Give them an inch and they will expect a mile. Offer acquiescence and they will interpret it as weakness. They present their self-interest as handouts at a time of need and then use your acceptance as a weapon against you. They offer a hypothetical solution and, before you know it, the hypothesis has become doctrine. Even if you reject their ideas, they will repeat their question at a louder volume until they get their way.
If you’ll excuse the hyperbole, it does feel like this could apply to any one of many elements of elite football. The creep of self-interest from football’s power-brokers comes a little like bankruptcy: gradually, then suddenly.
The temporary introduction of five substitutes in May 2020 – recommended by Fifa and adopted by the International Football Association Board (Ifab) – made perfect sense. The suspension of leagues due to Covid-19 had increased the regularity of matches and the workload of players. Clubs were permitted to make two extra substitutions to avoid muscle injuries and reduce accumulated fatigue.
And now it is here to stay. Premier League clubs have voted three times to block the increase from three to five substitutions on a permanent basis. On Wednesday, an Ifab vote made it a permanent rule change that will put increased pressure on the Premier League to fall into line. Expect the fourth vote to be the final one.
It’s hard to understand the logic. If the specific complications of 2019-20 made five substitutions a palatable, temporary introduction, those complications have largely passed. This season started on time and will finish on time. The pandemic is not over, but 2021-22 is far more similar to 2018-19 than last season or the season before that.
Ifab’s argument is that five substitutions reduces the load on players (and that’s probably true), but it comes at a time when the game is seeking further expansion. The number of World Cup teams is increasing and Fifa is aiming to make the tournament biennial. The Champions League is growing to force its participants to play extra matches. It’s hard not to be cynical about a rule change that eases concerns about that expansion amongst players.
Three substitutes feels perfect. It allows for one or two injuries per match (a team getting two injuries is rare, three in the same game even less likely) and leaves another for a game-changing move. Any more than that and a manager avoids punishment for getting his team selection or strategy wrong in the first place.
Any increase also inevitably assists the richest clubs with the biggest squads. Last weekend, Manchester City’s bench contained John Stones, Nathan Ake, Kevin De Bruyne, Fernandinho, Riyad Mahrez. At Chelsea, Thomas Tuchel could call upon Ross Barkley, Ruben Loftus-Cheek and Hakim Ziyech and left Saul Niguez, Marcos Alonso and Cesar Azpilicueta in reserve (and that was with Romelu Lukaku and Timo Werner missing through injury).
Write your own punchline for Ole Gunnar Solskjaer changing the pattern of a game, but Manchester United’s bench for the 5-0 defeat to Liverpool still had Paul Pogba, Jesse Lingard, Jadon Sancho, Edinson Cavani, Nemanja Matic and Donny van de Beek. At least we can assume Van de Beek is a fan of the new rule; he might actually get on the pitch.
The allowance of clubs to make five substitutes effectively gives richer clubs an added safety blanket. It forces “lesser” teams – with fewer high-class options on the bench – to win two separate matches just to cause an upset – first you must thwart the starting XI and then your opponent can change half of their outfielders to have a second go.
The knock-on effect here is pretty obvious. There is already grave concern about the manner in which elite clubs hoover up and hoard talent. A lower limitation on the use of substitutes proved a (fairly slight) roadblock; players finding themselves remaining on the bench every game would be incentivised to seek pastures new. But if clubs can use 16 players in every league game, hoarding is further incentivised.
And so the cookie crumbles. More substitutions leads to more hoarding, more hoarding leads to better options from the bench for the biggest clubs. Better options from the bench leads to more advantages for bigger clubs, more big-club dominance and the increased degradation of competition within Europe’s top leagues.
FIFPro, the global players’ union, are supportive of this change. This is not being forced upon players. They point to an increase in competitive matches that will add to worries over fatigue. But then surely we have this the wrong way round? The rules are being changed to adapt to a broken system rather than the system being fixed to suit the rules. Plus ça change.
from Football – inews.co.uk https://ift.tt/3nxT128
Post a Comment