Should one player be the substitute?

[Football Pope]

With most teams the popular model for the role of the substitute, at the moment, is each week, rotate a different player through the position. With the exception of a couple, most have had an instant impact when coming on...

Read the attached article on Gaff being selected for the first 3 weeks as the substitute for the Eagles..Then heard an interview on SEN with Sumich who said "He is expected to start there next week as well".. not a bad idea got me thinking...Will clubs use the substitute as a way of easing a youngster into AFL and would it be worth grooming a player from the rookie list to play as the substitute?


The Gaff effect

 

[Grimreepah]

I would have thought it's a bit of a balance. There are players more suited as a sub, but you wouldn't want the same person every week. You'd be a bit annoyed if you lost form playing only 25 minutes per week.

Gaff seems a strange choice. Firstly he is more an accumulator than an explosive player. Secondly, I would have thought you would want to be maximising his game time (whether it be in the 1s or the 2s) to propel his development. Then again, maybe being the sub is helping him with the transition to senior football.

 

[Tetris]

I would have thought it's a bit of a balance. There are players more suited as a sub, but you wouldn't want the same person every week. You'd be a bit annoyed if you lost form playing only 25 minutes per week.

Gaff seems a strange choice. Firstly he is more an accumulator than an explosive player. Secondly, I would have thought you would want to be maximising his game time (whether it be in the 1s or the 2s) to propel his development. Then again, maybe being the sub is helping him with the transition to senior football.

This is what I was thinking. Surely a younger player would find more benefit through playing a full game in the reserves than playing 20-40 minutes in the AFL. And with your point about transition to senior footy, I would think that unless they are a lighter framed player (in which case the 2's would probably be better) or a explosive, damaging player with lower endurance, a full game isn't too much to expect from them.

Just my 2c...

 

[LIONHART]

you would want an impact player, someone who can come on with fresh legs and impact the game straight away.

as someone said earlier not everyone is suited to that role, it would benefit the clubs to identify those most suited it and rotate them as need required.

 

[Stocka]

It wouldn't do much for match conditioning to have the same player as the sub each week.

It's interesting that the Eagles have used Gaff as the sub each week. I read that his running capacity was extremely high and that he also had a bit of pace. Perhaps they are less concerned about him losing his physical edge if he happens to be a naturally gifted athlete, but I can't imagine that every player would have the ability to keep themselves at 100% over consecutive weeks of subbing.

Also, you'd have to think that in some cases, a sub will be specifically selected to replace an individual who the match committee might have some doubts over. Or, in some cases, a "horses for courses" approach might be taken, where you select a tall or a small based on the perceived advantage that such a sub might give once brought on.

 

[Dylan12]

For those that are familiar with English football, but Ole Gunnar Solskjaer made a career out of being a "super" sub for Man Utd, which actually makes me sick admitting it, but he was brilliant at it...not saying you would have a specialist to the extent of Ole, but you would love to be able to inject a player in who had the ability to really impact a game.

 

[POBT]

I thought that Bewick had a pretty high impact when he came on. Which then begs the question - if he had played the whole game, would we have been a better side? Impossible to answer but, if we're looking for impact off the pine, then I think Bewick did a good job.

 

[POBT]

For those that are familiar with English football, but Ole Gunnar Solskjaer made a career out of being a "super" sub for Man Utd, which actually makes me sick admitting it, but he was brilliant at it...not saying you would have a specialist to the extent of Ole, but you would love to be able to inject a player in who had the ability to really impact a game.

Yeah, certain players make an art form of it. The NBA used to (still does?) have an award for best 6th man. Someone like Shaun Berrigan made a State of Origin career out of being an impact bench player. In rugby at the moment, there's a lot of talk about the strength of the Reds' bench, with the coach using them to sustain performance over a full 80 minutes.

I don't think the current interchange arrangements are perfect but there's a lot to like.

 

[Football Pope]

I thought that Bewick had a pretty high impact when he came on. Which then begs the question - if he had played the whole game, would we have been a better side? Impossible to answer but, if we're looking for impact off the pine, then I think Bewick did a good job.

Absolutely..I also thought the job Buchanan did was pretty serviceable...I had him in mind with the OP, my thinking at the time being that a mature age player that still has a bit to offer a team with leadership and presence .. but in reality, their body is only ever going to give a quarter/half a game...

 

[BuntonRules]

I was surprised at how small & underdeveloped Gaff was when I first saw him play (on TV). Had him on my dreamteam early, but the first view changed it. IMO, the Eagles have decided he is not up to the rigours of full time footy yet, but he is too good to leave out, & needs game time to develop. Bringing him on later in games when this sting has gone out of it, but he can still use his run to have an impact, seems a reasonable compromise.

For us - after seeing Polec run out of legs on Sunday, mayhap this may be a good role for him also (for a few weeks anyway). Too good to leave out but not quite ready yet. And after 2 years of SANFL I doubt he will learn much in the Ressies.

 

[BigCat2]

Agree re: Polec as sub. Not yet fit enough to sustain run over a whole game, is so explosive and skilled, can cut a line through opposition defence late in a game, potentially booting multiple goals from 50m.

Tim Notting would have been the perfect sub back in the day - indeed Leigh Matthews used him that way in 2001 and 2002 grand finals, where he didn't come on until after half time, using his run and long kicking to good effect. He was also a good utility height, and could play all over the ground.

And when he gets over his injuries - Callum Bartlett?

 

[troppo]

We should rotate our younger players through the substitute position. This should help them to maintain their form further into the season. I have really enjoyed the introduction of the sub. Seeing the ruckmen spend time up forward instead of rotating off the bench. The same goes for the best running players. I have never enjoyed the continues multiple changes through interchange that we have seen in recent seasons. The decision as to when to release the sub has also added something to the game.

 

[Black Falcon]

I like the intrigue that the sub posi has brought into the game.
Don't like the resting ruckman being the FF as it is a specialist posi.

As much as the coaches fought against the Sub, I can see them having a big rethink on this by the end of the season. The coaches will twist the sub issue to their advantage, by asking for three subs per game. That way, they can have a midfielder, a tall and a utility at hand to throw on the field should they be needed. This may lead to a spate of soccer type 'injuries', but coaches will be far less likely to blame injuries for losing a game.

The AFL commission will stick hard to three interchange players.
The coaches will push for three subs by the end of this season

And no, the same players will not be the subs each week. And yes, they may have already played in the seconds, or be returning from injury.

 

[Dylan12]

Not that it mattered last night, but in recent weeks, our 'sub' has disappointingly been largely ineffectual.

I don't know what the answer is, but in recent years the selection of the sub seemed to be the type of guy that would impact the game when coming on, even if they were coming back from injury, but in recent weeks, ours haven't done a lot.

R18 - Beams (limited impact)
R17 - Paparone (limited impact & dropped following game)
R16 - McGrath (limited impact)
R15 - McGrath (limited impact)
R14 - Cutler (limited impact & dropped following game)
R13 - O'Brien (limited impact)
R12 - O'Brien (limited impact)
R11 - O'Brien (solid in his debut v Carlton)
R10 - Bye
R9 - Robertson (limited impact and dropped following game)
R8 - Robertson (solid)
R7 - Golby (limited impact and dropped following game)
R6 - Cutler (solid)
R5 - Moloney (limited impact and dropped following game)
R4 - Cutler (solid)
R3 - Aish (solid)
R2 - Bewick (limited impact and dropped following game)
R1 - Taylor (very good)

I've liked what the Dogs have done with Gia, and despite Ash McGrath not having a great influence as sub in R15 & 16, it will be interesting if he is kept on whether it is a role the coaches would have him fill. Or perhaps, the role is used for the 22th man selected or someone coming back from injury. I'm sure all options have merit, but either way, it doesn't seem we're getting much from the sub.

 

[POBT]

I reckon that some weeks we've picked blokes as sub who probably wouldn't have played had we a full list to choose from.