Players under contract after 1/7/2020

One possible factor in bloated squad sizes is the changes in substitutes rules.
In 84/5 there was a single named substitute allowed. No choice element - you named one player and he was your only option. That changed in 87 to one outfield player and one keeper, so the 'nearly team' of 87/8 played to those rules. By the 96 promotion you could name and use three subs, one of which had to be a keeper.
Nowadays there are seven on the bench. The expectation being that you can cover keeper, defence, midfield and attack with options to change or save a game. In the 70s and 80s teams mostly named a single striker or a utility player, depending on how they expected the game to pan out. The modern expectation that managers can influence all aspects of the game from the bench must surely have resulted in bigger squads to cover all options.

 

Wasn't there talk lately of allowing the use of up to 5 subs, ridiculous for a number of reasons, should go back to 1 x keeper and 1 x outfield...

 

Maybe. I don't have a problem with three subs and a bench comprising one each of keeper, defender, midfielder and attacker. But having a bench of seven is daft.

 

No.

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11985236/five-substitutions-per-team-permitted-by-ifab-to-help-aid-players-return

 

They're already doing that in the Bundesliga.

 

The 5 subs is only temporary until the end of the the season.

It might happen throughout next season or until a vaccine is found but who knows.

 

My original note was more in hope than expectation. Talking of hope at least Akpan is off the bill.

elvis has left the building.

 

Agreed. Still, that 84/5 squad would even have had all the bases covered with 7 subs allowed. Indulge me in some what-iffery here...

McManus; Abbott - Evans - Jackson - Withe; Hendrie - Singleton - McCall - Ellis; Campbell - Hawley

would be the starters, leaving 9 possibles for the 7 subs: Gwinnett (keeper); Cherry, Clegg, and Beaumont (defenders); Holmes and Yorath (midfield); and Goodman, Gray, and Haire (forward). Not too many players therefore being left out of matchday squads each week. Still, that bench would have been heavily weighted towards youth, perhaps too much so. You really would be counting on your core players to neither get injured nor suspended and, I suppose, you'd be counting on your youth players to indeed be able to step up if needed. Too many ifs, perhaps!

Back in the real world, I know that Gray left early on, Yorath's appearances were rare, Cherry appeared in almost half the league and cup matches, and Harvey was brought in on N/C terms to fill in for McManus. You'd need to be creative with your personnel. But I think it could have been done then, and could be done now.

What would really help would be, as others have mentioned, a good scouting system, and a consistent playing philosophy from the first team on down. And for that, we'd need upper management to be on the ball.

RCB

 

Once again giving teams like Man City, Chelsea and other a big advantage as there is more quality on the bench in comparison with the likes of Watford, Burnley etc, no suprisethere then.

 

Think the no fans gives the best sides the advantage anyway.

 

Hopefully with reduced squads the loan system will remain open throughout the season the way it used to be

 

Just scrap transfer windows for everyone outside PL. causes panic and bloating of squads

 

Why? There will be plenty of out of work footballers (estimated to be 1000+) available who willing would take short-term contracts