interchange numbers

[footyfan1978]

The soft approach to reeling in the rotation explosion of just reducing the interchange transactions was always flawed as it did not address the cause of the problem was it make the game involve 22 players. Going from 2 players on bench to 4 has proved a massive change to the game. Way more than they expected. They just did not see the use would go the way it did as a rotation system rather than just pure interchange. Taking it down from 120 to 90 was very soft and 90 is still probably 600% or more over what it must have been like with 2 on bench. It really was a pure game of 18 v 18 on field and minimal bench changes for injured players or the odd tactical change over of ruck or something like a rover/forward pocket. It was never intended as a rotation system to make it 22 v 22. Some say go back to no interchanges but that is kind of over-correction as for many years it was at 2 on bench and really was not a problem. Just remove the change that ****ed it up. Two on bench with no limit on interchanges. It would be nigh on impossible to continue to use it as a rotation system that become the increasing trend in last 15 years. Coaches will be forced to move away from flooding both ends of grounds with constant running and rotation for fresher legs. There is only so much you can do with 2 on bench. Pure football tactics will once again dominate the decision making for interchanges and not just freshen up legs to flood the opposing forward line again and again.

 

[Pessimistic]

Why would you get s**t skills ?

You guys are saying you deliberately want to fatigue the players

Watch some old footage again, rose coloured memories

 

[Furn2]

You guys are saying you deliberately want to fatigue the players

Watch some old footage again, rose coloured memories

Why would they get more fatigued ?

An 800m runner isn't more fatigued than a 400m runner at the end of a race.

Without Interchange players would run less distance less often.

 

[Pessimistic]

Mate what I am saying is you are all saying do this and that will happen.

There’s every chance something completely different would happen. What then? You’ve wasted years barking up the wrong tree

AFL has made quite a substantial reduction already. They are cautious they want to see some evidence that what people like you are saying will happen is actually happening

Nobody has given any evidence, let’s assume there’s no clear evidence.if anything you guys are saying it’s getting worse even though there’s been a substantial reduction

AFL and I are reasonable people. Show us evidence and we’ll agree with you. But where is it?

But you guys are saying do it anyway. I’m just glad my doctor doesn’t have your attitude

 

[Pessimistic]

Why would they get more fatigued ?

An 800m runner isn't more fatigued than a 400m runner at the end of a race.

Without Interchange players would run less distance less often.

I dint suggest they would be fatigued, I just said fatigued players have poor skills. Some don’t, that was Crawford’s competitive advantage. He was middle of the road when everyone was fresh

 

[footyfan1978]

An 800m runner isn't more fatigued than a 400m runner at the end of a race.

Without Interchange players would run less distance less often.

It is interesting to think if a highly skilled player like Greg Williams could even be picked with all the running required now. I remember when they talked about increasing the interchange from 2, guys like Gerard Healy thought it would allow veterans like Greg Williams to play on longer as they could rest up on bench a bit.
Oh, how wrong they were....