Rotations v Hawks

[sthmelb_dimmies]

Even though we lost Ted in Q1, the team only used 82 rotations. Wouldn't losing a player so early on in the game pretty much guarantee maxing out the rotations?

 

[S120]

Even though we lost Ted in Q1, the team only used 82 rotations. Wouldn't losing a player so early on in the game pretty much guarantee maxing out the rotations?

View attachment 249097

Ted and Reg hardly come off the ground during games anyway. They seem to always play like 95% of the game, so my initial impression would be that Ted going off wouldn't affect rotations as someone ingrained in the midfield, like Hannebery or Kennedy.

 

[CD__]

Lack of goals scored made rotations much harder.

 

[The King!]

Well we did as many as a team with one more player

Whats the issue

 

[Dangas]

Well we did as many as a team with one more player

Whats the issue

Yeah I agree I don't see the issue.

 

[grimlock]

I think somewhat influenced by the return of Rohan and to a lesser extent McGlynn and Kennedy from injury.

 

[Troystenvic]

We must be fit

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

Ted and Reg hardly come off the ground during games anyway. They seem to always play like 95% of the game, so my initial impression would be that Ted going off wouldn't affect rotations as someone ingrained in the midfield, like Hannebery or Kennedy.

Well we did as many as a team with one more player

Whats the issue

But someone has to replace his position. Who may have been involved in other positional rotations. That + only 3 rest seats on the bench instead of 4. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[The King!]

But someone has to replace his position. Who may have been involved in other positional rotations. That + only 3 rest seats on the bench instead of 4. It's not that hard to understand.

Its fine to understand just not sure why anyone cares

We had 81 rotations in round 5 when Laidler went down even earlier

It is just irrelevant

 

[The Swans Blog]

But someone has to replace his position. Who may have been involved in other positional rotations. That + only 3 rest seats on the bench instead of 4. It's not that hard to understand.

Rotations are primarily through the midfield anyway. Our defenders are playing 85%-90% game time anyway and all it did was pushed a midfielder (Mills, Cunningham) back into defence.

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

Rotations are primarily through the midfield anyway. Our defenders are playing 85%-90% game time anyway and all it did was pushed a midfielder (Mills, Cunningham) back into defence.

Exactly. Which reduces the pool of midfielders being rotated. Which should then increase amount of rotations to keep rest periods even. Why is this not obvious to people?

 

[The Swans Blog]

Exactly. Which reduces the pool of midfielders being rotated. Which should then increase amount of rotations to keep rest periods even. Why is this not obvious to people?

Because those midfielders rotated through the forward line and backline throughout the game. Luke Parker, Hewett, Rohan and Heeney all spent time throughout the midfield and forward line, especially Hewett spending quite a lot of time in the 2nd half in the guts.

Says more about the clubs' fitness than anything else. I'd wager that the Swans are possibly the fittest side at the moment.

I agree that rotations would normally be higher, but strangely they've been less, which is why I'm suggesting that it's because of the way the team rotates their mids through the forward line.

 

[S120]

Exactly. Which reduces the pool of midfielders being rotated. Which should then increase amount of rotations to keep rest periods even. Why is this not obvious to people?

I understand the logic in what you say, but what you claim to be obvious hasn't actually been realised in the stats so...

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

Because those midfielders rotated through the forward line and backline throughout the game. Luke Parker, Hewett, Rohan and Heeney all spent time throughout the midfield and forward line, especially Hewett spending quite a lot of time in the 2nd half in the guts.

Says more about the clubs' fitness than anything else. I'd wager that the Swans are possibly the fittest side at the moment.

Ok then how about this thought experiment.

Say two defenders were concussed in the first quarter. Would you expect that to affect rotations?

How about three?

 

[robbieando]

You can cover one injury as you had the rotations from under the sub rule to fall back upon as a rough guideline, but past that with 2, 3 or 4 injuries rotations would drop

 

[Mick Oxlong]

You can cover one injury as you had the rotations from under the sub rule to fall back upon as a rough guideline, but past that with 2, 3 or 4 injuries rotations would drop

Except you have 30 less rotations in comparison to the sub rule. I think the cap has had a positive influence on the game as it keeps players on the ground for longer obviously. GWS did a great job on the weekend considering they lost 2 players and I believe the cap has forced players to become fitter and leaner to adapt to that greater game time.

 

[robbieando]

Except you have 30 less rotations in comparison to the sub rule. I think the cap has had a positive influence on the game as it keeps players on the ground for longer obviously. GWS did a great job on the weekend considering they lost 2 players and I believe the cap has forced players to become fitter and leaner to adapt to that greater game time.

As I said it would be a rough guideline. Of course fitness level needed to improve and I think thats an area we have focused on

 

[The Swans Blog]

Ok then how about this thought experiment.

Say two defenders were concussed in the first quarter. Would you expect that to affect rotations?

How about three?

If you can find me empirical evidence that 3 defenders being injured out of the game didn't affect rotations significantly, I'll agree. All the same, players typically do less work in the forward line or back line. Players like Grundy and Richards will play 95% of every match. So if you have to shift more mids defensively, it stands to reason that there's likely to be less rotations because there's less players to rotate. Also, with only 1 player on the bench, it takes a lot longer to rotate players.

I think that you're applying the sub-extended bench rule here when it doesn't apply. You can't force more water through a funnel than what can fit.

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

If you can find me empirical evidence that 3 defenders being injured out of the game didn't affect rotations significantly, I'll agree.

You're agreeing with me here. Unless you meant "Did affect rotations"