News Interchange Caps 2014

[Team DJ]

4 players rotating 130 times vs 3 players rotating 130 times appears to be an increase to me..

I agree with that

 

[Vader]

You are correct when you say there is an increase..

A piddlingly small one, when compared to the 600% increase which took place in the preceding decade.

 

[cm_perfect]

A piddlingly small one, when compared to the 600% increase which took place in the preceding decade.

You interested in a job Vader??, I could do with a few more that think like you...

 

[Bob Neil]

I don't know if it's unfashionable to say so but I really don't give a flying f*** about interchange caps and wish every coach in the league would quit whining like a school girl about it.

The game was perfectly fine before rotations, it's perfectly fine with rotations, it will go back to being perfectly fine with fewer rotations. They sound like the boy who cried wolf.

There - glad I got that off my chest

 

[Mattrox]

Howd did you go in maths?
130 to 131 is no increase?

Dude if you are going to have to take into account if a change is significant or not. Without going into a t test, I can tell you it is not of statistical significance.

It is 0.77% increase. You shoot your whole argument in the foot by trying to claim that an increase of one rotation matters at all. Especially if we are comparing it to a historical average of 28 per game.

 

[Mattrox]

It's an increase in the number of rotations per bench position. There is no difference in the number of rotations overall.

130 player changes occur full stop.
What might change is the time a player is off the ground with 3 v 4 players.


I don't think the AFL can credit the lower injury rate on the sub either. I think it has more to do with clubs that understand recovery and intervals of rest required better after starting the high rotations.

Actively seeking to tire players out won't decrease injury. It is a competition equalization measure. Clubs successfully using rotations are likely to perform better than those who are still learning. Clubs with players that have good tanks benefit more from rotations.

Clubs rebuilding or with young lists.... see where this is headed....GWS .... won't be blown out of the water as much if the likes of Collingwood, West Coast etc have fatigued players in the final quarter.

Might have my tin foil hat on but I'm not 100% convinced injury is the driving force. It's the public face presented to us though.

 

[Team DJ]

Dude if you are going to have to take into account if a change is significant or not. Without going into a t test, I can tell you it is not of statistical significance.

It is 0.77% increase. You shoot your whole argument in the foot by trying to claim that an increase of one rotation matters at all. Especially if we are comparing it to a historical average of 28 per game.

But there is only 3 of the four players doing that much. Which is a huge increase.

 

[Vader]

But there is only 3 of the four players doing that much. Which is a huge increase.

Actually, the increase per player is much smaller. Each team now has 21 players to rotate, instead of 22. The total increase in rotations per player is just 1/21 = 4.8%.

 

[Mattrox]

no its no increase there are 18+3 rotating.

but it is still 130 rotations. players sit down to rest 130. the duration of rest might be shorter but the same number of rests are being given. a player might miss out on one of their turns as opposed to 4 on the bench, but it would be a player that has a lower aerobic work load.

In fact it is 6.2 rests per game per player with 4, but 5.9 rests per player per game with 3. Given you can't rest .2 or .9 times each player could be rested 6 times with those rotations.

This ignores the sub being a completely fresh player....