interchange

[PapaJ]

Speaking of that, I am certain I saw Suban run onto the ground before the player coming off was through the interchange; I mean by a long way.
The only other explanation is we were one man short on the ground but when the player coming off went through the change, no other player went on.
Subes was early by about 15 metres.

I'm not sure if you're talking about the same moment, but I picked up at one point we had and extra on the bench, it was when the blood rule was in force. Just before Spurr was sent to the bench, we had already brought a couple in and somehow we ended up with an extra on the bench. I noticed a bit of back 'n' forth before Suban (I think) ran out while Spurr was still coming in but a good 20 meters or so from the interchange gates. At least that's what I saw, but it was all good (in terms of interchange infringement) because we actually had the extra on the bench at the time anyway.

It caught my eye and got me a bit agitated because it was a stoppage in Port's fwd 50 and we were going to have one less in the contest in a dangerous spot.

 

[PapaJ]

Yeah but no but yeah

To have Barlow and Neale sitting on the bench for three minutes cos the interchanges weren't timed right could be expensive in a final

That's the issue for me. If you run out of interchanges that's one thing, but to be caught with key players stuck on the bench is a big no-no.

 

[Bicco]

There's a big push over here by Kevin Bartlett and others to lower the amount of interchanges. After a fair amount of thought, I tend to agree with him (ducks for cover).
Here's the logic for what its worth.
The original game wasn't designed to have players endlessly running off and on the field. This is only a very new phenomena. Players would often sit on the bench all day (wearing a dressing gown no less) and come on only when some one was injured or completely stuffed.
The AFL has tried to speed up the game, but coaches are always trying to slow it down. What has happened is now what we call the 'rolling maul' where a large number of players are around the contest at any one time. Players are charging/sprinting from one contest to the next creating these mauls. This sprinting and heavy tackling is extremely taxing on the players and so they constantly come off for a rest, hence the huge numbers of interchanges.
What the proposal for the reduction will mean is that the game will actually open up as players become tired. 'Positions' will become important again as you will have players resting "up forward' who won't be able to go off for a rest. Having a great one on one marking FF against a FB will return to the game. Lockett/Dunstall would never have been found at CHB like Pav and Mayne were on the weekend and sprinting back to the forward line.
It will help the game (theoretically) get back to some of its traditional adages of 'big men don't get any smaller' etc so that the game will once more be a game for players of all sizes, not just 6'3" running machines.
The argument for increased injuries is based on almost no science, players have always been injured and still get hamstrings etc with the rotations that they have now, some even argue that a reduction in interchanges will INCREASE the playing life of players as they will not have to play such a physically taxing game.
As I said, I tend to agree with the changes and they should at least be trialled somehow, maybe in a lower league. A few pre season games won't give enough time for the consequences of the changes to be really felt, but I think that it is at least worth a try.

 

[clogged]

Looking back, wouldn't surprise me if it was in some way tactical.

Of the four best mids (Mundy, Hill, Barlow and Neale) the two left on the bench at the end were the least effective with the ball. Furthermore, Hill and Mundy barely touched it in the first half.

Barlow and Neale run their guts out early keeping Freo in touch, while Mundy and Hill don't go too hard. The team explodes in the second half, then Mundy and Hill are kept on to ensure that when Freo wins the ball in the middle, the team retains possession.

Same as Sandilands getting a big rest in the third. Midfield goes nuts in the third without him, then he plays a full quarter in the last to make sure Freo get first use from clearances.

 

[Freo Dr]

I think it was a bit strange we somehow managed to run out of rotations and it will def. be something the dockers staff will look at by making more changes at the breaks (which do not count towards changes) and not pulling someone off just because they kick a goal or set up a set shot for one.

That said I agree in prinicple with the idea of going to 80 with four (no sub) on the bench for the reasons Bicco gives. At this stage from what I hear it is probably 70/30 in favour of going to that for next year.

Also I think people can see why a guy like Menegola is kept on the list. He would probably never need to come off and still run from contest to contest all day which with a cap of 80 could be a huge advantage.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

There's a big push over here by Kevin Bartlett and others to lower the amount of interchanges. After a fair amount of thought, I tend to agree with him (ducks for cover).
Here's the logic for what its worth.
The original game wasn't designed to have players endlessly running off and on the field. This is only a very new phenomena. Players would often sit on the bench all day (wearing a dressing gown no less) and come on only when some one was injured or completely stuffed.
The AFL has tried to speed up the game, but coaches are always trying to slow it down. What has happened is now what we call the 'rolling maul' where a large number of players are around the contest at any one time. Players are charging/sprinting from one contest to the next creating these mauls. This sprinting and heavy tackling is extremely taxing on the players and so they constantly come off for a rest, hence the huge numbers of interchanges.
What the proposal for the reduction will mean is that the game will actually open up as players become tired. 'Positions' will become important again as you will have players resting "up forward' who won't be able to go off for a rest. Having a great one on one marking FF against a FB will return to the game. Lockett/Dunstall would never have been found at CHB like Pav and Mayne were on the weekend and sprinting back to the forward line.
It will help the game (theoretically) get back to some of its traditional adages of 'big men don't get any smaller' etc so that the game will once more be a game for players of all sizes, not just 6'3" running machines.
The argument for increased injuries is based on almost no science, players have always been injured and still get hamstrings etc with the rotations that they have now, some even argue that a reduction in interchanges will INCREASE the playing life of players as they will not have to play such a physically taxing game.
As I said, I tend to agree with the changes and they should at least be trialled somehow, maybe in a lower league. A few pre season games won't give enough time for the consequences of the changes to be really felt, but I think that it is at least worth a try.

Interesting post, but the point of the interchange cap is actually the opposite. The AFL theory is that it's supposed to slow the game down to reduce impact injuries from collisions at speed. They aren't concerned about soft tissue injuries.

 

[Freo Dr]

Looking back, wouldn't surprise me if it was in some way tactical.

Of the four best mids (Mundy, Hill, Barlow and Neale) the two left on the bench at the end were the least effective with the ball. Furthermore, Hill and Mundy barely touched it in the first half.

Barlow and Neale run their guts out early keeping Freo in touch, while Mundy and Hill don't go too hard. The team explodes in the second half, then Mundy and Hill are kept on to ensure that when Freo wins the ball in the middle, the team retains possession.

Same as Sandilands getting a big rest in the third. Midfield goes nuts in the third without him, then he plays a full quarter in the last to make sure Freo get first use from clearances.

I agree in part but I still don't think they would have PLANNED to completely run out of rotations with three minutes left to go.

 

[Bicco]

Interesting post, but the point of the interchange cap is actually the opposite. The AFL theory is that it's supposed to slow the game down to reduce impact injuries from collisions at speed. They aren't concerned about soft tissue injuries.

You're right, I meant that in the past the AFL has tried to speed the game up by introducing laws such 'prior opportunity', less time to take free kicks etc. Yes the aim is to slow the game down by reducing interchanges. It would be really interesting to see how 6 months of soccer style interchanges (once you're off, you're off) would change tactics.

 

[Dark Wee]

There's a big push over here by Kevin Bartlett and others to lower the amount of interchanges. After a fair amount of thought, I tend to agree with him (ducks for cover).
Here's the logic for what its worth.
The original game wasn't designed to have players endlessly running off and on the field. This is only a very new phenomena. Players would often sit on the bench all day (wearing a dressing gown no less) and come on only when some one was injured or completely stuffed.
The AFL has tried to speed up the game, but coaches are always trying to slow it down. What has happened is now what we call the 'rolling maul' where a large number of players are around the contest at any one time. Players are charging/sprinting from one contest to the next creating these mauls. This sprinting and heavy tackling is extremely taxing on the players and so they constantly come off for a rest, hence the huge numbers of interchanges.
What the proposal for the reduction will mean is that the game will actually open up as players become tired. 'Positions' will become important again as you will have players resting "up forward' who won't be able to go off for a rest. Having a great one on one marking FF against a FB will return to the game. Lockett/Dunstall would never have been found at CHB like Pav and Mayne were on the weekend and sprinting back to the forward line.
It will help the game (theoretically) get back to some of its traditional adages of 'big men don't get any smaller' etc so that the game will once more be a game for players of all sizes, not just 6'3" running machines.
The argument for increased injuries is based on almost no science, players have always been injured and still get hamstrings etc with the rotations that they have now, some even argue that a reduction in interchanges will INCREASE the playing life of players as they will not have to play such a physically taxing game.
As I said, I tend to agree with the changes and they should at least be trialled somehow, maybe in a lower league. A few pre season games won't give enough time for the consequences of the changes to be really felt, but I think that it is at least worth a try.

I get all this and have been following the logic for the past few years. My issue with it is that it is driven by a nostalgia for a game that doesn't really exist any more (and by old blokes who retired long ago).

The game has changed and become something different. Just because some bald blokes don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't good.

 

[clogged]

Game ebbs and flows but it generally improves. Was probably at its relative worst in 2005-06 because flooding was at its maximum. A few coaches implemented a handball draw game to break the flood (Eade, Worsfold and lastly Thompson). Then the tackling pressure & forward zone/press thing came along to counter that.

What the old timers forget is that a lot of goals were scored via kick + mark footy, in an era where an extraordinary number of free kicks were given. Largely unexciting - very little footy from the 80s and earlier would make a highlights package these days.

 

[Bicco]

I get all this and have been following the logic for the past few years. My issue with it is that it is driven by a nostalgia for a game that doesn't really exist any more (and by old blokes who retired long ago).

The game has changed and become something different. Just because some bald blokes don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't good.

Honestly, I disagree with about 90% of what Kevin says. One bit of nostalgia that I like is that AFL was a game for any body shape. From Liberatore who was tiny to Jim Stynes a ruckman, anybody could excel. Skill and tenacity should have as much place in the game as being able to run, run, run. Blokes who can read the play know where to run and this makes them a better player over the course of a game as they waste less energy compared to those who haven't got a clue and just run around 10m behind the ball all day.
I totally get your point though, the game has changed and 'you can't stop progress'. I would like to see someone kick 100 goals in a year again. It sound pathetic I know, but growing up in the 90's with Lockett, Dunstall, Ablett, Modra, Sumich, Carey was just fantastic. You had your midfielders too but the game seemed so much more dynamic. The shock that one of these forwards was kept to 0 goals was huge. Now if Buddy or Reiwoldt don't kick a goal, nobody seems to care, it doesn't influence the outcome. But geez, if you held Lockett scoreless, the FB would be a hero. One on One battles are part of what makes AFL so unique. So few sports have them. If you want mauls and the slow attrition, watch Rugby, running is for Athletics. Bring back Footy!
Lunch is over, I better go back to work.

 

[Beeawwb_SP]

So, I can't find any other mentions of it after some Googling, but did we actually become the first club in a Home & Away match to use all of our interchanges? I mean, obviously we did use all of them, but has any other team ever done that before? Just never seen it mentioned elsewhere.

 

[Nothing]

They report the interchange numbers in the West. I had a copy earlier in the year and they were all in the range of 115 - 135. I think these include changes at the breaks.

 

[jmadrox]

T 'Positions' will become important again as you will have players resting "up forward' who won't be able to go off for a rest. Having a great one on one marking FF against a FB will return to the game. Lockett/Dunstall would never have been found at CHB like Pav and Mayne were on the weekend and sprinting back to the forward line.
It will help the game (theoretically) get back to some of its traditional adages of 'big men don't get any smaller' etc so that the game will once more be a game for players of all sizes, not just 6'3" running machines.

I actually think that limiting rotations and the like will actually work in the complete opposite manner. Rather than get the return of "Role specific" players, we will get 22 "athletic" players who can swing through positions all over the ground to give other players a rest in different roles. In the current game, for two teams with equal skill, the team that runs harder and provides more pressure will win 4 out of 5 games. Coaches wont stop the run and pressure style just because the interchange. They will look for a flexible team that has players that can rotate through the middle, and impact the game, which will continue to be the big bodied 6'3 90kg running machines.

Players like the Dunstall / Locket type who can just play their FF role will become a liability as they cant be used up the ground to give a mid a rest, so to maintain pressure, someone else needs to run harder to cover for them.

I actually like the game the way it is. There are a few things that shit me, (hands in the back / in the back interpretation, HTB / illegal disposal) but the speed, how ferocious the midfield battle has become it all makes for entertaining footy.