When English football returned on June 17, everyone was unsure as to how the enforced rule changes were going to impact the sport we know and love. Now, one month later, 3-At-The-Back analyse how football has changed since pre-coronavirus and ask the now-common question – is football the same?
The loss of fans is not the issue at hand; fans will return, it is just a question of when as opposed to if. Instead, the splitting of halves for so-called ‘drinks breaks’ and the increased number of substitutions – from three to five – that the IFAB (International Football Association Board) have confirmed will be allowed to continue through next season. With these in mind, is football really back or are we slowly seeing the death of the sport we love in front of our very eyes?
Rule changes are, contrary to popular opinion, nothing new. After all, substitutions weren’t a part of the game until the 1965-66 season and, even then, it was limited to one per match for each side – and only to replace an injured player. The back-pass rule was employed in 1992 to deter time wasting. Even the start of the 2019-20 season witnessed a whole new influx of rules: from substitutes leaving the pitch at the nearest possible place to allowing goalkeepers to pass a goal kick to a teammate within their own penalty area. Rule changes are part and parcel of football, designed to keep up with an everchanging world, deterring time-wasting and improving – sometimes debatably so – football.
Thus, it makes sense to start by questioning why two of football’s newest and most controversial procedures were introduced. With football coming back in the summer, as opposed to the regular season concluding in May, footballing authorities were wary of the expected hot summer weather affecting players negatively. Thus, the drinks break, and increase in substitutions, were born into the Premier League – and EFL – lawbook for the first time.
The loss of fans is not the issue at hand; fans will return, it is just a question of when as opposed to if. Instead, the splitting of halves for so-called ‘drinks breaks’ and the increased number of substitutions – from three to five – that the IFAB (International Football Association Board) have confirmed will be allowed to continue through next season. With these in mind, is football really back or are we slowly seeing the death of the sport we love in front of our very eyes?
Rule changes are, contrary to popular opinion, nothing new. After all, substitutions weren’t a part of the game until the 1965-66 season and, even then, it was limited to one per match for each side – and only to replace an injured player. The back-pass rule was employed in 1992 to deter time wasting. Even the start of the 2019-20 season witnessed a whole new influx of rules: from substitutes leaving the pitch at the nearest possible place to allowing goalkeepers to pass a goal kick to a teammate within their own penalty area. Rule changes are part and parcel of football, designed to keep up with an everchanging world, deterring time-wasting and improving – sometimes debatably so – football.
Thus, it makes sense to start by questioning why two of football’s newest and most controversial procedures were introduced. With football coming back in the summer, as opposed to the regular season concluding in May, footballing authorities were wary of the expected hot summer weather affecting players negatively. Thus, the drinks break, and increase in substitutions, were born into the Premier League – and EFL – lawbook for the first time.
Premier League teams have been able to name up to nine (socially-distanced) substitutes since the restart
Drinks breaks are not a revolutionary idea. They were first implemented in the 2014 Brazil World Cup on a match-by-match basis. So, as temperatures soared in the Fortaleza, Netherlands and Mexico welcomed the inaugural ‘cooling break’ in the last sixteen of the World Cup. Throughout the tournament, cooling breaks – as they were then known – were used sparingly depending on the South American heat. If temperatures surpassed 32°C, then teams would take a three-minute cooling break to take on fluids.
Then-Holland manager Louis Van Gaal claimed the cooling break allowed him to make valuable tactical changes that helped Holland to knock-out their Mexican opponents – a theme that would develop in the Premier League just six years later.
However, as we know all too well, British weather – especially summertime – is completely unpredictable. Forecasts (and hopes) of a hot June and July have been replaced by a reality of overcast skies and frequent showers, making drinks breaks all but redundant. So much so that Chris Wilder admitted to sipping a different beverage entirely during the 22nd minute interval against Burnley (July 5). Instead of the expected water, or energy drink, the Sheffield United boss confessed to having a Bovril, only his second ever in July.
Clearly, these ‘drinks breaks’ are unnecessary. It would be much smarter to follow the World Cup’s example and follow a game-by-game basis. Therefore, when players actually require the break during hot weather, they will be allowed to do so. It would prevent the flow of most games from being inhibited and would ultimately be beneficial in the short-term scenario football finds itself in.
With the notion of actually needing to break for drinks being accepted as superfluous – the question remains as to how managers and players use this short pause in each half? The answer is clear and is perhaps exemplified best by Brentford manager Thomas Frank in his team’s victory at home to Charlton Athletic. With just over 20 minutes to play, the drinks break was called on a blustery Tuesday evening as Charlton led Brentford 1-0. Frank, needing three points to keep Brentford’s automatic promotion hopes alive, proceeded to bring out a full-size whiteboard – complete with magnets – to give his team tactical information. Brentford won the game 2-1; both of their goals came as a result of the tactical changes Frank was allowed to make and communicate in the the second half drinks break – which would have unlikely been required had drinks breaks been weather-dependent.
Frank, however, has not gone rogue. More often than not, we see these interruptions being used for tactical purposes rather than the original purpose of hydration. Whether managers are allowed to or not is irrelevant, as policing this is all but impossible. The only saving grace is that it seems unlikely this guideline will be carried over into the 2020-21 season. Four-quarter football will disappear as football truly returns to a game of two halves.
Then-Holland manager Louis Van Gaal claimed the cooling break allowed him to make valuable tactical changes that helped Holland to knock-out their Mexican opponents – a theme that would develop in the Premier League just six years later.
However, as we know all too well, British weather – especially summertime – is completely unpredictable. Forecasts (and hopes) of a hot June and July have been replaced by a reality of overcast skies and frequent showers, making drinks breaks all but redundant. So much so that Chris Wilder admitted to sipping a different beverage entirely during the 22nd minute interval against Burnley (July 5). Instead of the expected water, or energy drink, the Sheffield United boss confessed to having a Bovril, only his second ever in July.
Clearly, these ‘drinks breaks’ are unnecessary. It would be much smarter to follow the World Cup’s example and follow a game-by-game basis. Therefore, when players actually require the break during hot weather, they will be allowed to do so. It would prevent the flow of most games from being inhibited and would ultimately be beneficial in the short-term scenario football finds itself in.
With the notion of actually needing to break for drinks being accepted as superfluous – the question remains as to how managers and players use this short pause in each half? The answer is clear and is perhaps exemplified best by Brentford manager Thomas Frank in his team’s victory at home to Charlton Athletic. With just over 20 minutes to play, the drinks break was called on a blustery Tuesday evening as Charlton led Brentford 1-0. Frank, needing three points to keep Brentford’s automatic promotion hopes alive, proceeded to bring out a full-size whiteboard – complete with magnets – to give his team tactical information. Brentford won the game 2-1; both of their goals came as a result of the tactical changes Frank was allowed to make and communicate in the the second half drinks break – which would have unlikely been required had drinks breaks been weather-dependent.
Frank, however, has not gone rogue. More often than not, we see these interruptions being used for tactical purposes rather than the original purpose of hydration. Whether managers are allowed to or not is irrelevant, as policing this is all but impossible. The only saving grace is that it seems unlikely this guideline will be carried over into the 2020-21 season. Four-quarter football will disappear as football truly returns to a game of two halves.
Thomas Frank's whiteboard, pictured during Brentford's win 11 days ago
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the increase in substitutions. With this week’s IFAB announcement, the Premier League and EFL will have the choice as to whether they continue with the boosted number of subs into next season. If they choose to do so, it will undeniably favour teams with bigger budgets and only deepen the chasm between the Top Six and the rest of English football. Larger squads, crammed with talent, will have more options, firepower and strength from the bench to influence and win games.
This season has shown as much already. During Manchester City’s Premier League clash against Bournemouth on July 15, the gulf between the two benches was evident. For City – Rodri, Mahrez, Laporte, De Bruyne and Sterling. £62 million, £60 million, £57 million, £55 million and £49 million respectively. In comparison, Bournemouth’s bench cost approximately £32 million, over £20 million less than the unused Kevin De Bruyne.
Introduced to rectify fatigue against fitness issues brought on by coronavirus and temperature levels, it is blindingly clear that the increase in substitutions only serve in helping the richer clubs succeed. Moreover, the game has changed massively because of it. It is commonplace to see half-time substitutions now – with managers having the freedom to make an early gamble. It has caused a surge in stoppage time, too, with seven minutes being deemed the new four and matches often lasting the wrong side of 100 minutes, as opposed to the allotted 90.
In turn, this extra time puts an additional strain on tired legs during this busy mini-season rivalled only by the annual Christmas period. Not only does this make injuries a likelier occurrence – having the adverse effect to the rule’s rationale – but will again only suit those larger squads with strength in depth. If next season starts with clubs allowed five substitutions, football will suffer for it. All divisions in the football pyramid will feel the ramifications if this rule is sustained, not just the Premier League. In some leagues the deficit might not be as potent, but the shackles on poorer clubs will be heavily reinforced.
This season has shown as much already. During Manchester City’s Premier League clash against Bournemouth on July 15, the gulf between the two benches was evident. For City – Rodri, Mahrez, Laporte, De Bruyne and Sterling. £62 million, £60 million, £57 million, £55 million and £49 million respectively. In comparison, Bournemouth’s bench cost approximately £32 million, over £20 million less than the unused Kevin De Bruyne.
Introduced to rectify fatigue against fitness issues brought on by coronavirus and temperature levels, it is blindingly clear that the increase in substitutions only serve in helping the richer clubs succeed. Moreover, the game has changed massively because of it. It is commonplace to see half-time substitutions now – with managers having the freedom to make an early gamble. It has caused a surge in stoppage time, too, with seven minutes being deemed the new four and matches often lasting the wrong side of 100 minutes, as opposed to the allotted 90.
In turn, this extra time puts an additional strain on tired legs during this busy mini-season rivalled only by the annual Christmas period. Not only does this make injuries a likelier occurrence – having the adverse effect to the rule’s rationale – but will again only suit those larger squads with strength in depth. If next season starts with clubs allowed five substitutions, football will suffer for it. All divisions in the football pyramid will feel the ramifications if this rule is sustained, not just the Premier League. In some leagues the deficit might not be as potent, but the shackles on poorer clubs will be heavily reinforced.
It has not been uncommon to see added time amount to figures like this since football's restart, owing to the drinks breaks and more frequent substitutions
Are there positives to these rules? Well, America’s commercialisation of sport would suggest there is – for the broadcaster’s profit margins. Additional adverts and sponsorship opportunities could well be approaching. Maybe even a halftime show. For the likes of Sky and BT, the prospects are potentially endless. Not to mention the debate over these new rules – generating thousands of clicks and the financial benefits that accompany them. Benefits for the fans, though, seem minimal. As football seems to slant to the stop-start life of American sports, football will surely lose its fast-paced nature and appeal.
A game of four-quarters, lasting 100 minutes with five substitutions apiece. It doesn’t sound like the football we know. And it’s true, football has returned a different beast to when it was postponed in March. Short-term, changes were necessary to conclude the season and retain the integrity of the sport. The introduced rules were far from perfect but were formulated with good intentions. Now though, as we begin to look ahead to next season, we’re far from knowing how the game will look. One thing is for sure, if it begins as this campaign ends, then the football we know and love will have died. It truly will be a different game.
A game of four-quarters, lasting 100 minutes with five substitutions apiece. It doesn’t sound like the football we know. And it’s true, football has returned a different beast to when it was postponed in March. Short-term, changes were necessary to conclude the season and retain the integrity of the sport. The introduced rules were far from perfect but were formulated with good intentions. Now though, as we begin to look ahead to next season, we’re far from knowing how the game will look. One thing is for sure, if it begins as this campaign ends, then the football we know and love will have died. It truly will be a different game.
Written by - James McEvoy
Edited by - 3-At-The-Back
Edited by - 3-At-The-Back