Article updated 23rd July 2011
With the Football League voting this week, at an EGM held at Leicester City's ground, to reduce the number of substitutes from seven to five, I thought it would be interesting to revisit this blog article I wrote back in February 2011 and update it.
The number of substitutes Pompey were able to field last season (2010-11) was a matter of some debate and discussion amongst the fans. They were only able to field the full quota of seven substitutes on six occasions. But did it really matter that much? Read on to find out more!
Here's the original article updated with the results from the whole season.
BlueThruAndThru
What's behind all this then?
Before a match back in February 2011 I was asked on Twitter if Pompey naming six substitutes was the highest number for the season. I wasn't sure so I decided to take a closer look.
Why is the number of substitutes on the bench important?
This goes right to the heart of the 'quality' versus 'quantity' debate and the strategy Pompey followed in the 2010-11 Championship season i.e. having a smaller sized squad of 'better quality' players as opposed to a larger one with players of slightly less quality.
There can be no doubt that on their day, when they were able to field their strongest team, Pompey had a very good starting first eleven by Championship standards.
However, the strategy was risky, especially as player suspensions and injuries kicked in as the season progressed, cracks started to appear.
There was no more visible demonstration of the strategy's weakness than the lack of strength in depth. This manifested itself each matchday in Pompey's substitutes bench and the team's inability to impact games by making changes at key points in the game e.g. bring on a striker to add fresh legs and more fire-power up front or bring on a holding midfielder to protect a lead. Steve Cotterill's options were often perceived as limited.
It was always a topic of conversation on matchday amongst Pompey fans who sit around me. The number of substitutes named was a visible demonstration of Pompey's relative strength in depth and in the same way it sent signals to the fans, the make-up of the bench must also have sent signals to the opposition before the game even started.
How many times have you heard TV and Radio pundits comment on the 'strength in depth' and 'quality on the bench to turn things around'?
Does bench size impact performance?
Did bench size have an impact on Pompey's ability to gain points? Let's take a look at the data.
Pompey named between 4 and 7 substitutes in the 46 Championship games played. There was always a goalkeeper on the bench for each game (Liam O'Brien in the early games and Daryll Flahavan from Cardiff City on August 28th onwards). As it happened Jamie Ashdown was an ever present for Pompey playing in every Championship game.
It's worth reminding ourselves of course that the number of outfield players available to Pompey was always one less than the actual number sitting on the bench.
As a reminder, Pompey finished the 2010-11 Championship season on 58 points (out of 138, 42%).
The number of available substitutes in each match and the results of those matches were as follows:
7 = six times. Won 2, Lost 2, Drew 2, 8 points out of 18 (44%)
6 = eighteen times. Won 7, Lost 8, Drew 3, 24 points out of 54 (44%)
5 = twelve times. Won 4, Lost 4, Drew 4, 16 points out of 36 (44%)
4 = ten times. Won 2, Lost 4, Drew 4, 10 points out of 30 (33%)
Of course a team can use up to three substitutes and Pompey used at least one substitute in every game.
The number of substitutes used in each match and the results of those matches are as follows:
3 = twenty-five times. Won 9, Lost 9, Drew 7, 34 points out of 75 (45%)
2 = fourteen times, Won 4, Lost 7, Drew 3, 15 points out of 42 (38%)
1 = seven times, Won 2, Lost 2, Drew 3, 9 points out of 21 (43%)
These figures can be broken down even further by looking at the number of substitutions used versus those available to use.
Where there was seven substitutes available:
3 used = 2 times, Won 0, Lost 2, Drew 0, 0 points out of 6 (0%)
2 used = 3 times, Won 2, Lost 0, Drew 1, 3 points out of 9 (33%)
1 used = once, Won 0, Lost 0, Drew 1, 1 point out of 3 (33%)
Where there have been six substitutes available:
3 used = 11 times, Won 5, Lost 4, Drew 2, 17 points out of 33 (52%)
2 used = 5 times, Won 1, Lost 3, Drew 1, 4 points out of 15 (27%)
1 used = twice, Won 1, Lost 1, Drew 0, 3 points out of 6 (50%)
Where there have been five substitutes available:
3 used = 7 times, Won 2, Lost 2, Drew 3, 9 points out of 21 (43%)
2 used = 2 times, Won 1, Lost 1, Drew 0, 3 points out of 6 (50%)
1 used = 3, Won 1, Lost 1, Drew 1, 4 points out of 9 (44%)
When there have been four substitutes available:
3 used = 3, Won 2, Lost 1, Drew 2, 8 points out of 15 (53%)
2 used = 4, Won 0, Lost 3, Drew 1, 1 point out of 12 (8%)
1 used = 1, Won 0, Lost 1, Drew 0, 1 point out of 3 (33%)
Why do teams make substitutions?
Of course the data doesn't show the reasons why the substitutions were made and I've been having a think about that too as this will have an impact on the data.
Here are some reasons I've thought of off the top of my head - there may be others of course:
Injury
Fatigue
Change of formation - a sending off
Change of formation - tactical
Reward a good performance (to get a crowd reception)
Protection
Playing poorly
Rest (for the next game)
Poor attitude
Signal from ref to avoid a sending off
Give some experience to a younger player (to the sub)
Give some match time if coming back from injury or new to a Club (to the sub)
To try and waste time - although in theory the referee adds time on
To break up the play, especially towards the end of a game
It would be interesting to see how many of Pompey's substitutions this season fell into each category. But I'm not sure I'd even know where such data is maintained if at all. I suspect a lot of it is down to interpretation.
Of course the data doesn't show when the substitutions were made - i.e. how many playing minutes each substitute had. Goodness this is complicated!
The key question is this: how many times did a Pompey substitute positively influence a game last season, can you remember any occasions?
What can we conclude from this?
I'm not sure we can or should conclude anything from this data. It needs to be treated with caution. Remember this is a small sample size of one club in one season.
Having said that the data does show one or two interesting things:
(1) in those games where Pompey used three substitutes the number of points won was higher (34 points) than if they used one or two.
(2) Pompey only used three substitutes in just over half their games (54%).
(3) having a full quota of substitutes available on the bench didn't translate into more points. Indeed, Pompey got fewer actual points with seven substitutes on the bench than they did with four, five or six. Having said that the percentage points return from those available with five, six and seven substitutes is the same at 44%.
(4) Pompey named a bench with either six or seven substitutes for just over half of their matches (52%). Perhaps things weren't as bad as we all thought they were at the time? Hindsight is a great thing isn't it!
So, as the 2011-12 season approaches the number of substitutes Championship teams are able to put on their bench has been reduced from seven to five. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out. What are the implications? Maybe some fringe squad players will miss out on a bench spot. Those clubs with bigger squads may have a few disgruntled players. Maybe some younger players will miss out on experiencing being a part of the first team squad. Maybe some clubs will take a risk and avoid having a goalkeeper on the bench.
Will it actually play a major part in influencing the outcome of the Championship? Personally, I don't think so. If a player is good enough to influence a game he'll be playing or on the bench. If a club has the luxury of leaving players out of the matchday squad that would suggest they have someone better available.
Remember, substitutions are only one part of the Beautiful Game and I think we can see from Pompey's 2010-11 season that although there were concerns about the number of substitutes available, substitutions didn't greatly influence where Pompey finished or performed.
The data presented here may be superfluous to be frank...it was a good way to while away a few hours on a Saturday evening though! Honest!
Let me leave you with this question: how many Pompey games can you remember where a substitution positively influenced the outcome? Answers on a postcard please (or you can tweet me if you prefer).
Main source for this article: Pompey Matchday Programme versus Norwich City on May 2nd 2011
Summary Of Pompey's 2010-11 Season
Coventry City (a) 4 substitutes, 2 used, lost
Reading (h) 4, 1, draw
Preston North End (a) 4, 2, lost
Cardiff City (h) 4, 3, lost
Ipswich Town (h) 6, 3, draw
Crystal Palace (a) 5, 1, lost
Sheffield United (a) 6, 2, lost
Leicester City (h) 4, 3, won
Bristol City (h) 5, 3, won
Middlesbrough (a) 6, 2, draw
Watford (h) 4, 3, won
Millwall (h) 5, 2, won
Hull City (a) 6, 3, won
Nottingham Forest (h) 7, 2, won
Derby County (a) 6, 2, lost
QPR (h) 6, 3, draw
Doncaster Rovers (h) 6, 3, lost
Barnsley (a) 6, 3, lost
Swansea City (a) 6, 3, won
Norwich City (a) 5, 3, won
Millwall (h) 5, 3, draw
Leeds United (a) 5, 3, draw
Watford (a) 4, 2, lost
Hull City (h) 6, 3, lost
Nottingham Forest (a) 5, 2, lost
Leeds United (h) 5, 1, draw
Burnley (h) 6, 2, lost
QPR (a) 6, 1, lost
Derby County (h) 7, 1, draw
Donaster Rovers (a) 6, 1, won
Barnsley (h) 7, 2, won
Crystal Palace (h) 5, 1, won
Ipswich Town (a) 6, 3, won
Scunthorpe United (h) 6, 3, won
Sheffield United (h) 6, 3, won
Bristol City (a) 5, 3, lost
Middlesbrough (h) 7, 2 draw
Leicester City (a) 6, 2, won
Reading (a) 7, 3, lost
Preston North End (h) 5, 3, draw
Coventry City (h) 7, 3, lost
Cardiff City (a) 6, 3, lost
Swansea City (h) 4, 2, draw
Burnley (a) 4, 3 draw
Norwich City (h) 5, 3, lost
Scunthorpe United (a) 4, 3, draw
If I've got any of the data wrong or if you have any comments or observations let me know at @PompeyChicken at Twitter.com
BlueThruAndThru
