Opinion Sub-standard?

[jmac70]

Here is a list of our subs for the season to date:

Rd 1: Ben Kennedy - 1 kick & 7 HBs (dropped for the next week)
Rd 2: Taylor Adams - 4 kicks & 3 HBs
Rd 3: Taylor Adama - 3 kicks & 2 HBs (suspended for the next week)
Rd 4: Josh Thomas - 2 kicks & 6 HBs
Rd 5: Luke Ball - 2 kicks & 1 HB
Rd 6: Josh Thomas - 11 kicks & 5 HBs
Rd 7: Ben Kennedy - 4 kicks & 1 HB (dropped for the next game)
Rd 9: Sam Dwyer - 4 kicks & 3 HBs (injured for the next game)
Rd 10: Clinton Young - 8 kicks & 7 HBs

Other than Young, the rest of the subs have all been similar players with Kennedy, Adams and Thomas all getting the gig twice. So what is our strategy? Do we even have a strategy? Do we have too many similar type players? Is Kennedy entitled to tell the club to stick the subs vest up their arse?

My belief is that we are using the sub to give younger mids a "soft" entry into league footy. I think this is wrong. There is an opportunity here to develop one or two players specifically for the role of sub. A player that can come in for a quarter and have a scoreboard impact on the game, without needing to build a full game fitness base. The Western Bulldogs do this with Gia and I think it works well. I realise it is a risk in the event of injury but this role would have been perfect for a player like Krak. Thoughts?

 

[ClaytonM]

Yes. Get rid of the F##king sub rule it sucks.

 

[TradeDraft]

I think Bucks has No Idea how to use it.

You Don’t inside Mids as Subs.

Subs are a Joke anyway, Just have Subs for Injured Players

 

[Ricky90]

I agree. The Sub needs to be a very flexible player capable of playing in a number of positions. Obviously he wouldn't be a superstar at any of them or he wouldn't be the sub. Goldsack springs to mind but he's currently far too valuable a commodity in the forward half to leave out of the first 21.

So we've been using mids as the sub and I only really like the Dwyer selection, as he's the type to add run to the side. A sort of injection of pace if you like in the final quarter, or even a "Hail Mary" type play using him as a chance to change the style and momentum of the game.

I hate the idea of debuting a player as the sub. In fact, I hate the idea of the sub, period. You could improve it simply by having four on the bench and a couple of subs for injuries. But that's a topic for another day.

Guys like Marty Clarke and Armstrong and Mooney should be putting their hand up for the sub rule. They're not the types to get games any time soon but if they could turn themselves into impact players, they might have more of an opportunity. That'd be really reaching though, ultimately we need Karnezis to improve his defensive abilities forward so he can take Goldsack's role allowing us to use Goldsack as the sub. Forget sentiment, there's no room for that in footy, that would be the best case scenario, in my opinion.

 

[jmac70]

I think Bucks has No Idea how to use it.

You Don’t inside Mids as Subs.

Subs are a Joke anyway, Just have Subs for Injured Players

I don't think anyone, other than KB, like the sub rule. If it is here to stay we need to be developing a way of exploiting it to our advantage.

 

[rose jam]

Sub coming on and being influential is so rare. Anyone that thinks a certain type can be a super-sub is kidding themselves.
Sub rule has sucked since the intro, should go back to 4.

 

[dubber]

I think Bucks has No Idea how to use it.

You Don’t inside Mids as Subs.

Subs are a Joke anyway, Just have Subs for Injured Players

Bucks not the only one, other coaches struggle too.

For the record I think our perfect sub would be Goldsack who can play both ends of the ground if needed. The problem of course is that we need him in our starting 21.

 

[jmac70]

Sub coming on and being influential is so rare. Anyone that thinks a certain type can be a super-sub is kidding themselves.
Sub rule has sucked since the intro, should go back to 4.

The rule probably hasn't been in long enough to develop that impact type. Given the unpopularity of it you would think it will be scrapped. If not though clubs will need to think about recruiting for it. Of our current list I think that a player like Fas or PK are a better use of sub.

 

[mattys123]

Has it cost us a game though? Let's be honest even if we'd picked a better sub in our three losses would we be better off than 6-3 now?

Choosing Adams, Thomas or Ball as the sub have been mistakes I'll give you that though.

 

[ottoman]

make Martin the sub

 

[jmac70]

Perhaps we should consider recruiting a mature player for the designated sub.

We had him...

 

[jackcass]

I think the performance of our subs is a consequence of player availability. As others have noted, Thomas, Adams, Kennedy, Ball and Fasolo are all similar type body size. We'd have significantly more flexibility if Karnezis, Seedsman, Scharenberg, Freeman and Oxley were available, sadly, they haven't been. Hopefully we'll get to see a few other blokes trialled over the coming rounds.

Of course the actual game time the subs get influences possessions.

Hopefully the sub rule goes the way of the dodo in 2015 or it'll become a 23rd player specifically for injury replacement.

 

[esc0bar]

why would we put an old and unfit player on the bench and label him a super sub?

What happens if we get an injury one minute into the game? I think its easy to criticize Buckley for a shit rule forced upon the game by a bunch of morons at AFL house.Further more I would like to see the time on the ground for those statistics. They tell us... well, basically nothing.

 

[mike123]

The Western Bulldogs do this with Gia and I think it works well. I realise it is a risk in the event of injury but this role would have been perfect for a player like Krak. Thoughts?

I wouldn't think so. Krak lost most of his leg speed after his knee injury and he was more of an opportunist than an impact player. So him being the sub would limit his opportunities. Didak was a good sub because he still had his leg speed and burst pace.

 

[doodles98]

I think the sub works best when you have a pacy aerobic outside running machine who comes on when the opposition are running out of gas... someone on the fringes of selection.. Freeman would have been perfect. Martin would be a good sub too. Kennedy should become a good option too.

 

[sr36]

My assumption is that we've been picking inside players as subs - until Young - as we're trying to ensure that our intensity around the contest doesn't drop off towards the end of games. But it's probably more likely that we Thomas, Adams, Ball, Kennedy and Blair are all AFL standard but we don't want to play too many of this type.

 

[motr]

Yes. Get rid of the F##king sub rule it sucks.

Must be more who hate the sub rule.

 

[Pie eyed]

I think Bucks has No Idea how to use it.

You Don’t inside Mids as Subs.

Subs are a Joke anyway, Just have Subs for Injured Players

I don't think any coach knows who to use it.
The sub is the AFL equivalent of vestibular nipples....only it is not something which once had a use and was outgrown, it's just a useless inconvenience transplanted like an anal wart on the face of the game by a group of insane meddlers. Not different to the interchange cap.

 

[boxy99]

Doesn't matter who we make sub they never have any impact on the game.

 

[Kirby]

I actually think Adams had a positive impact on the game as sub when he came on against the Swans.

Young was a pretty handy sub when called upon early last week.

I hate the sub thing though. Shits me to tears.

 

[PepperFace]

Im hungry and feel like subway

 

[DaVe86]

Yeah i hate the sub rule. I think it is one of the silliest things in our game. The problem with it is that teams are so scared to use it early because if there is an injury then there is no option to reverse the sub.

In terms of sub strategy, I would dare say those statistics match pretty evenly to what other sides are doing.

Most use a young player to ease him into AFL footy...or to use players coming back from injury.

The club that I think use it best are the Western Bulldogs with Gia. He has the potential to have instant impact.

I think the sub role is a tough gig. Although a player may have fresh legs, it is hard to step straight on a catch up with the flow of the game. That's why the sub usually don't see much of it.

I think the subs have more impact when they are brought on early (ie get at least a half of football)...but this is usually only done if there is an early injury.

I still think an attacking goal kicker is the way to go with the sub. I don't think using the youngster works because they just get lost when they come on. Experienced players tend to play the role better...however most teams want the experience on the park all match.

Stupid rule.

 

[blaze036]

Am I the only person who likes the sub rule?

 

[dubber]

Am I the only person who likes the sub rule?

We all know you are one of a kind blaze

 

[PepperFace]

Am I the only person who likes the sub rule?

It appears that way. Care to share what you like about it?