The 2022 edition of the FIFA World Cup increased the playing squad numbers of the teams from 23 to 26, as a concession to the allowance that there are now 5 substitutions allowed in most levels of football. While I have seen kit numbers which are exotically bonkers (including numbers as high as 99, numbers like 0, 00, 03, and nerdy things like π and e) in other competitions, I am old enough to be able to remember 10 World Cups and 9 of those only had 23 players in a squad; which meant that the highest kit number was 23. 26 is a slightly weird thing to look at.
After speaking to a good friend of mine, I was asked about whether or not having 5 substitutions changed the game for the better or worse. This is quite a sensible question as as there are only 11 players on the pitch, having the ability to change 5/11 (45%) of the playing staff at once, will markedly change the complexion of both the side and can markedly change the complexion of the match. From a team management perspective this is quite excellent because if you are trying to break a 0-0 duck or are losing badly, then any, all, and as many options as possible is more gooder¹.
Let's take a trip back in time to the beginning of professional football. In the 1870s, sides were still amateur and in the age of 'improvement', sport itself was endowed with probably a sense of greater nobility than was necessary. 11 players were named on a side and maybe a concession would be allowed to replace someone if they were obviously injured but in general the 11 players which started the match would be the 11 players who ended it. This presents problem in and of itself. If you have a player who is injured and especially if they are in a critical position such as playing as the goalkeeper, then an injury could vastly change the outcome of a match.
It wasn't until 1958 that 1 player could be named as a 12th man; which brought football in line with cricket. From what I have seen from looking through FA Cup Final lists, the number 12 was almost always a second goalkeeper or there would be someone in the existing XI who could be changed out of their existing kit and into the goalkeeper's No.1 kit.
It wasn't until 1987 that 2 players could be named in addition to the 11 on the pitch and curiously, this usually meant that the substitutes would be assigned the kit numbers of 12 and 14. 13 was usually ominously missing². Plenty of fixtures were played where no substitutes were made at all, right up until the 1980s. The prevailing theory was that a manager would play their best XI and that they'd have the best chance of winning. Of course it was really only in the 1980s when the quality of players started to be objectively measured that anyone did consider that someone from the best XI might actually be worse at the 60 minute mark than someone who was nominally worse but fresher.
In 1994 and after the invention of the Premier League, when wages exploded as a result of money from BSkyB and massive amounts of revenue from advertising, that the clubs started complaining that 2 players was not enough. The 1994/5 season saw the introduction of 3 substitutes from 3 reserves.
The 1998 FIFA World Cup, which at this stage was football stepping into the hundreds of millions of dollarpounds in revenues, allowed 3 substitutes from 5 reserves. and this remained until the grand unpleasantness of 2020 when the SARS Cov-2 pandemic decimated playing squads and so the rules were changed yet again to allow 5 substitutes from 9 reserves.
At international level though, since national football associations were sending squads of 23 around the world, instead of naming just 5 on the bench, the whole remaining 12 were named. A manager at international level now had the ability to substitute anyone from their touring squad onto the pitch.
Of course this does beg the question of what would happen if unlimited substitutions were allowed and we have answered that very question in international football. What happens, is quite frankly, absurd. The most heinous example that I can think of of unlimited substitutions was in 2003 when England played Australia at Upton Park. Sven Goran Eriksson swapped out all 11 players at half time; which meant that for the second half, Australia was playing an entirely different side³.
So what do I think?
If I was Grand Poohbah and Lord High Everything Else, then in my not very well paid opinion, we have already seen the sweet spot for the numbers of substitutions allowed and the depth of the bench allowed. I think that 3 substitutes from a bench of 5 allows a manager to select a forward, a midfielder, a defender, and a goalkeeper, and someone else; to replace anyone who is injured or very tired, with a like for like player. Three substitutes is I think, the upper bound of what is sensible in order to not fundamentally change the complexion of the side on the pitch.
Managers and coaching staff will want as many options available to them all of the time because their objective is to win football matches. Of all the things that don't matter, sport is the thing which matters most of all, and since sport doesn't matter, then winning by all means necessary and within the rules available, should always be first, foremost, and last, on the minds of all of the players and managers and coaching staff who play by proxy.
Likewise, the people who play the really stupid sport of money, up in the corporate boxes (and who have ruined the game for everyone else) also want as many options available to them all of the time because their objective is also to win football matches. Players aren't just players but assets who need to be protected for maximum optimal usage.
Also as a corollary to this, as players are listed as multi-million dollarpound assets, the people up in the corporate boxes want to display their assets more often. As playing squads are now 40 and 50 odd players deep, the idea that the same XI would play week in and week out, has been unheard of in a very long time. Having massive squads also necessitated players having permanent squad numbers, simply because the entire XI might change from one week to the next and even if they didn't, a player might be listed in different positions from week to week and that would mean that they had different numbers throughout the season. Having players in the same kit number is also handy for replica kit sales.
I have watched a lot of World Cup Finals and FA Cup finals (albeit not necessarily in prosecution of this question) and I think that matches from the 1960s and 1970s do have a quality which is not evident in modern matches. That level of tiredness which descends is something which is lost in the modern game. Players had to dig deep within themselves to find something late in a match. I do not think that this happens to anything like a degree of that any more. Players are professional, players are fitter and stronger, and players are playing with the knowledge that they can be replaced. They now play with that knowledge and are far more prone to throw themselves around like ragdolls. When both managers and players knew that the 11 players who started the match, were also going to be the same 11 players who ended it, the game was played at a slower speed through sheer necessity. It looks absolutely amazing now that the Preston North End side with won the League and Cup Double in 1888/89, not only undefeated but also passing through the FA Cup without conceding a goal, only used 11 players all up.
As someone who has played the game and watched the game, I actually like the idea that players get tired and that performance can drop off during a match. It does mean that substitutions are a tactical card which can be played and under the conditions of 3 substitutions from 5, the impact of a triple substitution is crazy and immense. I also like the idea that management needs to be careful so that they do not run out of options. I think that 3 substitutions from 5 is the sweet spot, where both the tiredness of players and the unexpected impact of substitutes is most entertaining.
¹I like the distinction between "better" and "gooder" because they imply something slightly different.
²The first ever player to appear in a No.13 kit in an FA Cup Final squad was Kevin Hitchcock who was listed as the replacement keeper for Chelsea in 1993. It would not be until 2002 when William Gallas actually appeared on the pitch as a player in the No.13 kit.
³This match answered that philosophical poser of the Ship of Theseus (or Captain Cook's Axe). It turns out that if you do replace every single part, then you still end up with the same thing; even if you replace all of the parts at once. England was still England and as such, England was still rubbish6
No comments:
Post a Comment