By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
And Barnsley had a lot of success with it, which is why it has now become common practice and contributed to greater intensity in the game overall.
But as Michael Cox points out the switch to five subs was originally a short-term measure designed to protect players from injury but has instead led to an increase in injuries.
This is precisely why the club needs to be asking serious questions of Ben Williams and the support staff.
I completely accept Nix's point that hamstring injuries are a growing problem in the game, but this can't be a Get Out of Jail Free card for Ben Williams to avoid scrutiny.
Our problems do seem far worse than most, and we can't ignore the fact that Ben Williams also had a bad record for injuries in his season with the Brooklyn Nets.
I'm not suggesting we sack Williams now because this deep into the season there isn't likely to be a magic wand to turn things around. But it is on Williams now to come up with answers for our injury problems and if he can't do that and the injuries continue to pile up into next season then his position will look untenable.
Another theory for the increase in muscle injuries is that it's a side-effect of having five substitutes which has led to greater intensity in the game. It also means that clubs with stronger squads have an advantage over the rest. This was put forward by Michael Cox in The Athletic a couple of months ago. The link to the article and the full text are below:
"Why the five-substitute era has not been good for football
By Michael Cox Nov. 2, 2025
Amid reports that some of Europe’s major clubs have held discussions about the possibility of introducing a sixth substitute in league matches, it’s worth reflecting on the situation football has accidentally found itself in, with ‘only’ five permitted.
This was initially an emergency measure introduced in 2020, when football was forced into a demanding schedule to compensate for the three months lost to the pandemic. Entirely predictably, the temporary change became permanent.
Naturally, managers have taken advantage of the extra changes. Since the start of 2022-23, when the five-substitute rule was made permanent in the Premier League, managers have used (at least) a fourth substitute 72 per cent of the time. They evidently appreciate having more ability to rotate, and more scope for making tactical alterations.
But has it actually been good for football overall?
The concept of five substitutes was about easing physical demands on players, therefore guarding against injury and physical burnout. But it’s highly questionable whether this has had any serious impact whatsoever, and it’s arguably made things worse; this time last season, in particular, there seemed to be more injuries than ever before. Tottenham currently have 10 players out injured, for example.
Granted, it’s not an entirely fair test, because in what could be termed the ‘five-substitute era’, top-level players have become involved in more competitive games, because of the expansion of the Champions League and the introduction of the Club World Cup.
But football has completely overlooked the impact of introducing extra substitutes: it increases the tempo of the game, and the physical demands upon those who aren’t substituted. It’s a fairly straightforward equation: if no substitutes were allowed, the game would need to be played at a tempo that players could sustain for 90 minutes. At the other end of the scale, if 11 substitutes were allowed, every player could run themselves into the ground, knowing they could be replaced.
Football has ended up at a halfway house of five, which means that, going into the final stages, it’s not uncommon to have 10 outfielders with fresh legs up against 10 outfielders who are fatigued, but need to keep on sprinting at the intensity of the substitutes. Whereas once players with fresh legs were outliers, almost like a manager playing a ‘joker’, they’re now a more fundamental part of the game. It’s worth clarifying that the tempo in football has always increased decade on decade, and the five-substitute rule is not the only factor. But things do appear to have exploded dramatically in the last half-decade.
Of course, the increased intensity affects things tactically, too. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and many people are content for football to be played at an increasingly high tempo.
The danger, though, is that the game becomes so frenetic that talented technical players are denied an extra half-second on the ball, an extra few yards of space. The challenge, as always in football, is for those players to showcase their skill within the context of a high tempo. But this is perhaps an artificial high tempo, dictated by an unreasonable number of substitutes. This season’s Premier League has been notable for its underwhelming level of football, with teams seemingly looking elsewhere — to set-pieces — for creativity, at a time when playmakers are finding it difficult to create.
Then, of course, there’s the problem of inequality; more substitutes surely benefits the richer clubs.
First, they can afford to introduce top-class replacements, and five of them — rather than simply three — can completely overwhelm weaker clubs. Yes, in strict terms, the issue is not simply outright quality, but quality in comparison to the player being replaced. Still, it’s difficult to make a case that, say, Arsenal — who use their considerable budget to build a squad to compete in multiple competitions, and therefore have strength in depth — are not better off from the five-subs rule than, say, Burnley. It’s hardly a coincidence that the prospect of a further increase to six has been raised by the big clubs in particular.
Then there’s the long-term impact of depth and stockpiling players. Restrictions have been introduced on squad sizes in an attempt to tackle this problem. Ultimately, most footballers want to play and if a manager is using 16 rather than 14 every game, big clubs have more scope to keep more players involved. The same applies to matchday squads, which are now 20 rather than 18 in the Premier League, and 23 in some other European leagues.
Pep Guardiola wants an unlimited number of players on the bench, so more can feel involved. “I would love the Premier League to say, ‘You can allow on the bench the players you want’,” he said. “I would love it because everybody can play. More alternatives.” But it would be better for football, overall, if players on the fringes moved onto clubs where they will start matches.
The five-substitute era has probably made it harder for promoted teams to survive — things are set to be different this time, but the last six promoted clubs have all been relegated straight away. One of them, Ipswich Town — who found themselves in the Premier League after consecutive promotions — would have been placed 17th on a ‘first half league table’ last season, but 20th on a ‘second half league table’. Were Kieran McKenna’s tactics worked out by opposition managers during matches? Were Ipswich serial bottlers? Or were they simply unable to cope because the five-substitute era rewards established clubs with depth?
There’s also an argument — and maybe this is just one for traditionalists — that football is also supposed to be, on some level, a test of individual stamina and adaptability. Obviously, some substitutes are needed to replace injured and fatigued players, and sides should be able to make changes to tilt the balance of their side too.
But five substitutes is probably too many, and has likely had the opposite impact to what was intended. As a solution to the problem of fatigue, two extra changes has been the footballing equivalent of throwing a glass of water onto a chip pan fire."
My comments weren't aimed at you and I'm certainly not suggesting that you are trying to defend Ben Williams.
I agreed with your general point that there are more hamstring injuries in football. But there's also more sports science in football than ever before. So to repeat my previous comment "something doesn't add up!"
You also say all other teams are having this problem. I'm not so sure that is true, and certainly not to the extent that we are.
I'm not a sports scientist but from what I have read there are two big contributory factors with hamstring injuries:
1. Age - older players are more susceptible 2. Previous history of hamstring problems
We certainly don't have an ancient squad this season so it can't be that. And we signed Poku knowing that he missed a big chunk of last season because of his hamstring so that one does have to be on us.
My own pet theory (untested and unproven) relates to the amount of water we are putting on pitches. If you remember when we played at Forest in 2022 the pitch was very heavy because of a lot of rain before kick off. Willock and Marshall did their hamstrings for us and Scott McKenna also limped off with a hamstring problem. One match is no sort of scientific sample but three hamstring injuries in one match is a bit of an outlier.
But I've also heard climate, fatigue, etc put forward as possible explanations.
As I said in my previous post Ben Williams does appear to be a magnet for hamstring problems. Maybe that's just bad luck and maybe it isn't. But it is on him to understand the problem for us and find solutions. If he can't do that then maybe we do need to look at replacing him.
"It can’t be down to how they are looked after as there is more emphasis on sports science than ever before."
That statement assumes that we're doing the sports science right!
I take your overall point that there has been an increase across football in soft tissue injuries and that must be down to factors that aren't controlled for or aren't yet fully understood. The sports scientists still say that these types of injury are wholly preventable. Nevertheless, these injuries are on the rise. So something doesn't add up.
Pointing at other clubs and saying that they have more hamstring injuries than us isn't an excuse or a justification for our own problems.
It might be unfair to bring up Ben Williams' stint with Brooklyn Nets but they finished last season with the most matches missed through injury, and second for most players injured:
It was their worst season for injuries since 2016/17.
I saw some data elsewhere showing that the Nets had seven hamstring injuries last season, which is freakishly high even for a sport where such injuries are commonplace.
Ben Williams seems to be a magnet for these things.
Maybe he's just unlucky. Maybe a lot of it is down to factors out of his control. But then again maybe he isn't unlucky and his methods are wrong.
Fairly or unfairly player performance is his remit and the buck stops with him. It's on him to understand why these injuries are happening and to find methods for preventing them.
Shrugging shoulders and pointing to someone else's problems isn't an answer.
IIRC Clive wrote something in the summer about us using the British ancestry of some of our Australian contingent to get around the restrictions on number of overseas signings, or something like that (apologies if I've got that wrong).
So I can see why we might find it useful to get a foothold in the A-League if we're going to keep going with that recruitment strategy. Although I might be a bit more enthusiastic if some of our young Australians looked capable of holding down a first team place.
Google's AI says the answer to that is collected but not published! Which is a pity. I would love to know how much ground Burrell covers compared to the Championship average
AI Overview Comprehensive, real-time running data for the English Championship is primarily used for in-depth analysis by professional clubs and media partners, and detailed metrics like total distance covered or high-intensity running per player are not publicly available in a single database. General statistics can be found on official football data websites.
Where to Find Running Data Detailed statistics are typically proprietary, but general information can be found through:
Official League Partners: Official stats packs and data analysis are provided by the EFL to its partners. Limited information may be found on the official EFL website through their "Stat Packs" or news updates.
Opta Analyst: Opta provides in-depth football statistics and analysis for various leagues, including the Championship. You can explore their data on the Opta Analyst website for general performance metrics, though running data is often part of more premium services.
News Articles and Post-Match Reports: Sometimes, specific records or notable running statistics (such as the furthest distance a goal was scored from, as noted in a December 2025 report for Abdul Fatawu) are mentioned in post-match summaries or dedicated analysis articles.
Third-party Stat Sites: Websites like FBref.com offer various stats like possession, passes, and defensive actions but rarely include detailed running metrics like total distance or sprint distance per player.
General Averages Based on typical football analysis, a professional outfield player in a top-tier English league generally covers 10 to 12 kilometres per match. While specific running data for the 2024-2025 or current 2025-2026 EFL Championship seasons is not publicly listed on major statistical websites, some player attributes are highlighted in other contexts, such as speed ratings from video games which identify players like Coventry's Milan van Ewijk and Portsmouth's Josh Murphy as among the fastest players.
You make a fair point about Kone not scoring heavily (yet!), but for me he looks more dangerous in the box than Dykes, Armstrong, or Kelman all of whom have been sold fairly recently.
If you want to look at numbers then Kone and Burrell have 15 between them this season. Kelman (4), Armstrong (3), and Dykes (2) have 9 between them.
But the player development/trading model isn't just about spotting and developing talent. You also have to be a tough negotiator when it comes to horse trading.
Charlton fans were laughing at us when we paid over the odds for Macauley Bonne. We were the ones laughing when Bristol City gave us £2.5m for Sinclair Armstrong.
In total the Dykes, Armstrong, and Kelman sales are reported to have brought in something like £6.5m + add ons.
If Lee and Les were still running things would we have pulled in £6.5m+ for those three? I'm not so sure.
Nourry appears to drive a hard bargain. If he can continue that trend then his tenure here might work out well after all. We shall see.
PS - in other news our old favourite Lyndon Dykes is being linked with Ipswich and Charlton. It might be interesting to see how effective him and Kelman could be as a pair up front at this level.
We've sold Armstrong and Kelman for a profit in the last 18 months or so and replaced them with Kone and Burrell who certainly look like upgrades.
But it's a lengthy process and a difficult trick to keep pulling off. It took Brentford several years of steady progress before they were in a position to trade in players like Watkins and Toney.
I agree with you, although you might have slightly missed my point.
When Brentford signed Watkins he was a 22 year-old with 21 goals in L2 for Exeter.
When they sold Watkins they replaced him with Toney who was a 24 year-old with 40 goals in L1 for Peterborough.
So yes to reinvesting some of what you've brought in from sales, but also look to bring in incrementally better talent as you go, if you want to move forward. Otherwise you will keep going back to square 1.
"Would it not be better to look for ‘the next Ronnie Edwards’, as Millwall did paying £1m each for Crama and Tanganga, both of whom are quickly going to be shifted for huge profit, than going in all hot and heavy for the actual thing because he had a good loan spell?"
I guess the answer to this is to look at the Brentford example.
When they cashed in on players they reinvested in progressively better talent. When they sold Ollie Watkins in 2020 they replaced him with Ivan Toney. (Admittedly for a fraction of the Watkins fee!)
If you really want to progress up the league you can't keep going for promising youngsters who might come good. At some point you have to take a punt on proven talent.
(BTW - Millwall signed Tanganga after a successful loan, and when he signed for them he was already 25 - three yeas older than Ronnie Edwards! And according to Transfermarkt the fee was €1.8m)
Bowler was subsequently signed by Forest when they got to the PL in 2022 but he didn't get a game for them either, although he did get four games on loan at Olympiakos in the Greek Super League.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
