McKenna = 1 GK, 1DF, 7 Attackers

With the number of subs, coaching and medical staff on the bench these days it's a wonder there's room for any fans!

I'm fairly sure Sir Alf's team won the Championship using only 15 players during the entire season.

Tractorfactorsteve. And ur point is?

As someone who started watch Town in 1974, I sometimes think this substitution business is getting a little over the top. I'm not totally against having five subs from seven and now nine (it certainly helped us last season), but I would make two reflections in comparison to the "good old days":

1. Managers really had to get their starting line up spot on back in the 70's, as there was so little scope to change the team members and/or formation with only one sub available - as is clearly obvious. More often than not, the single available substitution was taken up by an injury, creating the need for a bit of an interesting reshuffle. Does the much greater level of modern day flexability make it harder or easier for managers of today?

An interesting point to ponder and one which makes direct comparisons of old and modern managers very difficult I feel. It certainly shows how much the game has changed in the past 50 years.

2. This is more of a whimsical observation, but today's set up takes away almost all of the risk of having to put an outfielder in goal because of injury or sending off. This risk was always present and real back in the day and made for some very interesting times, including for Town, who have had a number of outfield goalies during the 70's, 80's and 90's.

Anyway, just a couple of thoughts!

With 9 subs allowed on the bench every game, they may as well do away with having any limit at all & just let the manager choose whoever his wants from the fully declared league squad.

Botesdale Blue - You are of the same era as myself & I completely agree.
Kevin O'Callaghan's Ipswich career would have been very different if Sir Bob had 9 subs to choose from in the early 80s.

Barmy!

Yes like the idea of more subtitutes as it keeps more of the squad interested on match days. Also it reduces the risk of injuries and players getting fatigued during a long season.

Blimey, at this rate you will soon have a reserve team on the sidelines!!

I am of the vintage that watched football in the era when there were no substitutes and if a player was injured and had to go off they were forced to play the rest of the game with only 10 men . Sir Alf would have managed in that era so to achieve his record makes todays managers rather second class !

Don't understand all this nonsense about substitutes. All it does is devalue stamina as an attribute, in my opinion. We are always told that the players of today are much fitter than those of yesteryear. Well, give them a chance to prove it!

We're gonna need a bigger dug out!

Stop the world I wanna get off. With every new innovation football becomes less and less appealing and more of a joke. It knows no bounds. The days of specialist takers of goalkicks, penalties, corners, throw ins coming off the bench just for that one act are soon to be upon us. And with the ever increasing play acting, cheating, time wasting and other b****cks the board will still only go up for one minute of additional time. After 48yrs and 1,035 games attended, this is likely to be the season that I call it a day. This 'sport' is dead, and those who sit amongst the governing bodies and make the decisions should be !

A dream rule for KMcK…….maybe roll on roll off for the match day squad is the future

A ripe old bunch of sentimentalists on here, I'm sure if most of you had your way, we'd be watching football on muddy pitches and heading balls that weigh 15lb.
What I am surprised at, is that no one has mentioned that this rule adds to imbalance within the game. Clubs that have more money can fill those 9 spaces with a better quality of player than those who'll fill the spaces with youth players. This will further suit the clubs benefitting from parachute payments.

I think it will benefit teams with a good manager who knows how to influence a game. I think that probably includes us. We might well use 3 midfielders this season, if not all the time then as necessary. With Idris leaving on loan and Harper already out of the door that leaves 3 out of 7. Not so overstocked, but we'll probably lose at least one more in the middle of the park.

I was thinking the same Fat Boy Tim!

Paulc Up to us to get close to that then and not be a namby pamby moaning club like some are

What are the odds we use the lot in 1st game?! lol

And people used to criticise the FA for being old men who weren't for changing. Situations of an outfield player having to go in goal might have been entertaining for the neutral but highly annoying for the impacted team and made the whole thing a game of chance. I want to see two highly fit, capable and competitive teams battling it out with a manager enabled to utilise strategic decisions throughout the match. If this means you can rotate and replace to keep the tempo high until the very last second then that seems great to me. Why would you not want to see that?

Yet another modern football change which I don't like. There are far too many substitutions.

Another her factor to add to the comments above are that mass substitutions devalue yellow cards somewhat. It is easy to substitute booked players, making red cards less likely. Therefore it is less risky to do things like time waste.

It is a great idea, that gives a big advantage to clubs with a decent squad and a manager with the intelligence to reshape a game.

You can still only have 5 subs, so it's no different from last season, except you can now have 2 more to choose from.

There may be an argument that this benefits the teams with bigger squads, it certainly helped us last season whichay be why we got promoted over the likes of Peterborough, Portsmouth, etc.

You can't have it both ways.

Meekreech.... I am from that era too. Where each team had one or two hatchet men whose sole aim was to take out the most gifted of the opposition. The good old days??