Now Kyogo can win us the game and sit back, literally.
The extra two replacements offer many different options, so it’s understandable teams top and bottom envisage a benefit, not a muddle of too many bodies.
I can’t refute the fact that witnessing 16 players represents better value than witnessing 14, there’s two extra opportunities for a new hero to emerge, and the viewer has a higher chance of witnessing an impact from the bench later in the game to help stretch the excitement, so there are a few benefits.
For once I shall sympathize with the nations sportswriters who face the prospect of rating 32 players out of ten, but then again they’ve another four possible post match interviews available.
As far as I know the hacks aren’t coming down on this decision, therefore they are backing it. I wonder why?
Realized GVB needs as many chances as possible to win? Sounds about right to me.
So okay it’s a Yes then also.
My final words on the subject, the kitman better get a pay raise.