It's no longer about five substitutions: The 'five sub' rule is merely a proxy argument for Premier League clubs
For two years the big and small clubs in the Premier League have been arguing about the five substitution rule. The argument is no longer about an advantage, it's about power.
Last week Jurgen Klopp reignited the five substitution conversation as his squad dealt with a hectic festive period fixture list made all the more complicated by the recent surge in COVID 19 cases.
Following the COVID-19 forced pause in 2020, the IFAB temporarily allowed teams to make five substitutions in a match instead of three as a means to protect players from the onslaught of football matches they were about to play over the next few months. The rule has since become permanent.
The Premier League approved the change for Project Restart but quickly reverted back to three substitutions for the start of the 2020-21 season. They are the only major league in Europe (along with the rest of the EFL) who has not fully adopted the five substitution rule.
Since the start of last season this rule has come under fire several times, this just being the latest one. The big boys - Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Chelsea etc - want five subs. They’re looking to protect their players who play far too many games. There’s 38 Premier League fixtures, then Champions League and Europa League matches along with two domestic cups. Then there’s the international breaks where players typically play another two games in 10 days, only now because of COVID they’re sometimes playing three matches in that 10 day period. There’s also a new international break in January that’s been added to the calendar.
That’s a lot of football.
The smaller clubs are against the rule because they feel it largely benefits the big clubs. They have bigger squads, and more players to call upon. They’re going to poach their players as they can offer more appearances to a larger number of players. They’re going to be fresher which creates a competitive disadvantage.
Those are all the “official” reasons and guess what my friends?
This is all bullshit.
Let’s start by saying this. There is no question that the players are playing too much football and objectively speaking, the five sub rule is undoubtedly better for players.
But this isn’t actually about the five sub rule. At this point there’s more than enough evidence to show that from a competitive standpoint, the five sub rule wouldn’t make a difference at all.
First of all, the big clubs aren’t going to start poaching players from smaller clubs just to sit on the bench. Besides Jack Grealish1, when was the last time a top six club signed a player from a mid/bottom half Premier League2 club and just left him on the bench? Victor Moses? Fabian Delph?
The perceived fear of the little clubs is if they’re playing against one of the top clubs and it’s level late - or the smaller club has the lead - the big club will just be able to bring on more players who can swing the tide the other way. This simply isn’t true because most teams just don’t have five game changers sitting on the bench. I know Ole Gunnar Solskjaer came under fire for not using his subs last year in the Europa League final but who was he going to bring on? Donny van de Beek had barely made an impact all season, Juan Mata wasn’t going to swing that match. Four of the players were defenders3 and this was a club with a big squad!
This is true for many clubs. Divock Origi has come up with big goals for Liverpool but he’s not exactly a name that strikes fear in you when you see him warming up. He’s one of Liverpool’s best options off the bench!
Then there’s the managers pushing for the rule change. Your Pep’s, Tuchel’s, Rangnick’s and even David Moyes. How much will a rule change benefit you if you’re not going to use it?
I’ll give Jurgen Klopp credit. He rotates his team fairly well and pretty much always makes all three of his changes. He’s been advocating for player safety and less football ever since he took over at Liverpool and he genuinely means it. Leave him out of this.
Last season I tracked the substitution times and patterns for each of the managers of the top six clubs as well as Brendan Rodgers at Leicester and Carlo Ancelotti at Everton. I tracked the numbers in 2019-20 as well and have once again been keeping track of it this season.
As we noted last year. Managers are much more brazen and risky when they’re already behind as the worst thing that can happen to you when you’re already losing is you still lose. However, when things were level managers often only made two changes, usually holding the third one until the final minutes of the match to make their third change - which was a typically a defensive substitution. The message was clear, it was more important to preserve the point they had than push for two more and end up with none.
This season the data is…. more of the same!
The average time of the third substitution when scores are level is later than the average time of the third substitution when teams are winning. This is despite teams often making very late subs when they’re ahead as a means of time wasting. This season only Manchester City have a later average time for their third sub when winning as opposed to when things are level - albeit they’ve only draw two matches and in one of those Pep only used one sub.
The truth is, the majority of the time managers feel they have their best players on the pitch.
Of the 154 unique4 matches so far in this season’s sample5 27 times (17.53%) the third substitution hasn’t even been used. Granted, nine of those 27 have come from Manchester City who twice this season haven’t made any subs at all! Six of the 31 matches that ended in a draw didn’t see their manager make a third sub - that’s about one in every five games. About one in six that ended in a loss didn’t see the manager make all three changes.
How much will this rule help if managers aren’t going to use it? And what of the managers who claim they need it?
Let’s start with Pep. Pep is an advocate for five subs and it would seem to make sense why. City are the only team that truly do boast several game changers on their bench and yet - they’re rarely used. Pep typically comes into a match with a plan and selects his players based on that plan. The ones on the bench may not fit his plan and he often doesn’t want to change it. We saw this last year when Manchester United beat City 2-0 at the Ethiad. Despite being down 2-0 and boasting loads of talent on the bench Pep only made two subs that day - one of which was a like for like change at right back. Having the ability to make five changes likely wouldn’t have changed anything.
As I mentioned before, nine times this season (out of 21 games) Pep hasn’t used his third sub. This is partly due to his planning and rotation. I have De Bruyne on the bench today and he’s going to play on Wednesday while Raheem Sterling isn’t, what would be the point of bringing him on for 25 minutes now? Better for him to be fully rested in the next match and Sterling can rest them etc.
That’s all well and good but if you’re rotations are that meticulously planned what do you need extra subs for? Last week over the three festive period matches Pep made a grand total of two substitutions.
On Boxing Day City had a comfortable 4-0 lead over Leicester City at halftime. Leicester did manage to make it 5-3 at one point but they never really threatened and lost 6-3. City had four academy players on the bench that day (along with £100m man Jack Grealish). With another match in three days it would have been a great time to give some academy players 25 minutes so the first teamers could rest. The only academy player who came off the bench that day? Phil Foden - a first choice player for England. But we need five subs right?
Speaking of Leicester. They have a much smaller squad and certainly need to keep all their players as fresh as possible. Last season - which was already COVID condensed - here are the amount of subs they made during their three festive period fixtures: one, three, one. But the players are playing too much football?
Ralf Rangnick has barely been in Manchester for a month and has already spoken about the amount of football everyone has to play. During an easy 3-1 win over Burnley he waited until the dying seconds of the 93rd minute to use his third and final sub. Then he named nearly an unchanged side to face a much better Wolves team 70 hours later. It’s really such a shame two other players couldn’t come on and play those final 35 seconds against Burnley.
If this rule was going to benefit anyone, it’d probably be the middle of the pack clubs where the difference between the top players and the ones on the bench is much less. Even then, it would probably mostly benefit them in matches where fresh legs make the difference, or in holding on for a point against one of the big guys - which is exactly how Unai Emery used his subs against United in the Europa League final. In that match Villarreal benefitted from the rule, Manchester United didn’t.
The only time the rule would really benefit the big clubs is when they jump out to a big lead and the managers feels comfortable pulling off his stars to get them rest. How often does that happen though? Even in comfortable wins Mo Salah and Sadio Mane don’t come off until after the 85th minute, same for Bruno Fernandes and Cristiano Ronaldo. Chelsea rarely ever blow teams out to begin with.
By that same token that’s really the only time it would be a disadvantage for small clubs. If you’re playing Liverpool on Wednesday one of your best chances to steal a result may be because Mane and Salah are tired. If Liverpool get a big lead in the match preceding yours, they may be able to pull Mane, Saleh, Alexander-Arnold, and two others off after 60 minutes to keep them fresh to face you. That’s not what you want to see.
The five sub argument is no longer about player safety or a competitive advantage. It’s about one thing: power.
The argument has simply become a proxy war between the Premier League’s top clubs and the rest of the league.
The rest of the league isn’t too fond of the big boys right now. Well, they never were, but they’re especially not fond of them now. The Super League fiasco is still very fresh in their minds.
They don’t like that the big boys already get everything. They get the biggest slice of the TV money pie and every time they renegotiate the deal their slice seems to get even bigger.
But this, this is something that the little guys can control. A rule change in the Premier League requires the approval of 14 clubs. Do the math. There’s only six clubs in the “top six,” this is one thing that they’re power and money can’t influence. If the rest of the league sticks together they can block this move.
If you’re truly worried about player safety than rotate your players more. If that means Mohammed Salah doesn’t start against my club then all the better!
If we were actually worried about player safety then this rule would pass in a second. But it’s not about that, it’s about the little guys clinging to the one little bit of power that they have over the big boys.
It’s a proxy war, and the end is nowhere in sight.6
lol
so no, Donny van de Beek doesn’t count
one of which was injured
IE: each manager’s match is counted as a unique match. So Chelsea vs Liverpool would count as one match for Tuchel and one match for Klopp thus two total matches
as of January 4th
Now watch the Premier League announce next week that as of Feb 1st you’ll be allowed to make five subs or something like that.