Strategy Substitute - a specialist position?

[mic59]

At the moment the substitute position just seems to be used in two ways, at least for Port.

1. A new player finding his feet.

2. The 22nd best player selected.

In 2013 Kane Mitchell was sub quite a few times and caused an impact with his speed, he also played a few full games that year and was useful. Fast forward to 2014 and 2015 and he has played only full games and although he has been getting the ball it has not been in the clear spaces that the substitute role may afford him and his effectiveness has been well down. Ken can otherwise say 'well, he should be skilled enough to play a full game' and Kane will only do well for our SANFL team or Ken can return him to the sub position and he may be doing what he did earlier.

Matt White should be another impact player. He burst on the scene for us while playing a full game but his speed is suited to the sub role. Most of the players we have used as sub this year have been midfielders and need to pick up the pace of the game before they can make any difference. Most subs are forwards as the tiny advantage in speed has a chance to make a goal.

A player like John Butcher who is not any use to us when he plays a full game could profit from being a sub. If he could come on late, snag a couple of goals when the other team is lagging then he can build the confidence to be a starting player.

 

[croweyrocks]

Impact player with outside speed....sick of having inside mids as our subs this year!

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

It will be eliminated in October so there wont be any great strategy around it any more.

A good ordinary player like Young does well against the average side but does bugger all against the top 4 sides. Pretty much stock standard result across the league.

 

[tribey]

The worst kneejerk rule change since being allowed to kickout before the goalie had waved his flags to "speed the game up".

That didn't have any long-term ramifications did it.

 

[Peck]

The worst kneejerk rule change since being allowed to kickout before the goalie had waved his flags to "speed the game up".

That didn't have any long-term ramifications did it.

C'mon man, you are forgetting the head high tackle rule, the deliberate out of bounds rule, the ridiculous MRP points system, the "hands in the back" rule, the "player tackling is holding it in" rule, the sliding rule, and all the other ones.

But seriously could you describe what is wrong with the kickout rule? I don't quite follow, and am interested to hear more.

 

[tribey]

C'mon man, you are forgetting the head high tackle rule, the deliberate out of bounds rule, the ridiculous MRP points system, the "hands in the back" rule, the "player tackling is holding it in" rule, the sliding rule, and all the other ones.

But seriously could you describe what is wrong with the kickout rule? I don't quite follow, and am interested to hear more.

Point one, granted.

Point two, it used to be that when a behind was scored you had to wait for the goal umpire to finish waving the flags before you were allowed to kick out.

They removed that rule in 2005 or 2006 in a bid to speed the game up and what resulted was perpetual motion, leading to eventually needing to bring in the sub and interchange caps to slow the game down. Hilarious.

 

[edgie]

If we were in premiership contention I'd say yes, but we aren't, and it seems like a given that the sub rule is in its last season. No point. Just ride it out.

 

[Steve Dore]

I was looking for the "utility" option.

 

[1954]

The Power have f***** up the choice of sub numerous times since the day it was introduced, Rodan was successful for a while in the role, as has been Mitchell - sometimes.

The most recent choice for the role, Moore, didn't appear suited to it at all.

An X factor type ( Neade ), or an accumulator ( the Hoon ) are in my opinion the most physically suited to the sub's role on the current list.

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

Matt Broadbent

 

[Dave Omsby]

I can cope with Mitchell as a specialist sub .
White would be good
Young isn't gad either .
Pretty much all of the others have been so so only in my recollection .

 

[Andre]

Young hasn't been a bad sub, Mitchell if he plays should only ever be sub.

White's been a good sub, but when he's fit (which looked about two weeks this year) and Polec is playing, so he can't be targeted easily as the only line-breaker he's better for a full game.

I hate the way we've used it this year for the young players. Totally how it shouldn't be used. Add that to the long list of what's been done wrong this year.

Thankfully the rule is on the way out. I'd rather it be changed to 4 interchange + 2 subs. The difference being that the subs are emergency players for injuries only. Where a player who comes off injured is not allowed to play the following week. So it'd effectively change to where we have one small and one tall emergency named at present, who come in if someone jags a hamstring during warm up, instead are able to come on if they jag it during the game.

 

[Rexie J]

Can't wait for it to disappear - absolutely stupid

Perhaps consideration be given to returning to yesteryear - 2 reserves/interchanges

 

[Long live PAFC]

Agreed that it should hopefully be removed. Whilst we are talking about it though, what are people's thoughts on the Krak as sub?

He lacks fitness for a whole game but should be able to play a quarter and can play a full game if required. Has speed and skills but lacks some defensive capacity - the sub tends to be more of an attacking role. He can rebound of HB or play forward. May be able to run through a wing as well.

Only other thoughts are it has to be an attacking player not an accumulator - so no to Moore, O'Shea, Broadbent, Hoon; yes to Young, Mitchell and Amon. I think Neade's defensive work is better suited to a full game.

 

[Chewy316]

I'm in the minority camp who actually don't mind the sub rule. I think it was poorly received from the get go and as such, coaches league-wide have refused to embrace the change. I think in part the reason of disliking the rule from the coaches' perspective is that the rule was brought in as a way of slowing the game down. With an interchange limit, there is no need for a sub rule to exist in order to slow the game down. I personally however like the tactic component of the sub rule. It is most effective with a player who is a big body with reasonable pace (they don't have to be blistering) who can go into the midfield and run flat out for a quarter or so. Aaron Young in 2014 was a great example of a "perfect" sub.

Where clubs have gotten cute, is using the sub to rest players, to nurse them back from injuries etc. That's not going to work. It can work in soccer because you have multiple subs and hence can pick and choose who comes on when. If you get a freak injury in soccer early in the game, you don't have to sub on your unfit slightly injured player because you have another few guys to bring on. In footy, if you get an injury early and you need to use the sub, you're cooked if that sub is underdone.

It will be gone at the end of the year, but I would have liked it to stay with teams using it for the right tactical reasons.

 

[PA88]

As Chewy said, it is not structured for a player that is being managed. In Hinkley's first two seasons I thought we were the best at using the sub, most times our sub was having a positive influence. It is best suited for a fit fast runner in my opinion but sport is not perfect and doesn't go to plan. I hate all one-way sub rules though. From juniors to seniors to professionals I think it is draconian. Really want to see it go.

 

[Puddy]

Mitchell is the way to go with the sub imo, can be an impact player. Instead we tried and failed at turning him into a inside mid