Analysis 2014 Sub Selection

Remove this Banner Ad

efcboy

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Veteran 10k Posts
Oct 2, 2007
10,176
7,800
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Biggest criticism of the 2014 coaching has been the selection of sub. So far this season we've seen strange sub selections such as:
  • Hardingham
  • Carlisle
  • Kavanagh
  • Dell'Olio
  • Dempsey with no match practice at any level
  • Hocking
None of these worked particularly well - Dell'Olio has kicked some goals but in my view ideally you want a sub with pace who can lift the midfield and get some drive into the forward line. A fit Dempsey would do this but not the one without match practice. The others above do not provide this and are either stay at home forwards or slow clearance mids. I think it has affected our ability to win some matches this season.

Under Hird the selection of sub was far better. We'd regularly see:
  • Lovett-Murray - quick hard at it clearance mid/utility
  • Colyer - injection of pace
  • Jetta - pace, goal sense, run and carry.
Hopefully they can get it right the next few weeks
 
Unless you have a player that can play anywhere and have an impact (see NLM) the sub is pretty much Russian roulette. I think they should get rid of it personally.
 
Beerfish said:
Unless you have a player that can play anywhere and have an impact (see NLM) the sub is pretty much Russian roulette. I think they should get rid of it personally.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of the sub rule either but whilst its in we need to be better tactically with it. NLM no doubt was the perfect sub - quick, impact player could be play big or small, forward or back, midfield and according to knights even ruck...

Shaun Edwards is the closest we've got to that who isn't in the starting lineup. Does his perform warrant it though - probably not. If we'd won some more matches you can also use the sub selection to partially rest players but we don't have that luxury.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

efcboy said:
I'm not a fan of the sub rule either but whilst its in we need to be better tactically with it. NLM no doubt was the perfect sub - quick, impact player could be play big or small, forward or back, midfield and according to knights even ruck...

Shaun Edwards is the closest we've got to that who isn't in the starting lineup. Does his perform warrant it though - probably not. If we'd won some more matches you can also use the sub selection to partially rest players but we don't have that luxury.
Click to expand...
Yeah look I'll be the first to admit I'm not an avid follower of the VFL side being in Perth and all but to be perfectly honest I can't see us firing a shot in anger this year anyway. Ecstatic to be proved wrong but that's just the way I see it. What about real left field? What about the bloke in your sig?
 
Beerfish said:
Unless you have a player that can play anywhere and have an impact (see NLM) the sub is pretty much Russian roulette. I think they should get rid of it personally.
Click to expand...
An argument for another thread perhaps, but I find the whole concept of unlimited (or close enough to it), in-play interchange strange in and of itself. I'm honestly not convinced the game would be qualitatively worse with four subs and no bench.
 
Going through the games...

R1: Zach Merrett. Late 3Q. 11 disposals, 4 marks, 2 tackles.
R2: Zach Merrett. Late 3Q. 6 disposals, 2 marks, 3 tackles.
R3: Martin Gleeson. Start of 4Q. 10 disposals, 2 marks, 1 tackles, 1 behind.
R4: Leroy Jetta. On Q2. 8 disposals, 4 marks, 2 tackles, 1 goal, 1 behind.
R5: Jason Ashby. Early Q3. 11 disposals. 2 marks, 2 tackles.
R6: Courtenay Dempsey. Early Q3. 10 disposals, 1 mark, 1 tackle.
R7: Jason Ashby. Mid Q3. 2 disposals, 2 marks.
R8: Kurt Aylett. Late Q3. 7 disposals, 3 marks.
R9: Jake Carlilse Late Q3. 6 disposals, 2 marks, 2 goals.
R10: BYE
R11: Jake Melksham. Late Q3. 6 disposals, 2 marks, 1 tackle.
R12: David Myers. Late Q3. 9 disposals, 3 marks, 1 tackle.
R13: Elliot Kavanagh. Start Q4. 4 disposals, 2 tackles.
R14: Zach Merrett. Mid Q3. 7 disposals, 2 marks, 2 tackles.
R15: Zach Merrett. Late Q3. 7 disposals, 1 mark.
R16: Kyle Hardingham. Start Q4. 2 disposals, 5 tackles.
R17: Corey Dell'Olio Start Q4. 6 disposals, 2 marks, 2 tackles, 2 behinds.
R18: Corey Dell'Olio Late Q3. 2 disposals, 1 mark, 4 tackles, 1 goal.
R19: Corey Dell'Olio Late Q3. 7 disposals, 3 mark, 2 tackles
R20: Elliot Kavanagh. Start Q4. 4 disposals, 1 mark.

Now coloring them:
Red: Fail grade
Amber: Just OK
Green: Great sub effort

R1: Zach Merrett. Late 3Q. 11 disposals, 4 marks, 2 tackles.
R2: Zach Merrett. Late 3Q. 6 disposals, 2 marks, 3 tackles.
R3: Martin Gleeson. Start of 4Q. 10 disposals, 2 marks, 1 tackles, 1 behind.
R4: Leroy Jetta. On Q2. 8 disposals, 4 marks, 2 tackles, 1 goal, 1 behind.
R5: Jason Ashby. Early Q3. 11 disposals. 2 marks, 2 tackles.
R6: Courtenay Dempsey. Early Q3. 10 disposals, 1 mark, 1 tackle.
R7: Jason Ashby. Mid Q3. 2 disposals, 2 marks.
R8: Kurt Aylett. Late Q3. 7 disposals, 3 marks.
R9: Jake Carlilse Late Q3. 6 disposals, 2 marks, 2 goals.
R10: BYE
R11: Jake Melksham. Late Q3. 6 disposals, 2 marks, 1 tackle.
R12: David Myers. Late Q3. 9 disposals, 3 marks, 1 tackle.
R13: Elliot Kavanagh. Start Q4. 4 disposals, 2 tackles.
R14: Zach Merrett. Mid Q3. 7 disposals, 2 marks, 2 tackles.
R15: Zach Merrett. Late Q3. 7 disposals, 1 mark.
R16: Kyle Hardingham. Start Q4. 2 disposals, 5 tackles.
R17: Corey Dell'Olio Start Q4. 6 disposals, 2 marks, 2 tackles, 2 behinds.
R18: Corey Dell'Olio Late Q3. 2 disposals, 1 mark, 4 tackles, 1 goal.
R19: Corey Dell'Olio Late Q3. 7 disposals, 3 mark, 2 tackles
R20: Elliot Kavanagh. Start Q4. 4 disposals, 1 mark.

For mine...
  • Less Elliot Kav, Kurt Aylett types that need to work their way into the game and don't have the 'X-factor' to impact off the bench.
  • Someone like Jetta who has an experienced body and can come on for short bursts is the type.
  • Would like to see Jackson Merrett come back as a sub.
 
Hawthorn is the perfect model for this one. They pick a team of 21, then they pick the sub as a separate position. If you're the last man out of the 21, you don't get picked as sub if it's not your go (Mitch Hallahan is the perfect example there. Guys like Billy Hartung kept their spot as sub ahead of the better performed Hallahan, because the latter isn't an impact player.)

We seem to use it as the 22nd man rather than a unique position.
 
Ben the Gooner said:
Hawthorn is the perfect model for this one. They pick a team of 21, then they pick the sub as a separate position. If you're the last man out of the 21, you don't get picked as sub if it's not your go (Mitch Hallahan is the perfect example there. Guys like Billy Hartung kept their spot as sub ahead of the better performed Hallahan, because the latter isn't an impact player.)

We seem to use it as the 22nd man rather than a unique position.
Click to expand...

perfect summation :thumbsu:
 
Ben the Gooner said:
Hawthorn is the perfect model for this one. They pick a team of 21, then they pick the sub as a separate position. If you're the last man out of the 21, you don't get picked as sub if it's not your go (Mitch Hallahan is the perfect example there. Guys like Billy Hartung kept their spot as sub ahead of the better performed Hallahan, because the latter isn't an impact player.)

We seem to use it as the 22nd man rather than a unique position.
Click to expand...

Who do you suggest we use?
 
Beerfish said:
Yeah look I'll be the first to admit I'm not an avid follower of the VFL side being in Perth and all but to be perfectly honest I can't see us firing a shot in anger this year anyway. Ecstatic to be proved wrong but that's just the way I see it. What about real left field? What about the bloke in your sig?
Click to expand...

Yeah Rayner could suit but he'd need to be promoted. Maybe next year when he's got more footy under his belt.
 
JDavey said:
Who do you suggest we use?
Click to expand...

Pre-season I'd have said Dalgleish but obviously injury has hindered that. Melksham is the sort of player you'd consider in terms of physical attributes. Edwards should have had a shot by now. Nobby would be a different type, given he's not quick but could easily come on with 45 minutes to go and play 40 of them in the midfield. Colyer should have been played there well before he cemented his spot in the 21 (although if the coaches preferred to give him full games in the 2s with being a starting 21 player as the end game, that's fair enough.

There's 5 players who have been sub once between them.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ben the Gooner said:
Pre-season I'd have said Dalgleish but obviously injury has hindered that. Melksham is the sort of player you'd consider in terms of physical attributes. Edwards should have had a shot by now. Nobby would be a different type, given he's not quick but could easily come on with 45 minutes to go and play 40 of them in the midfield. Colyer should have been played there well before he cemented his spot in the 21 (although if the coaches preferred to give him full games in the 2s with being a starting 21 player as the end game, that's fair enough.

There's 5 players who have been sub once between them.
Click to expand...

I think these would be ideal:

Jetta
Dalgleish (Injured)
Gleeson (Injured)

However I think once Dalgleish and Gleeson are up and running they push for best 21 selection rather then sub games.
 
Ben the Gooner said:
Pre-season I'd have said Dalgleish but obviously injury has hindered that. Melksham is the sort of player you'd consider in terms of physical attributes. Edwards should have had a shot by now. Nobby would be a different type, given he's not quick but could easily come on with 45 minutes to go and play 40 of them in the midfield. Colyer should have been played there well before he cemented his spot in the 21 (although if the coaches preferred to give him full games in the 2s with being a starting 21 player as the end game, that's fair enough.

There's 5 players who have been sub once between them.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more with both your posts.. Hawks once again lead the way..

I would also add Jetta to the mix.. I know you don't agree.. but to me he is the kind of player that can come on and play line breaker or some goal smarts or short stints in the middle. I also think Hardingham 'could' fill that utility role.. can play forward or back.. tallish or shortish with a good set of hands..
 
rines said:
Couldn't agree more with both your posts.. Hawks once again lead the way..

I would also add Jetta to the mix.. I know you don't agree.. but to me he is the kind of player that can come on and play line breaker or some goal smarts or short stints in the middle. I also think Hardingham 'could' fill that utility role.. can play forward or back.. tallish or shortish with a good set of hands..
Click to expand...

Don't have any real problem with Jetta, but it seems like his papers are stamped, so including him is about as useful as including Winderlich.

Hardingham I'm not so sure about. I think ability to play midfield has to be a prerequisite for the sub. I don't mind Hardi as a player, but not for me as the sub.
 
Kong said:
Also I have no idea how Gleeson is tracking, but it would be ideal if we could ease him back into senior footy with a few games as the starting sub.
Click to expand...
Played about 75% in the VFL mostly because we were 2 men down
 
Ultimately the problem will always be that if someone is a really good sub, then they'll be part of the starting 21. There'll always be consistency issues with whoever the 22nd player is in a given week, whether that be due to niggles, attitude, etc. While the rule adds nothing, it's existence means the AFL won't implement other ideas for the time being, which is a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top