We're Gonna Need A Bigger Bench

[Feriol]

Let's just hope the Liverpool players have let themselves go...

 

[Fox Fan]

I can't really sympathise with that argument. Any PL player should be a top athlete.

No reason why any PL player should be less fit or athletic than another purely based on club.

My point is there's a reason lots of players don't make it to the top. Assuming fitness and capability are a given - to make it to a club like Man City you'll likely have to be; young, have no history of major injuries or repeating minor injuries, a willingness to be moulded, ability to execute the managers orders and the mental toughness required to be a top level athlete.

Take away any one of those attributes and Man City wouldn't have you- but Villa or Norwich would.

I probably didn't articulate myself well, but the fitness I was referring to isn't just how you score on the bleep test.

Anyway - regardless of that point, the quality of the 9 players on Man City's bench will be significantlybetter than those on our bench and I doubt there can be much argument on that

 

[mabrah]

Socially distanced on the bench too. New regs means the bench has to be around 14 miles long. That oughta waste a significant amount of time with substitutions... just call up the guy from the far end.

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

Silly football gets sillier.

More subs, more substitutions, clearly benefits the clubs with bigger squads. Why anyone outside the top six voted for this is beyond me.

You can't change the rules for a competition so significantly and pretend that it's the same thing. This is just the latest nonsense. This isn't real football.

All clubs have the same size squads of 25. Man City only have an advantage if they have 5 or 6 astonishing Under-21s they can rotate around the teams.

 

[Brown Nose]

All clubs have the same size squads of 25. Man City only have an advantage if they have 5 or 6 astonishing Under-21s they can rotate around the teams.

The point I was making was that the Man City (for example) squad is much stronger than ours, and much stronger than any of the less established clubs. Not in actual numbers but quality of player.

So, for example, if I take the 11 that played for Man City against us in Feb, they had the following players not starting: Bravo, Cancelo, Otamendi, Stones, Zinchenko, D Silva, Foden, Sane, Sterling and Jesus before even touching their younger players.

If they can pick 5 from 9 of those, it is a clear advantage over a side that has fewer quality players available and have to make up their numbers with U23 players.

Every time they've increased the subs from 1 to 2 to 3 to 5, it has made things easier for the strongest sides. I bet they retain this rule when real football starts again and it will be yet another advantage that they've got over the rest.

 

[Skitzo]

Catching Manchester City will mean nothing for us in terms of CL qualification, we will go straight into the group stage regardless of where we finish and our seeding will be determined by the other qualifiers, nothing we can do there. Incidentally Man City's appeal against their CL ban starts on Monday so we may be the second qualifier from England anyway despite finishing 3rd

 

[Brown Nose]

Catching Manchester City will mean nothing for us in terms of CL qualification, we will go straight into the group stage regardless of where we finish and our seeding will be determined by the other qualifiers, nothing we can do there. Incidentally Man City's appeal against their CL ban starts on Monday so we may be the second qualifier from England anyway despite finishing 3rd

Again, not the point I was making.

 

[Skitzo]

I was making a general point as some Leicester fans online have talked about catching Manchester City so their added strength makes no difference really