Selecting a Substitute Player

[Vader]

Many posters here have criticised Adelaide's usage of the substitute, arguing that they continually select the wrong player. It's fairly obvious from the team selections that Adelaide's sub is almost always the last player selected - the 22nd best player available that week.

I thought it might be a good idea to have a debate as to what people think is the best policy for selecting a substitute player.

My starting position is this.. The selectors should always start by selecting the best 21. None of these should be the sub, as you always want to have your best players on the paddock for as much of the game as possible. The sub should be selected from whatever players are left once the best 21 have been removed.

I can see two philosophies for making the selection from the remainder - the best of the rest (player #22) or an "impact" player who may not be player #22. Both have pros & cons. It's a risk vs reward decision and I can understand why people could adopt either position.

Best of the Rest
This player provides the best coverage in the event of losing a player early in the game, eg Reilly's shoulder injury in 2013. If the sub is going to play the majority of the game, then you clearly want the best player you have available to be doing it.

On the other hand, if the "best player" is a slow starter, who takes his time to adjust to the pace of the game, then there may be a significant downside if there is no injury and the player gets subbed into the game in the 3rd or 4th quarters.

Impact Player
The argument here is pretty much the reverse of that stated above. The impact player provides a greater benefit if they are subbed into the game late. The downside is that they are unlikely to provide the best outcome if subbed in early to replace an injured player.

Are there any other philosophies which people can come up with? Which philosophy do you think the club should adopt?

 

[Hinkstuff]

Returning player from injury is a philosophy that I personally don't agree with, ie Tom Lynch v GWS. Thought it was a waste.

 

[whattagun07]

Agree with you Vader, as we discussed in another thread a week or so ago.

Also agree with Hinkstuff

For me, it's the need for speed and run/carry. Unfortunately, Martin is probably the only non-best 21 who fits the bill at the moment.

With a full squad to choose from, i'd perhaps add Jaensch to the 'list' (not sure 2 makes a list)

 

[DJ75]

It needs to be an impact player, not a slow accumulator. Some players impact on a game happens over time, some through wearing their opponent down. Those types don't suit the sub role.
The sub should ideally have the ability to come on and be able to run fast and full-on for a quarter and a bit. Yes they need to have the ability to play an extended period should injury occur (and not already be in the best 18), but on most occasions impact is most useful.

For our squad, which clearly lacks that type of player, only the following could really be considered;
Martin
Jaensch (in our best 18 at present)
Petrenko (although he would struggle to have an impact running for a whole quarter)
Cameron (perhaps)

It exposes one of the few recruiting areas we have been poor in - the speedy run and carry player.

 

[JP Sauce]

This is a strong post from t'other thread, with a few other possible ways to use the sub:

I understand your points here but can't say that I agree for several reasons. Firstly you are assuming that there is a definite 22nd best player in your team which I think is very simplistic when you have players in our game playing in different positions and having different roles. For example Ryan Crowley is one of the first picked for Freo but if the coach didn't want to tag anyone then would he even be in their best 22? Similarly Ben Rutten is definitely in our best 22 if we are playing a side with 3 tall forwards but would he be if the opposition played a small forward line? Another thing you haven't considered is that barring injury then the sub involves 2 players not 1 so that tactics can be used with the position. For example if you are playing Gold Coast you could consider playing 2 taggers on Ablett with one running himself into the ground in the first half and being replaced by a someone with fresh legs (think of that final against West Coast a few years back when Ben Cousins got 20 touches in the 3rd quarter and how that game might have been different if we had someone fresh on him then). Also you need to consider that any sub you bring on in the 3rd quarter of a big game has had 10 km less running in their legs and so theoretically could become a real difference maker to the game. And lastly I feel that it could potentially be a way of keeping the absolute champions in our game for longer. Think of someone like Robert Harvey, he got 45 touches against us in that final when he was in his late 30's but a couple of years later just couldn't run out an entire game so retired. Imagine how much he would have been able to affect a game coming on for 45 minutes at that stage of his career. For that matter someone like McLeod coming on fresh in the third quarter late in his career would terrify any opposition coach.
For all these reasons I think the sub is a position that is massively underused and unfortunately with our coach just seems to be somewhere to hide the last picked in the side while it could potentially be a real difference making position. Someone like Alan Didak, if he wasn't such a tosser, would be a great guy to have for a couple of seasons and I thought did a great job of it for Collingwood last year.

I agree that the sub position is something that has been given far less thought than it deserves.

 

[Southerntakeover]

If the use of a substitute can have an impact upon the outcome of a game (and it can), then it should be planned with that in mind.

You need a player who for whatever reason can impact upon the state of the game once he's brought on, although they still need to be versatile enough to cover players if they get injured.

My thought is that it's best to use a player with pace. Everyone else on the field slows down as they get tired, hence creating a real mismatch issue.

 

[1970crow]

my view is that it shouldn't just be about that game. the teams looking for a top 4-6 finish will likely go with the next best player provided they aren't a ruckman or single use kpd or kpf. there should be enough flexibility in the starting 21, to cover the expected limitations of the sub (eg Cameron as a small fwd only). teams in that bracket need to protect every win and if they get an early injury it could end up being the difference between 4th and 5th. so the sub must be able to play a full game of footy at a high level.

middle of the road clubs and those out of contention can use the sub to give a player who's deemed not quite 'afl ready' a bit of a go. if the worst case scenario occurs and they play a whole game, it doesn't matter as the club isn't winning a flag that year anyway. if they get the expected quarter or so, then it's a nice taste for them. if they are the type of player who improves at the higher level, they may pass one of the mediocre list cloggers along the way and be of benefit to the best 21.

 

[Vader]

Thanks for copying that over JP. I agree it's a really good post by Hodgy but I didn't want to reply to it over there for risk of taking that thread further off-topic.

The best 21/22 is a flexible thing, dependent upon form and player availability - and to a lesser extent, matching up against the opposition. I have no argument with that - and it really doesn't change anything about the philosophy, it's just a question of personnel.

To debate the specifics, Rutten (when fit) is in our best 21 every day of the week, no matter who our opponent is. He has always been selected, no matter whether the opposition had a small or tall forward line. I don't expect that policy to change any time soon. Quality players are quality players and will always find a way to make a positive impact on a game.

I'm not so sure about where Crowley stands in Freo's pecking order, so I can't really comment much on that one.

The return of VB (hopefully) later in the season will give us the flexibility of tag teaming an opposition gun midfielder (as per the Ablett/Cousins examples). Kerridge has stepped up to that role magnificently and VB would be able to relieve him from time to time. VB also has the flexibility to play other roles, such as inside midfielder and HBF, so we don't lose anything by having 2 taggers in the team.

The point about using the sub to prolong the careers of veterans is not without validity. That said, I don't think we really have any players currently in that position. It's another alternate philosophy to those I listed in the OP - and a very good one at that.

Talking about a "difference maker" is very much along the lines of the "impact player" I mentioned in the OP. Once again though, it's a risk/reward situation. What happens if we lose a player early in the game and the "difference maker" isn't able to run amok, knowing they can burn all their petrol tickets in one quarter?

 

[little graham]

Rekon Pods in certain conditions would make a brilliant sub. If we're getting smashed make him the loose man in defense. Otherwise throw him up forward late in the 3/4 and watch the opposition completely restructure.

I think its unfair to a player trying to break into the team to be used as sub, he's loosing match fitness, while the other guys vying for the same spot are getting opportunities to present there case and work on their game, that he's not. However if a older player is on the outer, the sub spot could be a lifeline. The older player can also be useful as support to younger members of the team, especially interstate trips.

 

[crowded house]

I agree with both philosophies to some degree. No player wants to be a 1 quarter specialist though and subsequently the 'sub' will never be that kind of role.

If they play well enough in that 1 quarter then they'll be in the team the next week.

I think that the 22nd best player (who is versatile) is the best option because it gives you the option of subbing off the worst performing player on the day and covering you for injury.

I think the expectation to play the sub is also a little ridiculous. I wouldn't mind seeing a game where if there isn't anyone obvious to take off they leave the sub un-subbed because your best 21 are on the pitch.

 

[mattymac]

Imo an impact player who can run, carry and impact the scoreboard and who is young and not yet fit enough to run out whole games. Someone who will benefit from the experience while also having the potential to impact and benefit the team. Charlie Cameron seems ideal atm.

 

[haydo]

Rekon Pods in certain conditions would make a brilliant sub. If we're getting smashed make him the loose man in defense. Otherwise throw him up forward late in the 3/4 and watch the opposition completely restructure.

I think its unfair to a player trying to break into the team to be used as sub, he's loosing match fitness, while the other guys vying for the same spot are getting opportunities to present there case and work on their game, that he's not. However if a older player is on the outer, the sub spot could be a lifeline. The older player can also be useful as support to younger members of the team, especially interstate trips.

That's actually quiet a simple idea really. Pods is going to no doubt be in some sort of coaching role once his contract expires for us, so having him be the sub is a good idea. That way he can coach and be a voice on the bench for 2-3 quarters and then he can have a impact when comes onto the ground either up forward or helping out down back. He has the speed and strength to worry opponents when the game is late and the opposition are tired. He is also decent enough at ground level to snatch 2-3 goals in a quarter if given the opportunity.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Key position players should not be subs IMO.

It ignores the nature of the position. Key positions are what I would describe as 'opportunity' positions. Their ability to impact is limited by the opportunities that come their way, however equally a successful game only requires taking a few of these opportunities. You take three or four marks in front of goal and convert.

IMO this means that not only are KPPs less likely to have an increased impact by coming on late (big boys are still big late in the game, so being fresh doesn't necessarily raise an advantage over their opponent), and by facing fewer opportunities, but also that they're more likely to be disadvantaged by a cold start. If they're a second off the pace and miss an opportunity, they may not get another.

Give me pace. IMO pace is the one thing that you can guarantee will create an advantage over tired players.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Also: selecting players to coach is naff. We have a coaching staff to coach.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Perhaps I should say: IMO, Henderson is the perfect sub 'build'- he's got some pace, and is versatile enough to play a number of roles. It's just a question of is he too valuable in the other three quarters to receive the benefit from using him that way.

 

[BigLefty]

It should never ever be a KPP.

Must be a running game breaker. Southerntakerover is spot on. The player needs to have pace to take advantage of the tiring opposition. If they dont have pace then they at least need to be able to run hard.

IMO the best strategy is to select your 21, then the sub comes from the remaining pool of players that are suited to the role. Our problem is that we lack genuine outside speed, so anyone we have with that specific skill is needed on the field.

I think our players with the best skillset are; Smith, Mackay, Martin, Henderson and Cameron (apparently). Thats about it.

The next best who i think are options for the sub are Kerridge, Jeansch, Grigg, Lynch, Shaw (just) B Crouch, Lyons (only because he's done well before) and i'm sure there's others.

One thing i'd also like us to have the option of is to have the Sub play in the SANFL still if we choose to. It means a player like Martin for example could play a quarter in the AFL every week if we wanted him to, then back up in the SANFL to maitain touch and fitness. Obviously this would only work if the AFL team play before the SANFL one.

 

[Vader]

Reading through these replies, there is a strong bias towards the "impact player" or "running game breaker". I'm not saying that this is right or wrong (it's definitely a valid argument), but what I'm reading doesn't really take into account the need or ability to replace an injured player. Everyone seems to be thinking with an inherent assumption that the sub will be activated late in the game.

Just food for thought..

** I agree that a ruckman or KPP should never be the sub, because they lack the flexibility required given that they could be asked to replace any one of the 21 starting players.

 

[little graham]

Just food for thought..

** I agree that a ruckman or KPP should never be the sub, because they lack the flexibility required given that they could be asked to replace any one of the 21 starting players.

Then what happens if we lose a key defender to injury?

 

[jo172]

If/when fit Ricky Henderson seems to satisfy a lot of the criteria people agree upon as being ideal

 

[Vader]

Then what happens if we lose a key defender to injury?

To a certain extent that's just bad luck. There are a lot more small/mid sized players in the team than there are KPP size players. The KPPs we played last weekend were Talia, Hartigan, Jacobs, JJ & JPod. You can add Shaw & Lynch, depending on how you wish to view them. That's 5-7 out of 21 starting players, leaving 14-16 in the small/mid sized weight division. Statistically it's more likely that you'll lose a small/mid as a result, or want to sub an underperforming one out.

 

[Vader]

If/when fit Ricky Henderson seems to satisfy a lot of the criteria people agree upon as being ideal

A Ricky Henderson type player, who isn't actually in the starting 21...

 

[DD#23]

to quote myself from the other thread, this is pretty much how I feel about it.

no, I'm just making a different interpretation of how the sub could be used. Ideally the sub might be someone who can come in and shred the opposition with fresh legs and great ball use but we don't have a single player on the list who could do that who we could also afford to not have playing a full game. Hell, Dangerfield would be an awesome sub, but no one needs help understanding why that would be a crap idea.

Petrenko is the kind of guy who can struggle to make an impact over the course of a whole game as he's mainly in the side to hit contests like a bull at a gate and hopefully snag a goal or two while he's at it. Problem is, his output in this role starts to tail off dramatically after half time, so why not leave him warm on the bench, bring him on with a quarter and a half to go against fatigued opposition and let him smash into them and again, hopefully snag a goal or two.

he'd be less exposed by his poor tank, would have less time to be caught out of position, and his pace would be of even greater benefit late in a game. Matty Crouch is way too good an accumulator to be wasting on the bench, we would have missed him in the first half on Sunday, Petrenko not so much.

so yeah, I like the run and carry idea but that's like gold-dust on our list as it is, they have to get more game time.

 

[cmndstab]

I agree that picking a pacy, versatile player is ideal for the sub (though if they're good enough they would already be in the side), but for me our issues are not so much about how to pick someone that will serve us as a sub. Our real issue is how to use the sub in a way that doesn't harm the player chosen to be the sub.

Too often we've seen a debutant, or someone returning from injury, or someone really needing a chance to show something at AFL level, be made the sub. It's almost impossible to succeed from there. Sitting on the bench for 3 quarters going cold and waiting for someone to get injured does not do anyone a service. I'm not exactly a fan of Martin, but I feel sorry for him constantly being expected to come on as a sub, with the almost certain prospect of demotion facing him if he is anything less than our best midfielder in the last quarter. I can only imagine how difficult it must be to debut in that kind of environment.


Given that we've only managed to get the sub "right" once or twice in terms of having a sub player strongly impact a game (Grigg late last year comes to mind), I'd be more than happy for us to just rule a line through using those kinds of players as a sub. They're the players who can least afford it, and it doesn't end up helping the team anyway. Grigg's three touches late in the game against the Bulldogs when we finally brought him on didn't help us anymore than they did him.

 

[Vader]

Coaches are always going to be reluctant to activate the sub early though, because they run the risk of being a man down if a player gets injured after the activation happens. The end result is that the sub usually gets activated late in the 3rd quarter or early in the 4th, when the risk of losing a player is balanced by the reward of bringing a fresh player into the game. That goes for all AFL clubs, not just Adelaide. That said, Sando left the substitution very late in both the GWS & Footscray games, giving Martin & Grigg virtually no chance of succeeding.

It's certainly far from ideal that a player should spend 3/4 of the game on the bench, but it's equally hard to argue that they should be activated any earlier, because of the risk that a premature activation creates.

 

[little graham]

I wonder how opposition coaches would handle waiting 3/4's for Podsiadly to come on.There going to have to work out a plan if he goes loose man back and plays a quarterback style role, or if he goes up to a roaming CHF.He could even ruck. Some people may like to be conservative, as post after post here shows. However pods is tactical and aggressive. Ask Geelong fans about hows Pods can't change a game in a quarter.

Some people say we aint aggressive enough with our tactics. Can't be done every game, especially if we don't have a defender than can play tall or small. However if were to lose a mid or small defender to injury early, we can push Lynch on a wing and mckay taken off the wing be the mid or small defender.