Analysis State of the game

[BomberFan355]

Not sure he's sub material, needs to get into it early and get some confidence

Looks like he just came on all at sea like a rocking up late to a party sober when everyone there is already smashed. Can't fit in

How often does a sub come on and have any real impact on a game? Just * the BS sub off and have a 4 man bench.

 

[Howard Moon]

How often does a sub come on and have any real impact on a game? Just **** the BS sub off and have a 4 man bench.

Their sub had it 8 or more times, it's all you ask

 

[ManWithNoName]

How often does a sub come on and have any real impact on a game? Just **** the BS sub off and have a 4 man bench.

The sub rule is fine. We're just terrible at using it.

 

[yaco55]

Every week there is complaints about who is the sub. Doubt that any team in the AFL is perfect in its execution

 

[carnthedons]

The sub rule is fine. We're just terrible at using it.

Disagree. The sub rule is a completely pointless exercise and is actually disadvantageous if you get a first Q injury, something like 80+% of teams who activate subs in Q1 lose.

I get that the league is trying to tire players so there's less around the ball but capping interchange lower (say 70-80) and getting rid of the sub rule would be a much better way of doing it.

 

[Jade]

Disagree. The sub rule is a completely pointless exercise and is actually disadvantageous if you get a first Q injury, something like 80+% of teams who activate subs in Q1 lose.

I get that the league is trying to tire players so there's less around the ball but capping interchange lower (say 70-80) and getting rid of the sub rule would be a much better way of doing it.

Agreed.

Would be happy with a DRASTICALLY reduced interchange cap and abolish the sub rule.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Disagree. The sub rule is a completely pointless exercise and is actually disadvantageous if you get a first Q injury, something like 80+% of teams who activate subs in Q1 lose.

I get that the league is trying to tire players so there's less around the ball but capping interchange lower (say 70-80) and getting rid of the sub rule would be a much better way of doing it.

As opposed to how beneficial a first quarter injury is without the sub rule?

 

[Beerfish]

As opposed to how beneficial a first quarter injury is without the sub rule?

Well it's more beneficial in the sense that without the sub rule the other team doesn't get to bring on someone with fresh legs whenever they like if they're lucky enough to not have an injury.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Well it's more beneficial in the sense that without the sub rule the other team doesn't get to bring on someone with fresh legs whenever they like if they're lucky enough to not have an injury.

But without the sub that side has an extra rotation all day. That probably has a far greater impact than one player being fresher later in the game.

 

[Beerfish]

But without the sub that side has an extra rotation all day. That probably has a far greater impact than one player being fresher later in the game.

With the sub they get the extra rotation for as long as they want plus the fresh legs. Not sure how that wouldn't be more advantageous.

 

[ManWithNoName]

With the sub they get the extra rotation for as long as they want plus the fresh legs. Not sure how that wouldn't be more advantageous.

Huh? With the sub rule how do they get an extra rotation?

 

[Beerfish]

Huh? With the sub rule how do they get an extra rotation?

Oh yeah my bad. I'm not so sure it probably has a far greater impact though and I'd like it removed.

 

[BrewSmackerVeiny]

something like 80+% of teams who activate subs in Q1 lose.

What's the source of this statistic? Please post a link.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Oh yeah my bad. I'm not so sure it probably has a far greater impact though and I'd like it removed.

I disagree. To me it evens out the disadvantage of an early injury. It allows players to be eased back from injury. It allows youngsters to be eased into the game. Allows veterans to go on when they might not have otherwise. It adds an extra strategic element to the game.

The cons are...uh...tradition! It's just stupid!

 

[Beerfish]

I disagree. To me it evens out the disadvantage of an early injury.

It might do. It might not. Player goes down at the first bounce. Sub comes on. Game is close at the start of the last quarter. Sub for other team comes on. Makes the difference.

It allows players to be eased back from injury.

They can do that in the twos.

It allows youngsters to be eased into the game.

I don't see that as a reason to keep it. Make them play in the twos until they can play out a game in the seniors.

Allows veterans to go on when they might not have otherwise.

Adam Goodes chose to play in the NEAFL rather than be the sub.

It adds an extra strategic element to the game.

Do you think the strategic elements of the game would be significantly worse off for its removal?

The cons are...uh...tradition! It's just stupid!

How about the player that doesn't play a full game in the seconds because they're named the sub, plays for one and a bit quarters and that's it for the week. Is that a good thing?

 

[ManWithNoName]

It might do. It might not. Player goes down at the first bounce. Sub comes on. Game is close at the start of the last quarter. Sub for other team comes on. Makes the difference.

As opposed to player goes down at first bounce, other side's able to rotate more of their players and has half a dozen fresher players come last quarter. Makes the difference.

They can do that in the twos.



I don't see that as a reason to keep it. Make them play in the twos until they can play out a game in the seniors.

They can, but what's wrong with letting them do it in the AFL?

Adam Goodes chose to play in the NEAFL rather than be the sub.

So? Players like Goodes, and Boomer and others coming through. It'd definitely work to their benefit in that regard.

Do you think the strategic elements of the game would be significantly worse off for its removal?

Significantly? No. But it's something different. Something interesting. What harm in keeping it?

How about the player that doesn't play a full game in the seconds because they're named the sub, plays for one and a bit quarters and that's it for the week. Is that a good thing?

The game coped when there were only 2 on the bench. The game coped when there were only 3 on the bench. The game has coped with the sub rule.

 

[Mercurial89]

It might do. It might not. Player goes down at the first bounce. Sub comes on. Game is close at the start of the last quarter. Sub for other team comes on. Makes the difference.



They can do that in the twos.



I don't see that as a reason to keep it. Make them play in the twos until they can play out a game in the seniors.



Adam Goodes chose to play in the NEAFL rather than be the sub.



Do you think the strategic elements of the game would be significantly worse off for its removal?



How about the player that doesn't play a full game in the seconds because they're named the sub, plays for one and a bit quarters and that's it for the week. Is that a good thing?

As opposed to player goes down at first bounce, other side's able to rotate more of their players and has half a dozen fresher players come last quarter. Makes the difference.


They can, but what's wrong with letting them do it in the AFL?



So? Players like Goodes, and Boomer and others coming through. It'd definitely work to their benefit in that regard.



Significantly? No. But it's something different. Something interesting. What harm in keeping it?



The game coped when there were only 2 on the bench. The game coped when there were only 3 on the bench. The game has coped with the sub rule.

The easy thing to do is keep the sub for concussions and injuries, put the bench back to 4 and cap rotations. Everyone wins that way.

 

[Beerfish]

As opposed to player goes down at first bounce, other side's able to rotate more of their players and has half a dozen fresher players come last quarter. Makes the difference.

The point I was making is it doesn't necessarily negate an early injury so that's not a good reason to keep it.

They can, but what's wrong with letting them do it in the AFL?

There's nothing necessarily 'wrong' with it but it's not like there's any advantage to the game for that to happen. I would rather they play full games in the reserves and then transition to full games in the seniors.

So? Players like Goodes, and Boomer and others coming through. It'd definitely work to their benefit in that regard.

Well they don't seem to think so if they'd rather play in the reserves than be the sub.

Significantly? No. But it's something different. Something interesting. What harm in keeping it?

Maybe we should have two balls in play at the same time. That would be something different too.

The game coped when there were only 2 on the bench. The game coped when there were only 3 on the bench. The game has coped with the sub rule.

You didn't answer my question. I raise a legitimate reason in response to your "it's tradition! I hate it!" guff and that's your response? The game also coped without the sub rule and it could again. See I can do that too. The game will cope with anything (except maybe my two balls idea). We're just having a discussion here. It's not an argument. It's two differing opinions. I'm not right and you're not wrong. Stop trying to 'win' and just discuss.

 

[Maddogm]

Maybe we should have two balls in play at the same time. That would be something different too.

Think about Bruce commentating that. Now apologise to the class

 

[ManWithNoName]

The point I was making is it doesn't necessarily negate an early injury so that's not a good reason to keep it.



There's nothing necessarily 'wrong' with it but it's not like there's any advantage to the game for that to happen. I would rather they play full games in the reserves and then transition to full games in the seniors.



Well they don't seem to think so if they'd rather play in the reserves than be the sub.



Maybe we should have two balls in play at the same time. That would be something different too.



You didn't answer my question. I raise a legitimate reason in response to your "it's tradition! I hate it!" guff and that's your response? The game also coped without the sub rule and it could again. See I can do that too. The game will cope with anything (except maybe my two balls idea). We're just having a discussion here. It's not an argument. It's two differing opinions. I'm not right and you're not wrong. Stop trying to 'win' and just discuss.

I didn't realise I was trying to win it?

 

[baz_machine]

scrap the sub for sure; i hate it when my SuperCoach rookies are starting subs or subbed off

 

[Beerfish]

I didn't realise I was trying to win it?

Then why can't you acknowledge a reasonable point?

 

[carnthedons]

What's the source of this statistic? Please post a link.

I'm searching for it now, did read it somewhere.

However 40% of statistics are made up.

 

[Zach Package]

Some kind of zone would benefit us enormously, Hird's seen the score we conceded last week and gone back to the same flood the half back line bullshit

 

[Yoda_]

Some kind of zone would benefit us enormously, Hird's seen the score we conceded last week and gone back to the same flood the half back line bullshit

Is that what they call it?