interchange numbers

[telsor]

My point is you’d think the proponents for change would have strong numbers supporting their cause.

They don’t and you suspect it’s because the data does not support their stand, that’s why their argument is mambo jumbo and ‘let’s get back to the nineties etc’

They should have laughter in their face until they can make a strong case for change

Not sure what data you'd like to see, but my point was that it wont be a single, simple, set of numbers.

 

[Rabman]

I would like it to be brought down to 60. Coaches would have to be more strategic about when and who they take off, midfielders probably take the priority so forwards having to rest further up the ground, thus creating more space.

 

[Boston tiger]

My point is you’d think the proponents for change would have strong numbers supporting their cause.

They don’t and you suspect it’s because the data does not support their stand, that’s why their argument is mambo jumbo and ‘let’s get back to the nineties etc’

They should have laughter in their face until they can make a strong case for change

They are trying to get players back in their positions instead of a 36 player running mall which was starting to happen with all the interchanges.

 

[Furn2]

Hill was freos b&f and he’s a very good football player who can run as well. Blicavs was stuffed by the third man up and arguably hartung by the sub rule.

So let’s make more changes and justify a few talking heads who couldn’t cut it as coaches etc

Oh please ... 1 of those players was a quality footballer and was since day 1. The other two were frankenstein like projects.

 

[footyfan1978]

There’s been reduced interchange recently right?

Yet the so called problem still exists as strong as ever

So the people who called for the first reduction are asking for more, yet apparently it hasn’t worked so far?

The thing was it was only a small reduction to something that got way out of control.
90 is still way too many but ultimately the problem was more of having 4 players on interchange bench to start with. Should have been left at 2. This is just their other way of trying to reel it in but keep 4 on bench.

 

[Furn2]

Look at it the other way.

soccer has a limited interchange so Hartung and Blicavs types are playing for Real Madrid ?

 

[footyfan1978]

Just out of interest, for those of us been watching since late 1970's or early 1980's how many interchange transactions (for lack of better word) took place on average a game across that period when 2 players on bench was the norm? Was it 10 a match per team on average, 15, 20 or up to 30?
Just curious if they even recorded the numbers back then.

Guess watching some games in full of those recorded on video back then is only way to really know.
I suspect it was likely around 20.
Some did not even come on till second half at all.

 

[Furn2]

Just out of interest, for those of us been watching since late 1970's or early 1980's how many interchange transactions (for lack of better word) took place on average a game across that period when 2 players on bench was the norm? Was it 10 a match per team on average, 15, 20 or up to 30?
Just curious if they even recorded the numbers back then.

Guess watching some games in full of those recorded on video back then is only way to really know.
I suspect it was likely around 20.
Some did not even come on till second half at all.

It was 1 or 2
I believe as recently as the GF 1998 North did make a change until late in the 3rd qtr

 

[footyfan1978]

It was 1 or 2

No way. If it was 1, you are basically saying one of players starting on bench never got to even go on the field for the match. Nah, certainly had to be half a dozen times at least. From vague recall many of the guys starting on bench were a secondary ruck type like Wow Jones for us or secondary rover/forward pocket type like Alex Marcou or Fraser Murphy. I suspect those guys played less then 40 minutes of match unless someone injured early that started on field.

 

[Furn2]

No way. If it was 1, you are basically saying one of players starting on bench never got to even go on the field for the match. Nah, certainly had to be half a dozen times at least. From vague recall many of the guys starting on bench were a secondary ruck type like Wow Jones for us or secondary rover/forward pocket type like Alex Marcou or Fraser Murphy. I suspect those guys played less then 40 minutes of match unless someone injured early that started on field.

I remember reading Dipper didn't take the field in the first 4 or 5 of his 300 odd games

and as per my edit above North didn't make a change at all in the first half of the 1998 Gf.

 

[footyfan1978]

I remember reading Dipper didn't take the field in the first 4 or 5 of his 300 odd games

and as per my edit above North didn't make a change at all in the first half of the 1998 Gf.

Interesting. I think there was a change to how bench was used in mid 70's which was both before my time and probably when Dipper started out. There was a time they did not call them interchange bench and just 19th and 20th man or reserves and in those times it may have worked that when someone went off, they could not come back on. That maybe why Dipper as 19th or 20th man had some games he never took the field. Curious to follow that one up and see if that is right or wrong in how it worked then.

Edit: Just checked on AFL tables, Dipper made debut in 1975.
I cannot find a game where he did not take the field. Shows 4 disposals first game. Then 7, 15 and 21 in his next three that were in season 1978. Having looked it up suspect Dipper just maybe had memory play tricks of him. Maybe he meant 3 games as emergency before he really got a game in the 20 ?

Also on afl.com.au under rule changes I found this:
1899
Teams were reduced from 20 to 18 players (two followers instead of four).

1930
Use of a replacement (19th man) permitted for the first time. Once replaced a player could not return to the field.

1946
Two reserves (19th and 20th men) permitted for the first time. Once replaced, a player could not return to the field.

1964
Coaches’ runners were permitted to speak to team captains and vice-captains only on the
field during matches.

1978
Interchange player system introduced.

1994
Introduction of third interchange player.

1998
Introduction of fourth interchange player.

 

[Pessimistic]

The thing was it was only a small reduction to something that got way out of control.
90 is still way too many but ultimately the problem was more of having 4 players on interchange bench to start with. Should have been left at 2. This is just their other way of trying to reel it in but keep 4 on bench.

So there’s no evidence to support the change. This is like religious fundamentalism.

If certain people do get their way and the reduction goes too far, will they push to raise the limit again.

Is it so unreasonable to expect some proof?

 

[Pessimistic]

They are trying to get players back in their positions instead of a 36 player running mall which was starting to happen with all the interchanges.

So far they are plainly not succeeding

Lowering numbers on the ground seems logical to me, as the abandoned having bigger grounds with Waverley

Anyone think the trouble may have started when Etihad was introduced?

 

[Pessimistic]

Interesting. I think there was a change to how bench was used in mid 70's which was both before my time and probably when Dipper started out. There was a time they did not call them interchange bench and just 19th and 20th man or reserves and in those times it may have worked that when someone went off, they could not come back on. That maybe why Dipper as 19th or 20th man had some games he never took the field. Curious to follow that one up and see if that is right or wrong in how it worked then.

Edit: Just checked on AFL tables, Dipper made debut in 1975.
I cannot find a game where he did not take the field. Shows 4 disposals first game. Then 7, 15 and 21 in his next three that were in season 1978. Having looked it up suspect Dipper just maybe had memory play tricks of him. Maybe he meant 3 games as emergency before he really got a game in the 20 ?

Also on afl.com.au under rule changes I found this:
1899
Teams were reduced from 20 to 18 players (two followers instead of four).

1930
Use of a replacement (19th man) permitted for the first time. Once replaced a player could not return to the field.

1946
Two reserves (19th and 20th men) permitted for the first time. Once replaced, a player could not return to the field.

1964
Coaches’ runners were permitted to speak to team captains and vice-captains only on the
field during matches.

1978
Interchange player system introduced.

1994
Introduction of third interchange player.

1998
Introduction of fourth interchange player.

So the interchange was in place for most of KBs career? That not how he presents it. And they did reduce numbers on field once?

 

[SHill Shall]

In 2013 the top teams averaged more than 140 interchanges per match. In 2017 this was less than 90. Was the football better in 2013 or 2017?

 

[Pessimistic]

Just out of interest, for those of us been watching since late 1970's or early 1980's how many interchange transactions (for lack of better word) took place on average a game across that period when 2 players on bench was the norm? Was it 10 a match per team on average, 15, 20 or up to 30?
Just curious if they even recorded the numbers back then.

Guess watching some games in full of those recorded on video back then is only way to really know.
I suspect it was likely around 20.
Some did not even come on till second half at all.

Saw some replays from (2000s?) recently and they showed every interchange in a graphic on the screen. How quaint

Anyway just on the golden era (so called) people are mist eyed over. For 70% of those game s a team would get three goals up and then there’d be a maul up and down the boundary line. Coaches have always found a way to neutralise play

 

[Boston tiger]

So far they are plainly not succeeding

Lowering numbers on the ground seems logical to me, as the abandoned having bigger grounds with Waverley

Anyone think the trouble may have started when Etihad was introduced?

We have become too fit/big for our ovals for sure.
I think puffing out the players will turn this around.
The game became great without interchange so you’d think it wouldn’t be the end of the world if they are reduced.

 

[footyfan1978]

So there’s no evidence to support the change.

Yes, no evidence to support changing from 2 interchange players on bench to 4.

 

[Luv_our_club]

So far they are plainly not succeeding

Lowering numbers on the ground seems logical to me, as the abandoned having bigger grounds with Waverley

Anyone think the trouble may have started when Etihad was introduced?

i have thought about the size of the grounds, but we had so many small suburban grounds during the great years of one-on-one contests.

The change started with coaches (Wallace flood in 2000) and professionalism. Add to that changing biology / body shapes (ruck used to 183cms)... drastic change/intervention is required to nromalise things.

That means a rule/law/lore change.

 

[footyfan1978]

So the interchange was in place for most of KBs career? That not how he presents it.

KB would have seen the interchange system come into being in 1978. He had played since 1965 in seniors and all his junior career with no interchange players and only 19th and 20th men as reserves players.
So no, was not in place most of his career. Not by a long shot. Most of his career he was playing a game of truly 18 v 18 on field and no rotation bullshit that blows it out to really 22 v 22 with 4 taking a rest at any moment off field. I do not listen to KB so have no idea how he presents it.

 

[footyfan1978]

Anyone think the trouble may have started when Etihad was introduced?

No, started when interchange system got turned into a rotation system which would be not too far after coaches catch onto idea of using it that way. It is not rocket science to find source of the problem.

1998
Introduction of fourth interchange player.

 

[footyfan1978]

Saw some replays from (2000s?) recently and they showed every interchange in a graphic on the screen. How quaint

2000's is too late. The interchange bench was already 4 by then and went from 2 to 3 in 1994 so really games from 1993 and earlier is the time to look at numbers of interchange transactions per team per game on average. Would be interesting to find what they were in early 1980's and early 1990's when 2 players on bench. Give you a tip, I bet it is so far from 90 or over 100 we would be astounded the explosion in rotations since that has changed the game with increasing bench from 2 to 3 and 4 in short space of time and been stuck with ever since. There was not much on mass flooding in game when that was seen before that came into being but it soon followed and only got worse as years gone on.

Two worst rule changes seen in my time is 50 metre penalty that creates cheap goals too often and bench going from 2 to 4.

 

[footyfan1978]

i have thought about the size of the grounds, but we had so many small suburban grounds during the great years of one-on-one contests.

The change started with coaches (Wallace flood in 2000) and professionalism.

I think it pre-dates that but that was when it really starts to become a part of the game that more coaches adopt regularly to halt momentum in games. Late 1990's it already existed where see 36 players at one end of ground. Not as often as now but did happen a bit. Bench went to 4 in 1998 so in hindsight was going to happen. But even when it was 3 just before that, have a vague feeling Swans did a bit of flooding as a so called new trend under Rodney Eade. Probably 1996.

 

[Pessimistic]

In 2013 the top teams averaged more than 140 interchanges per match. In 2017 this was less than 90. Was the football better in 2013 or 2017?

This is clear but you won’t get any answers

Quacks simply ignore evidence clearly against them 2010 gf one of the best and most intense ever


But it’s all opinion. No cold hard facts. We’re not arguing for change so the onus is on those wanting change to come up with something

 

[Pessimistic]

I think it pre-dates that but that was when it really starts to become a part of the game that more coaches adopt regularly to halt momentum in games. Late 1990's it already existed where see 36 players at one end of ground. Not as often as now but did happen a bit. Bench went to 4 in 1998 so in hindsight was going to happen. But even when it was 3 just before that, have a vague feeling Swans did a bit of flooding as a so called new trend under Rodney Eade. Probably 1996.

‘Hit the boundary line’ what year was that?