Selecting a Substitute Player

[cmndstab]

I'm aware that the sub is going to be activated late, and for obvious reasons, it should be that way.

My point is that there are some players who really need a full game if they're any chance to succeed. If, for example, Matthew Wright was to spend a game as sub, it wouldn't really harm him. He's clearly viewed as being best 22, and would go back to a full game the following week. Whereas someone like Mitch Grigg is trying to make a name for himself, and with Douglas due back very soon, has a very narrow window before he is facing a likely demotion. He needs a full game, but instead he gets a quarter.

Now obviously I understand why we'd put fringe players as the sub - it's not ideal having quality on the bench - but I'd like to see players who are established best 22 players, but not superstars or vital positional players, being regularly made the sub. Someone like Wright, or Reilly, or Mackay. Not that I want them to be sub all the time, but at least often enough that someone like Crouch can come in and have a full game.

 

[Vader]

Crouch jnr got very lucky. Thompson had to be subbed out at quarter time, giving him 3/4 of a game to impress. He grasped his opportunity with both hands and hasn't looked back since.

 

[cmndstab]

Crouch jnr got very lucky. Thompson had to be subbed out at quarter time, giving him 3/4 of a game to impress. He grasped his opportunity with both hands and hasn't looked back since.

A perfect example of why we should be giving these kinds of players more game time. The one time it happened (by accident) it worked well.

And it's not like he got that many touches in the first quarter he got to play, either. He worked his way into the game, like most players will need to do.

 

[Crow_Magnon]

Tend to agree with most posters here....better to have an impact-type player with some genuine speed - if you have them of course! Ideally the four man bench usually comprises 3 utility / midfield types, with one taller option. I'd prefer one of the three to be that speedy, impact player. Grigg would've been more suited to be in the 21 on Sunday, as I think he takes a while to get going, and the Dogs were up and about at the stage he came on. Certainly a Hendo / Mackay type would be good to have in reserve (though Mackay probably warrants being in the starting group on current form). Once Dougie comes back I guess Pets may get the gig, as the others should keep their places on current form.

 

[whattagun07]

Could someone provide a summary of Brodie Martin's games as sub / been subbed vs full games?
It really does feel like a bit of a Tambling mkII with him. Seems to do very well at SANFL level, but isn't given consistent run at AFL.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I agree with the impact player comments.

I would also add that is important that we don't make someone a sub for 2 consecutive weeks (certainly not 3), combined with being an emergency who misses games that weekend due to scheduling, because we have run players out of form.

We need to be smarter about if a player was a sub 1 week, they either come in the 21 the following week if deserving or drop back to the SANFL for a full hit out.

Same with making someone an emergency 1 week & they missed a game (as SANFL game before the AFL game). Making them a sub or an emergency 2 weeks running means they play very little footy & lose touch.

We have enough players to rotate through for this.

 

[Mad Fan of AFL]

Very good issue Vader. My opinion is the sub should be an impact player. If this player, is subbed on early, I would hope he would be a pacy utility type. Coverage for most areas of the ground, depending on height of departed player. Anyways, I really don't like the sub rule. It really impacts the 22nd player's ability to play a good game and keep his spot in the team.

 

[Southerntakeover]

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.

Whilst they're not necessarily mutually exclusive (flexibility and pace), I think I agree with the logic that you should already have enough flexibility within your team to restructure if someone goes down.

I think, in the end, you have to plan to use the substitute proactively, rather than reactively.

 

[Godallblighty]

I don't think you ever see the sub make that much of an impact that the notion of it as an 'impact player position' is very realistic. I also hate the use of it as 'last man in' for all the reasons that others have stated above - it's unfair, too much pressure, and deprives the player of match fitness.

I think the sub needs to be viewed from more than a single game perspective. Essentially it's a bench position but one through which you rotate players week by week rather than every five minutes. So, not best 22, but best 24 or 25 (assuming that a couple are always going to be injured) - and everyone (well, all the midfielders, probably) know they'll be sub at some point through the year. And yes, even Danger. This week's game, for instance, would be perfect for him to be sub.

 

[Vader]

I agree with the impact player comments.

I would also add that is important that we don't make someone a sub for 2 consecutive weeks (certainly not 3), combined with being an emergency who misses games that weekend due to scheduling, because we have run players out of form.

How often have we made the same player sub for 2 games running? I agree wholeheartedly that this should be avoided at all costs.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

How often have we made the same player sub for 2 games running? I agree wholeheartedly that this should be avoided at all costs.

Often used a sub who was an emergency the previous week & they usually struggle.

My main issue is player management.

 

[Vader]

Often used a sub who was an emergency the previous week & they usually struggle.

My main issue is player management.

Slightly different, but closely related. One doesn't get a game at all, the other frequently gets very limited game time. No player should be selected in those two slots for two consecutive weeks. Basically, I agree with everything you're saying.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Slightly different, but closely related. One doesn't get a game at all, the other frequently gets very limited game time. No player should be selected in those two slots for two consecutive weeks. Basically, I agree with everything you're saying.

I should add it goes like this for a fringe player:

Week 1 non playing emergency.
Week 2 sub struggle to make impact.
Week 3 dropped & take month to get form back.

 

[1970crow]

I should add it goes like this for a fringe player:

Week 1 non playing emergency.
Week 2 sub struggle to make impact.
Week 3 dropped & take month to get form back.

A young fringe player would take a lot of confidence out of that schedule.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Would prefer option 2 but we don't have anyone that isn't in our best 21 when fit (ie Smith, Mackay, Laird, Hendo etc.).

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

A perfect example of why we should be giving these kinds of players more game time. The one time it happened (by accident) it worked well.

And it's not like he got that many touches in the first quarter he got to play, either. He worked his way into the game, like most players will need to do.

Lynch also a perfect example of a player who should never be sub. He wears his opponent into the ground through work rate. Would be interested to see stats on when in a quarter he gets his touches but would be confident it would be back half weighted.

 

[nerRADIAN]

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.

I'm not sure what the exact numbers are but if I had to guess the sub would only be brought on early to replace an injured player probably less than 20% of the time so it would make sense to pick the impact player if the numbers show that they will spend more TOG than injury cover subs.

 

[Deaneus!]

Quite a catch-22: if we had a player so good he could fulfill the role as we see it, why wouldn't he be in the starting 22 in the first place?

 

[Vader]

I'm not sure what the exact numbers are but if I had to guess the sub would only be brought on early to replace an injured player probably less than 20% of the time so it would make sense to pick the impact player if the numbers show that they will spend more TOG than injury cover subs.

It would be interesting to see the numbers, to see just how much time the average substitute player gets each game (both subbing in for injury and subbing for other reasons).

 

[Paladin]

Charlie Cameron would be a great sub he would come on and torch nearly anyone for pace. Good way to ease him into AFL as well.

Hendo is too valuable but his type is ideal. Petrenko, Martin, Mackay, Laird fit the bill impact wise.