Kevin Bartlett's Soccer Style Interchange Approach

[Tazwegian]

In order to reduce the amount of players flooding around the ball at any one time, Bartlett has proposed an interchange system where 18 players start on the ground, and can be substituted throughout the game by any one of an 8 man interchange bench. Once a player is subbed off, he can't be subbed back on.

Do you like this proposal? What are some of the problems that you can see with this approach?

Personally, I find myself more and more in support of the 2/2 interchange. Two subs, and two players who can be brought on at any stage. It would be difficult to give players much of a rest under this system, so fatigue would set in earlier and among more players than under the current system. You would see your favourite players on the field more often. It would potentially open the game up a bit more than it currently is. Although there is the argument that only certain types of elite endurance athletes will be drafted, with physical attributes being favoured over skill.

Over to you guys. Thoughts?

 

[IanW]

Four substitutes, and as many Emergencies as you want.

If a player goes off injured and is replaced by an Emergency, then they automatically have to miss the next week, as they are clearly injured.

A team of endurance athletes will need to run the risk of the opposition resting their skillful players in the forward pocket for half of each quarter, with these players under strict instructions not to run-with, but just have a breather while kicking lazy goals if left alone.

 

[Tazwegian]

Four substitutes, and as many Emergencies as you want.

If a player goes off injured and is replaced by an Emergency, then they automatically have to miss the next week, as they are clearly injured.

A team of endurance athletes will need to run the risk of the opposition resting their skillful players in the forward pocket for half of each quarter, with these players under strict instructions not to run-with, but just have a breather while kicking lazy goals if left alone.

You would get players playing through injuries that they otherwise would come of for, just so they don't miss the next week of footy, which could actually lead to more serious injuries. Or you would have an issue with coaches instructing players who are underperforming to fake an injury so they could be subbed off. The latter might not happen in reality, but it would lead to big questions even if a legitimate injury does occur to an underperforming player who subsequently gets subbed for an emergency.

 

[IanW]

You would get players playing through injuries that they otherwise would come of for, just so they don't miss the next week of footy, which could actually lead to more serious injuries. Or you would have an issue with coaches instructing players who are underperforming to fake an injury so they could be subbed off. The latter might not happen in reality, but it would lead to big questions even if a legitimate injury does occur to an underperforming player who subsequently gets subbed for an emergency.

Tazwegian,

You have the four substitutes for those sort of injuries, and if those were used and a coach keeps an injured player on the ground, then they are playing a man down - a situation coaches usually avoid.

If an underperforming player fakes an injury, ok. In effect, they cop a week for doing so.

If you want to avoid a game with forty rotations a quarter, which is what we're heading to, then some eggs are going to need to get broken.

Therefore, once you're off, you're off, and you can do that four times for free, and then you have to pay.

 

[Tazwegian]

If an underperforming player fakes an injury, ok. In effect, they cop a week for doing so.

Yeah, but in the mean time, the team gets a fairly big advantage over their opposition. They get to take off an underperforming player, substitute them for someone who is fresh and may have a significant impact. It could win them a game, potentially. Look at Green's impact when he came on in the last quarter against West Coast on the weekend. An underperforming player might be sent back to the reserves anyway the next week, so could be a real strategy that could be used under that system.

As for injuries, the player might decide not to report an injury that he otherwise would, in fear that he may be subbed and miss a week. This could lead to the injury getting worse as the game progresses.

There are going to be issues though with almost every proposed system. It is about finding the right balance between injury prevention, fatigue management, opening the game up, and having the players that people pay to see out on the ground as much as possible.

 

[TRAWP]

I say go back to the 4 man interchange, this allows players to be rested regularly and help reduce injury through fatigue. As well as one sub for injured players. You want both teams to have a full crack at each other for the whole game. Not have a superstar go down and then play a 2 man bench and get beaten due to it.

 

[Tazwegian]

I say go back to the 4 man interchange, this allows players to be rested regularly and help reduce injury through fatigue. As well as one sub for injured players. You want both teams to have a full crack at each other for the whole game. Not have a superstar go down and then play a 2 man bench and get beaten due to it.

I thought, and I could be wrong, that there was solid science that showed that the four man bench was leading to more injuries, because the game was played faster - at higher intensities - for longer. The four man bench isn't the way forward imo. Even if it weren't for the injuries, the ability to keep players fresh leads to more crowding around the ball and a far less entertaining spectacle.

 

[TRAWP]

I thought, and I could be wrong, that there was solid science that showed that the four man bench was leading to more injuries, because the game was played faster - at higher intensities - for longer. The four man bench isn't the way forward imo. Even if it weren't for the injuries, the ability to keep players fresh leads to more crowding around the ball and a far less entertaining spectacle.

I think it's a lot more entertaining to see players run out a full game than cramp.
Also stats suggest since the bench was reduced more players have been injured.

 

[Giants FC]

If a player needs a breather, they'll roll around on the ground and hold up the game for a minute or so before magically springing to their feet and playing on. That's what happens in soccer (particularly in the Asian Champions League), and it'll happen in AFL under this rule.
Better to interchange them off the field and let them come back on.

 

[IanW]

If a player needs a breather, they'll roll around on the ground and hold up the game for a minute or so before magically springing to their feet and playing on. That's what happens in soccer (particularly in the Asian Champions League), and it'll happen in AFL under this rule.
Better to interchange them off the field and let them come back on.

That doesnt work in a code that keeps the play going while theres an injury - it just means theres an opposition loose man for a bit.

 

[Hoops]

I still think 4 quarter by quarter substitutes is the way to go . That is if you come off you can't go back on until the next quater, In the case of a blood rule you are excluded, but once you are back on a direct replacement with the person who replaced you is required. I suspect most clubs would only substitute 3 in case of an injury late in the quarter as you don't want to be a man down..

 

[Thewlis Dish]

So how many of those subs do you risk playing in the VFL as well? Otherwise you'll end up with a situation where players aren't getting enough footy.