interchange numbers

[Pessimistic]

Which ex-football coach wrote the below?

CONGESTION, rolling mauls, all 36 players in one half, no century goalkicker in a season and ruckmen irrelevant except for the tap out.

These points have dominated the airwaves for a number of seasons.

Football is still the best game in the world. But it can be better.


The simplest rule change to help solve congestion and reintroduce some of the most exciting elements would be to remove the interchange. Completely.

Man v man, direct competition between 18 opposing players. A battle of skill, endurance, courage and intelligence. Luke Hodge v Patrick Dangerfield; Joe Daniher v Jake Carlisle. Nowhere to hide.

The interchange was introduced in 1978 by the Australian National Football Council.

For many years we had two on the bench and interchange was used sparingly. Kevin Sheedy fought for four on the bench mainly for player welfare and safety.

But in the mid-2000s, West Coast and Sydney started using rotations to win games.

By 2012, interchange average was at its peak at 130 per team.

Every midfielder ideally had two rotations per quarter, maybe three, and deep forwards and backs one each per term. As a coach it was a nightmare.

Moves were predicated on player fitness, not necessarily football smarts or ability.

Rotations are now capped at 90 and further cuts are mooted, but a more radical response is needed.

No actual hard evidence. Colour me surprised

 

[footyfan1978]

No actual hard evidence. Colour me surprised

Yes, what evidence is there that 4 interchange players provides more of a spectacle than 2.
You got none. Your line of thinking so flawed it is amusing the ignorance it is comes from.

 

[footyfan1978]

I’m just saying there was just as much s**t footy in the golden age

You call it a golden age but got no idea of experience of what you even going on about. No evidence, just ignorant sayings. "I'm just saying"... exactly, you use evidence as a word you want to cling to but when pushed on why you whinging, you revert to "I'm just saying" FMD, you got no idea.

Leave the thinking to those of us that experienced football with 2 interchange players and 4 and got an informed view from experience because you sound like you got none apart from what you seen once they changed it.

 

[Pessimistic]

You call it a golden age but got no idea of experience of what you even going on about. No evidence, just ignorant sayings. "I'm just saying"... exactly, you use evidence as a word you want to cling to but when pushed on why you whinging, you revert to "I'm just saying" FMD, you got no idea.

Leave the thinking to those of us that experienced football with 2 interchange players and 4 and got an informed view from experience because you sound like you got none apart from what you seen once they changed it.

Still no hard evidence. Just the vibe

You want the change, you provide the argument.

 

[footyfan1978]

Still no hard evidence. Just the vibe

You can stick with your vibe. Those of us that have a genuine interest will contribute more to the discussion as we have been doing. You add nothing either way.

 

[Pessimistic]

You can stick with your vibe. Those of us that have a genuine interest will contribute more to the discussion as we have been doing. You add nothing either way.

Discussion? Circle jerk more like

 

[footyfan1978]

haven't heard much spoken about it in the first 2 games.

does anyone know what they were?

Sadly stats on it long term are not really recorded much beyond this recent decade which only involves 4 interchange bench change already in place.

Below is some stats from 2006 to 2013 when rotations had already become a trend. The problem just kept increasing.

Would no interchange but say 6 substitutes ever work?

Why do subs? Two on interchange worked fine. The problems started once coaches got used to idea to abuse bench being extended to four as a means to rotate 22 players each team and turn it into flooding game more so than was before.

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.

A we can see on graph 2007 it was already around 60. We got no numbers of interchanges recorded before then but suspect under 20 on average per team when it was at the original 2 on bench most of us grew up with.

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.

Yep!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

No evidence to support changing from 2 interchange players on bench to 4.

80 per game would be fine, i still do not understand why a player runs off to the pine after kicking a goal in the first minute of a game or QTR?

I'm not sure why bother with a cap of interchange when would be lot simpler just to remove the change that caused the problems. There is no evidence going to 4 interchange players had added to the game unless you like rugby mauls and 36 players in some teams forward line more often.

 

[Rabman]

Sadly stats on it long term are not really recorded much beyond this recent decade which only involves 4 interchange bench change already in place.

Below is some stats from 2006 to 2013 when rotations had already become a trend. The problem just kept increasing.

Why do subs? Two on interchange worked fine. The problems started once coaches got used to idea to abuse bench being extended to four as a means to rotate 22 players each team and turn it into flooding game more so than was before.



A we can see on graph 2007 it was already around 60. We got no numbers of interchanges recorded before then but suspect under 20 on average per team when it was at the original 2 on bench most of us grew up with.



Yep!!!














I'm not sure why bother with a cap of interchange when would be lot simpler just to remove the change that caused the problems. There is no evidence going to 4 interchange players had added to the game unless you like rugby mauls and 36 players in some teams forward line more often.

Average score a game was 95pts in 2007.

 

[Dom PC]

Just lower it already. It really isn't going to sort itself out.

Basketball had similar low scoring issues back in the 50s or 60s. They didn't just sit on their hands and say it will work itselt out. They eventually sucked it up and did something drastic (they introduced the shot clock). Basketball is as entertaining as ever.

Lowering interchange or zones is the obvious answer (there probably is a few other solutions). These rucks and rolling mauls are/will drain the entertainment factor out of the sport and people will choose other sports.

 

[Beutbrute]

Substitutions are for player welfare
Interchanges are for club/coach tactics

I'd much rather go back to 18 v 18 with substitutions than the 22 v 22 interchange setup

 

[Andre]

Substitutions are for player welfare
Interchanges are for club/coach tactics

I'd much rather go back to 18 v 18 with substitutions than the 22 v 22 interchange setup

The concept of the sub rule was fine. The implementation was flawed. I’d go with 4 interchange, 60 rotations and 2 subs. A player subbed cannot play the following week though, so it doesn’t become another bench player.

So you’ve still got a fast game, but reduced enough to not be a rolling maul, plus teams do have injury coverage to take bad luck out of it (to a degree, obviously if you lose a star player you’re disadvantaged to a degree).

 

[shaqsuns]

When I was a kid I had Gary Ablett’s number 5 on my back and I was so excited to go sit behind the goals to watch the great man kick 7 or 8 goals each Saturday or if I was lucky they played Richmond and he kicked a bag. These days the kids are lucky enough to go to the footy and watch Scott Selwood get 16 tackles (how exciting said no one ever). The interchange has basically sabotaged our once great game and it’s easy to fix, get rid of it and change it to Substitutions. By changing it we will bring fatigue and the most highly skilled players will shine (Nathan Buckley never had issues hitting target late in games), it will also keep the key position players closer to goal as they won’t have enough energy to move from end to end and finally with better players on the field we see more spectacular play as nobody goes to the footy to watch your bottom 10 players get more then 80% of game time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shaqsuns]

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

The 2010 grand final was a horrible game thank god it had a great finish otherwise we would never speak of that game again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hoops]

Does it count as interchange if a player is off at the end of the quarter and on at the start of the next quarter?

 

[shaqsuns]

Does it count as interchange if a player is off at the end of the quarter and on at the start of the next quarter?

I don’t believe that is part of the current 90 changes


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Pessimistic]

The 2010 grand final was a horrible game thank god it had a great finish otherwise we would never speak of that game again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? As a neutral it was very intense and physical, a bit of a throwback to tougher eras

 

[Pessimistic]

When I was a kid I had Gary Ablett’s number 5 on my back and I was so excited to go sit behind the goals to watch the great man kick 7 or 8 goals each Saturday or if I was lucky they played Richmond and he kicked a bag. These days the kids are lucky enough to go to the footy and watch Scott Selwood get 16 tackles (how exciting said no one ever). The interchange has basically sabotaged our once great game and it’s easy to fix, get rid of it and change it to Substitutions. By changing it we will bring fatigue and the most highly skilled players will shine (Nathan Buckley never had issues hitting target late in games), it will also keep the key position players closer to goal as they won’t have enough energy to move from end to end and finally with better players on the field we see more spectacular play as nobody goes to the footy to watch your bottom 10 players get more then 80% of game time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And suppose that isn’t the outcome. After all nothing really happened with the last reduction in interchange. Not a skerrick

 

[shaqsuns]

And suppose that isn’t the outcome. After all nothing really happened with the last reduction in interchange. Not a skerrick

90 was still triple or more times what it was 15 years ago so you never got a proper test sample, it was like the AFL never had the courage to say that we have lost control and I fear the game will never go back to a one on one Ariel ping pong spectacle that it once was


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Furn2]

The trouble with reduced interchange, especially when its still a very high number like 90 which is 102 with changes at the break is that it doesn't actually change the amount of rest each player gets.

If a game goes for 120mins then with 4 interchange each player on average spends 98 minutes and 10 seconds on the ground so 22 odd minutes of rest. All reduced interchange means is players are playing for 8 minutes and going off for 2 rather than playing for 6 and going off for 90 seconds.

If you want to get to the tipping point where other tactics such as positional play can compete with the outcrowding tactics used now, you need to actually reduce the amount of rest each play gets. For example if you had 3 subs and one interchange each player would only get 9 minutes rest on average rather than 22 however as 3 players would be subbed out getting a large rest the remaining players would get less than 5 minutes rest per game.

 

[Pessimistic]

90 was still triple or more times what it was 15 years ago so you never got a proper test sample, it was like the AFL never had the courage to say that we have lost control and I fear the game will never go back to a one on one Ariel ping pong spectacle that it once was


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It never will. It was amateur. They might as well not limited interchange then?

 

[Pessimistic]

The trouble with reduced interchange, especially when its still a very high number like 90 which is 102 with changes at the break is that it doesn't actually change the amount of rest each player gets.

If a game goes for 120mins then with 4 interchange each player on average spends 98 minutes and 10 seconds on the ground so 22 odd minutes of rest. All reduced interchange means is players are playing for 8 minutes and going off for 2 rather than playing for 6 and going off for 90 seconds.

If you want to get to the tipping point where other tactics such as positional play can compete with the outcrowding tactics used now, you need to actually reduce the amount of rest each play gets. For example if you had 3 subs and one interchange each player would only get 9 minutes rest on average rather than 22 however as 3 players would be subbed out getting a large rest the remaining players would get less than 5 minutes rest per game.

Then you’ll get s**t skills again, but at least the skills will stand out more as there’s less congestion

But they’ll still be s**t

 

[shaqsuns]

Then you’ll get s**t skills again, but at least the skills will stand out more as there’s less congestion

But they’ll still be s**t

Buckley, Voss, Crawford (I could list 50 more) never had an issue playing 95% to 100% of game time and hitting there skills


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shaqsuns]

Then you’ll get s**t skills again, but at least the skills will stand out more as there’s less congestion

But they’ll still be s**t

Plus I would argue due to the congestion around the ground the skills now are way worse then they use to be


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Furn2]

Then you’ll get s**t skills again, but at least the skills will stand out more as there’s less congestion

But they’ll still be s**t

Why would you get s**t skills ?

 

[footyfan1978]

Why would you get s**t skills ?

He is just rambling. Has no idea at all.