Oppo Camp Non Geelong football (AFL) discussion 2025, Part 2

[standupand]

Someone needs to create a Dune movie poster but it's called Steve instead

Surely someone out there somewhere has made an "I.. am Steve" meme using Hocking's head instead of Jack Black's?

 

[Romeoh1]

Rumours are that he actually snapped because of the "stand" rule - the single word that toppled an empire.

Haha- yep- that is just how some of them see it. A scream.

 

[cats_09]

 

[winty]

Hocking so powerful he controls space and time

Thanos has nothing on Hocking.

 

[And_ROOS]

Thanos has nothing on Hocking.

Image: Steve Hocking brings in the stand rule.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

View attachment 2357740
Image: Steve Hocking brings in the stand rule.

And just like that Hocking snaps a thousand acls

 

[Gunf]

Yes please remove the sub and just have 4 on the bench

 

[Strange Cat]

View attachment 2357740
Image: Steve Hocking brings in the stand rule.

Snap it hard daddy Steve!!!

 

[cats_09]

Yes please remove the sub and just have 4 on the bench

I think if the sub is removed they'll want 5 on the bench

Then we'll get half way through next year, there'll be a more than a few early match concussions or serious injuries and coaches will start to talk to the unfairness of 5 on the bench versus 4

Then in another year or two the AFL will reintroduce a concussion/injury sub to be specifically used for a player unable to play the game out

Within 2 years we'll see coaches complaining about it's use and the tactical nature of a player being subbed out due to cramp giving the opposition fresh legs they didn't have access to blah blah blah

The AFL will then ease the restrictions around the use of the sub to be also a tactical option

A year or two later the coaches again complain, saying it should be a straight up 6 on the bench... And we go through this cycle all over again

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I think if the sub is removed they'll want 5 on the bench

Then we'll get half way through next year, there'll be a more than a few early match concussions or serious injuries and coaches will start to talk to the unfairness of 5 on the bench versus 4

Then in another year or two the AFL will reintroduce a concussion/injury sub to be specifically used for a player unable to play the game

Within 2 years we'll see coaches complaining about it's use and the tactical nature of a playing being subbed out due to cramp giving the opposition fresh legs they didn't have access to

The AFL will then ease the restrictions around the use of the sub to be also a tactical option

A year or two later the coaches again complain, saying it should be a straight up 6 on the bench... And we go through this cycle all over again

Time is definitely a flat circle. I think though we probably see 5, then the sides with quick players just running over the top of the slower teams, then the AFL drops rotations again woth no real change, then drop the bench to 4, then a run of soft tissue injuries, then an unlocking of rotations and a bench of 4.

 

[standupand]

I think if the sub is removed they'll want 5 on the bench

Then we'll get half way through next year, there'll be a more than a few early match concussions or serious injuries and coaches will start to talk to the unfairness of 5 on the bench versus 4

Then in another year or two the AFL will reintroduce a concussion/injury sub to be specifically used for a player unable to play the game

Within 2 years we'll see coaches complaining about it's use and the tactical nature of a playing being subbed out due to cramp giving the opposition fresh legs they didn't have access to

The AFL will then ease the restrictions around the use of the sub to be also a tactical option

A year or two later the coaches again complain, saying it should be a straight up 6 on the bench... And we go through this cycle all over again

Exactly! This kind of stuff does my head in about AFL.

I mean if it were up to me I'd scrap interchange altogether and just have 7 subs to use for injuries and tactical purposes.

But can we just stop changing the rules every 2 seconds on the back of reactionary opinion rather than evidence?

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Exactly! This kind of stuff does my head in about AFL.

I mean if it were up to me I'd scrap interchange altogether and just have 7 subs to use for injuries and tactical purposes.

But can we just stop changing the rules every 2 seconds on the back of reactionary opinion rather than evidence?

I think if you took away interchange list managers would just recruit athletic ball burners everywhere. Playing 100% game time would be more important than being a good footballer. The standard would go backwards

 

[standupand]

I think if you took away interchange list managers would just recruit athletic ball burners everywhere. Playing 100% game time would be more important than being a good footballer. The standard would go backwards

I don't really think so. Lots of players, especially the good ones, already play near 100% game time, switching between roles. With 7 subs, you only need 11 players to play 100%. 14 players play less than 100%. I think it could extend the careers of some players who can't really play more than 80% game time but who can offer something for shorter stints.

Anyway, this is just my opinion and I know people will disagree. My overall point was that rule changes tend to be so reactionary in the AFL. To be honest, it's embarrassing.

 

[cats_09]

I don't really think so. Lots of players, especially the good ones, already play near 100% game time, switching between roles. With 7 subs, you only need 11 players to play 100%. 14 players play less than 100%. I think it could extend the careers of some players who can't really play more than 80% game time but who can offer something for shorter stints.

Anyway, this is just my opinion and I know people will disagree. My overall point was that rule changes tend to be so reactionary in the AFL. To be honest, it's embarrassing.

On occasions, but not always and it also depends on injuries, match situation etc

This is the average TOG for our guys this year - not one is averaging over 95% let alone any being close to averaging 100%



If there's a sudden expectation of 11 players running out 100% TOG, that's a lot of guys having to take the step up from 80% to 100% game time

And here's that same stat across the whole league. Of the players to have played a minimum 5 games this season, only 40 average more than 90% TOG - if the AFL tried to scrap the interchange bench & make it "X" subs instead, there'd be immediate push back from the clubs, the coach's and the AFLPA, it simply wouldn't be accepted

 

[standupand]

On occasions, but not always and it also depends on injuries, match situation etc

This is the average TOG for our guys this year - not one is averaging over 95% let alone any being close to averaging 100%

View attachment 2357902

If there's a sudden expectation of 11 players running out 100% TOG, that's a lot of guys having to take the step up from 80% to 100% game time

And here's that same stat across the whole league. Of the players to have played a minimum 5 games this season, only 40 average more than 90% TOG - if the AFL tried to scrap the interchange bench & make it "X" subs instead, there'd be immediate push back from the clubs, the coach's and the AFLPA, it simply wouldn't be accepted

View attachment 2357906

Cheers for posting the numbers. To be clear I'm not expecting the AFL or clubs to listen to my thoughts on this matter, but glad that you did! .
I mean it could coincide with shortening of quarter lengths if they were worried about overall time played. But really overall you have more players who can take the field so potentially slightly less time played per player.

Clubs would manage. You want to use you subs wisely to maximise the influence each player has on the game. And allows pretty much any number of in-game injuries to be dealt with adequately without numerical disadvantage.

 

[frggr]

On occasions, but not always and it also depends on injuries, match situation etc

This is the average TOG for our guys this year - not one is averaging over 95% let alone any being close to averaging 100%

View attachment 2357902

If there's a sudden expectation of 11 players running out 100% TOG, that's a lot of guys having to take the step up from 80% to 100% game time

And here's that same stat across the whole league. Of the players to have played a minimum 5 games this season, only 40 average more than 90% TOG - if the AFL tried to scrap the interchange bench & make it "X" subs instead, there'd be immediate push back from the clubs, the coach's and the AFLPA, it simply wouldn't be accepted

View attachment 2357906

Pretty interesting to see Connor O'Sullivan as our biggest TOG - bodes well for him if he's got that level of endurance

 

[And_ROOS]

I think if the sub is removed they'll want 5 on the bench

Then we'll get half way through next year, there'll be a more than a few early match concussions or serious injuries and coaches will start to talk to the unfairness of 5 on the bench versus 4

Then in another year or two the AFL will reintroduce a concussion/injury sub to be specifically used for a player unable to play the game out

Within 2 years we'll see coaches complaining about it's use and the tactical nature of a player being subbed out due to cramp giving the opposition fresh legs they didn't have access to blah blah blah

The AFL will then ease the restrictions around the use of the sub to be also a tactical option

A year or two later the coaches again complain, saying it should be a straight up 6 on the bench... And we go through this cycle all over again

Always felt they could make a simple change without ****ing with the history of the game.

When you announce your team, you have 4 on the bench and 3 emergencies.

Simply put the AFL should say "ok each week 1 of those 3 emergencies has to be an under 21s player, but should you get a match ending injury to any one of your 4 on the bench you can sub them for one of your 3 emergency players".

Subs can be made whenever, whenever, you still have 4 on the bench and the rotation cap, and by having an under 21s player on there it can encourage coaches to give match time to younger players in games at no risk.

 

[standupand]

Always felt they could make a simple change without ****ing with the history of the game.

When you announce your team, you have 4 on the bench and 3 emergencies.

Simply put the AFL should say "ok each week 1 of those 3 emergencies has to be an under 21s player, but should you get a match ending injury to any one of your 4 on the bench you can sub them for one of your 3 emergency players".

Subs can be made whenever, whenever, you still have 4 on the bench and the rotation cap, and by having an under 21s player on there it can encourage coaches to give match time to younger players in games at no risk.

I like this idea too. Your emergencies are precisely that - players who can come in for another player either pre-game or in-game for whatever reason.

 

[cats_09]

 

[standupand]

One of my fave opposition players. Fun to watch him snap goals from the pockets. Was a cats fan I believe as a kid.

 

[cats_09]

 

[Strange Cat]

It’s been said before…but geez Tigers are a special breed in that lynch thread ..not defending Lynch aparently but it’s the defenders fault and the umpires fault for allowing the man baby to get frustrated

But no not defending lynch

Imbeciles

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

North about to get absolutely hammered in their celebrations.

 

[Lana]

I think if the sub is removed they'll want 5 on the bench

Then we'll get half way through next year, there'll be a more than a few early match concussions or serious injuries and coaches will start to talk to the unfairness of 5 on the bench versus 4

Then in another year or two the AFL will reintroduce a concussion/injury sub to be specifically used for a player unable to play the game out

Within 2 years we'll see coaches complaining about it's use and the tactical nature of a player being subbed out due to cramp giving the opposition fresh legs they didn't have access to blah blah blah

The AFL will then ease the restrictions around the use of the sub to be also a tactical option

A year or two later the coaches again complain, saying it should be a straight up 6 on the bench... And we go through this cycle all over again

I've brought it up before but I want them to have at least 8 on the bench, give the coach more influence. At that point injuries becomes less of an excuse.

Hell reduce list sizes to 32 and have unlimited bench sizes and rotations. I wanna see Hockley style interchanges

 

[winty]

That could be the sealer...