How do you choose a sub?

[Big Animal]

Make it nuclear. But get the nuclear reactor and engine room components from the US. Then build your sub so that only people with US citizenship can access the reactor and engine areas. And have all your measurements in those engine areas in Customary units of measurement (imperial) and metric everywhere else on the sub. And do the same with Britain and have dual citizenship Australians act as communicators between the engine room/reactor and the rest of the sub. That's how I would choose a sub.

Otherwise, withdraw The BB Gun with the Pearl Handle

 

[vidwhal]

Make it nuclear. But get the nuclear reactor and engine room components from the US. Then build your sub so that only people with US citizenship can access the reactor and engine areas. And have all your measurements in those engine areas in Customary units of measurement (imperial) and metric everywhere else on the sub. And do the same with Britain and have dual citizenship Australians act as communicators between the engine room/reactor and the rest of the sub. That's how I would choose a sub.

Otherwise, withdraw The BB Gun with the Pearl Handle
View attachment 1908656

As long as it includes ingredients on board to create sandwiches worthy of Dagwood Bumstead, you've got my vote.

 

[Schauermann]

It it bit of a lottery in the end.

Pick somebody versatile to replace whoever get injured.
Pick someone you want to play limited minutes only (perhaps even with a player to be replace chosen already for the same reason).
Pick somebody who offers run or goals as an impact player late in the game.

All fine but all can backfire when you need the other case.

Having injury in the first quarter or being 4 goals down early in last quarter can always make the sub choice look bad...

 

[pK75]

It it bit of a lottery in the end.

Pick somebody versatile to replace whoever get injured.
Pick someone you want to play limited minutes only (perhaps even with a player to be replace chosen already for the same reason).
Pick somebody who offers run or goals as an impact player late in the game.

All fine but all can backfire when you need the other case.

Having injury in the first quarter or being 4 goals down early in last quarter can always make the sub choice look bad...

Personally think it needs to be tactical and back your team versatility to cover in game injuries.

 

[FreoGirl]

I think we used to use subs to cover for injuries, but now I believe we should be tactically bringing in a gun to be used for speed

unfortunately, that hasn't been something JOM or Erasmus have provided. Johnson might be offended by that role, and see it as a step backwards, but could be just who/what we need?

next up?

 

[Dockeroo]

It’s taken a long time for people to start realising the obvious - a sub needs to offer a spark, a point of difference, a change of approach.
I can’t think of a worse sub than the likes of JOM for example. He’s not a matchwinner. He’s just a same same role player.
Erasmus was like a deer in headlights too on Saturday. He’s not a gamechanger either and he’s an undeveloped kid still.

In the last season and a half - two times I all I can recall the sub making a meaningful difference for us.
1. Sonny v north Melbourne in R2 last year.
2. Brodie v the suns in gather round last year.
People forget - you don’t actually NEED to use the sub. If things are going well, you can leave him on the bench.
If we are in trouble - change it up with something different.

 

[Midnite65]

Why do we need to have a sub anyway, why cant the AFL just have one more on the bench. Simplify the game, that way everyone on the bench gets an equal shot and you dont have players not getting enough game practice if they only play a quarter.

 

[pK75]

It’s taken a long time for people to start realising the obvious - a sub needs to offer a spark, a point of difference, a change of approach.
I can’t think of a worse sub than the likes of JOM for example. He’s not a matchwinner. He’s just a same same role player.
Erasmus was like a deer in headlights too on Saturday. He’s not a gamechanger either and he’s an undeveloped kid still.

In the last season and a half - two times I all I can recall the sub making a meaningful difference for us.
1. Sonny v north Melbourne in R2 last year.
2. Brodie v the suns in gather round last year.
People forget - you don’t actually NEED to use the sub. If things are going well, you can leave him on the bench.
If we are in trouble - change it up with something different.

On current form i would strongly advocate for either Walters or Brodie to become the permanent Sub, both are slow but that would be offset by coming on fresh at the end of the 3rd quarter, both offer high impact and can tilt the balance in our favour.

 

[Madas]

Why do we need to have a sub anyway, why cant the AFL just have one more on the bench. Simplify the game, that way everyone on the bench gets an equal shot and you dont have players not getting enough game practice if they only play a quarter.

This 100%

 

[ignoramus]

Why do we need to have a sub anyway, why cant the AFL just have one more on the bench. Simplify the game, that way everyone on the bench gets an equal shot and you dont have players not getting enough game practice if they only play a quarter.

Why just have one more on the bench? Between 2011 and 2015, it was three on the bench and one sub. In 2016, the sub was ditched in favour of adding another to the bench. In 2021, we get a medical sub (converted to tactical in 2023) added on top of the 4 on the bench, and now there are calls to just make the sub another interchange player.

Why just have one more on the bench? Let’s just put the whole squad on the interchange and be done with it.