5 Subs

Heading towards the rugby union model, where you have virtually 2 teams across the 90 minutes. It really benefits teams with big squads. Bring on the defence team if you’re 1-0 up. Bring on the attack team if you’re 1-0 down.
It will also benefit high intensive pressing. And ageing players that can’t do the full 90.
I think 3 is plenty.

In a couple of seasons time the Dutch 2nd League are due to trial unlimited subs

They must have done. Seems bonkers, but when you listened to Warburton last season all he ever went on about was "demands on players" so I think even we would have voted for it.

Mainly I think 3 subs is enough.

But I just don't like how teams can do what Barnsley did in 20/21 where they changed all 3 strikers at half time to give them incredible energy in both halves. Neither they - nor the manager at West Brom - could be as successful with just 3 subs.

The caveat of 2 subs being under a certain age was just an idea, that will not get implemented and is a missed opportunity.

It definitely will, teams who are 1 behind will throw on 3 strikers with 10 minutes left.

Teams desperate to defend can do the opposite.

I think 3 subs was the perfect balance, hence why it worked so well for the last 30-40 years. You had to be a bit more careful and use them wisely.

As Ghost points out, it will end up with a situation where teams are bringing on entire new 11s according to the way the game is which will kill football as we know it. It isn’t a surprise that this is happening at a time when American investors are coming into the game; they effectively want to turn football into an NFL and milk it for as much as they can. It’s also why independent governance is vital , so clubs can’t just vote through whatever they like. I’m also against the 26 man squads for World Cups, I think that should stay at 23 but nobody’s brave to say no.

I find the lack of resistance to changes bizarre. The game has worked for nearly 150 years and there will come a point where it ceases to be the game we all fell in love with. There should be certain non-negotiables. Three subs for me is one, though I’m not against the extra sub in extra time for cup games, but no more than that.

I sincerely worry about the future of this game. Dreading the day we see ‘kickers’ come on just to take the occasional free-kick and penalty. It doesn’t add to the spectacle, it tarnishes it.

The three substitutions creates a mental dimension to management too; how to stifle a game, how to control it, when to change, who to change it with. It helps separate the good from bad. If you can now just chuck five on anywhere and whenever you like, that quality is lost and the next wave of managers coming through are inferior. But I suppose that’s the point isn’t it? These people in charge of the clubs don’t want the game to be physically and mentally challenge, they don’t want a challenge at all. They’re often hedge fund investors who want guaranteed returns on their money. They don’t get that when the competition is tight and more intense. They want it to be a stroll, almost a forgone conclusion before a ball has been kicked, just so long as it keeps the tills ringing. A lot has been made, rightfully, about the involvement of states such as Qatar, Saudi, etc in the game. But US hedgefund managers and consortiums are equally as dangerous and toxic to the continued existence of this beautiful game.

I'm with you on this one. What made this even stranger for me was that  this change has been  suggested by Arsene Wenger the so called "Professor of Football".