Substitutes in for 2011

[Elite Crow]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/103656/default.aspx

3 interchange plus a sub. I think the days of two ruckman are dead. That being the case, its vitally important you get a good one. If we get Jacobs where does that leave Maric?

Is Jabobs a good mark? Will it be a case of him and Kurt sharing the rucks? If Jacobs can kick a goal then it might work as much as I hate taking Kurt away from the forward line.

 

[BACCS]

If we get Jacobs, I can see Maric struggling for a game. It also doesn't bode well for Moran's future.

 

[WALL-e]

Hmmm, 2nd rucks would like to be athletic and versatile right about now.

 

[BACCS]

I actually saw a good idea on the main board regarding 2nd ruckman. A team could still take 2 ruckmen in, but towards the end of the 3rd quarter, sub one out for a running player. The one ruckman should be able to handle the load by himself in the last quarter, and it gives the team an extra running player. And in our case, if say Maric goes down, Tippett can be chucked in there. Not a bad rule change when you think about it a little, it'll be interesting to see the tactics used.

 

[Elite Crow]

Its a stupid decision, the AFL have basically condemned one player from each team to limited game time each week. How is that fair?

 

[adelaidecrows]

Before people go out and kill off the 2nd ruckmen I would probably advise to think carefully. Tall players never get any smaller is a saying that tends to ring true alot in the dying minutes of alot of games especially tight games.

The tactics clubs employ will be totally new. I think Midfielders will rotate alot more through the forward line which may kill the small crumbing forward which will leave a spot for a second ruckmen on the bench. As for the sub it will be hard to know what clubs will do. Will they leave him in the bank to cover an injury untill the last 10 minutes of a game or will subs come on for players having a shocker at half time.

I am most curious to find out whether sides will still select their best 22 or will it be a case of best 21 and the sub. The actual bonus of the sub is that I beleive it will force clubs to trial youngsters and create a rotation system amongst the reserves. You can hardly select the same player every week to sit in the sub spot and get 5 minutes of game time week after week.

Do I think it will stop rotations? No I dont. clubs can move through just as many with three as what they did with four. I think you will find it will hardly drop. What they should of done is create a time limit on the minimum amount of time a player can spend on the bench. That would have been better. This rule sounds like a Kevin Sheedy spin job.

 

[Vantz]

What a joke! Just cap rotations at 100.

 

[James23]

Will this increase the trade values of players such as Mckernan and Sellar? I'd imagine versatile part time ruckmen, that can mainly play in a KPP, but can have short stints in the ruck will be a whole lot more valuable

 

[betterthanu]

Rendell said a while back that players like McKernan will be at a premium soon. Obviously people in the know knew the game was gonna swing this way. Still dont see how this is much of an answer to the interchange problem. Just another example of a rules committee trying to justify a pay cheque

 

[IddyBiddy]

Not good news. The option to cap at 80 rotations makes more sense and would be much more even. At the end of the day, if you lose a ruckman you're not likely going to have a sub to cover that kind of loss.

 

[Mismatched]

What a joke! Just cap rotations at 100.

Agree, don't see how it will make life any fairer for a side who cops 3-4 injuries in a game, actually I don't say how it helps them at all. Cap them at 80 or 100 or whatever and then fine the club $1,000 for every change over that, unless a valid medical certificate can be provided from the club doctor or something.

Will this increase the trade values of players such as Mckernan and Sellar? I'd imagine versatile part time ruckmen, that can mainly play in a KPP, but can have short stints in the ruck will be a whole lot more valuable

I'd imagine that they'll become increasingly more and more valuable as clubs will look to maximise their number of midfield runners.

 

[Pariah]

It's a stupid decision made by the AFl. They should have 4 interchange players and 2 substitute players in case of injuries.

 

[McCavity]

With rotations significantly diminished from next year, the pace of the game should slow towards the end of each half as players become more fatigued. Surely then, those teams who have big Key forwards capable of clunking big grabs will come more to the fore. Could well work in our favour, with the likes of big Kurt and Tex patrolling the forward line. As the old saying goes "The longer a game goes, the big guys don't get any smaller".

 

[dplggr47]

Agree, don't see how it will make life any fairer for a side who cops 3-4 injuries in a game, actually I don't say how it helps them at all. Cap them at 80 or 100 or whatever and then fine the club $1,000 for every change over that, unless a valid medical certificate can be provided from the club doctor or something.

i agree. i'd voted for the cap of rotations, because i don't see how adding substitutes (in place of interchange players) would reduce the amount of injuries during a game. they should have kept it at 4 bench players, capped rotations, plus 1 substitute.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I might be the odd one out here but I think this will actually increase the number of rotations per player and the tall utility types like a Ryder, Goodes, Trengove, McKernan et al would be an at absolute premium as players with these changes.

I think you will find a lot of teams will now go in with one genuine ruckman and a tall utility that can give the #1 ruckman a bit of a breather and also fill other holes. This is why I think players like McKernan will be pushed through with some urgency next year.

If anything I see this sort of set up bringing in more injuries to players. Instead of 22 players out there you have 21 and the decrease in bench size will not have a direct effect on the rotations. Players will still be heavily rotated, if anything, we are likely to see the number of interchanges increase even more next year. The only thing I see this change bringing in is a more mobile, tall utility instead of a genuine 2nd ruckman and you are taking away one running player but the teams will compensate for that by playing 1 genuine ruckman and a tall utility.

I am not sure this will have the sort of effect that AFL are hoping for. It will be interesting though to see how the teams will use the substitute.

I would also like to see what player's association would say about this change because they are potentially limiting the earning power for one player (who ever is a substitute) because the player may or may not play and could affect his B&F finishing which directly impacts on player's earning power as majority of them would have bonuses for B&F placing.

 

[ruscy002]

I kind of see this as a healthy thing for us. It will force us to play a mobile second ruckman, which I always thought was the way to go anyway.

Additionally, it will force some really healthy competition on Jacobs (assuming we get him) and Maric. Jacobs looks like being our #1 ruckman despite his lack of experience, but Maric is hitting 25 years and should theoretically be entering his prime. We could see the best of both of these guys next season.

 

[Vader]

I like the fact that the interchange is being returned to its original purpose - the replacement of injured players.

The article correctly identifies the fact that bench sizes were increased in order to reduce the impact of injuries, yet the increasing number of interchanges has actually seen this impact increased due to fatiguing of players unable to rest on the bench when it's full of invalids.

It will certainly be interesting to see what unintended side effects come into the game as a result of the latest rule change.

It's quite possible that the likes of Sellar & McKernan may turn out to be worth their weight in gold. At least the AFL announced this before the beginning of trade week - though the clubs have barely 24 hours to analyse the changes, guess the impact and the effect it has on player values.

 

[ltdamn]

I can see the days of Shaun Rehn type players who used to dominate with marks in the defensive 50 towards the end of the game when players were tired coming back into vogue. I also think you'll start to see more ruckmen resting at CHF or CHB as they used to.

I'd suggest most clubs will use 3 small players as interchange and the substitute will be a tall ruckman. You can always take another small player from somewhere else on the ground to fill a hole if someone gets injured but if you lose a ruckman and don't have a replacement you are stuffed.

I don't think if we get Jacobs it's the end of Maric, Jacobs isn't the fastest or most mobile ruckman ever so Maric will have an advantadge over him there, and Maric can also play forward as necessary.

 

[feenix67]

I get a bit concerned when I read stuff like this from governing officials:

"The use of interchange has created more congestion, more stoppages, more defensive pressure and has contributed to a drop in disposal efficiency," Anderson said.

First of all Id love to see the stats on "more stoppages". Secondly, I read this as a continuation of the AFL's obsession with contriving a "free flowing game". Anyone who saw the SANFL GF would tell Anderson that there's nothing wrong with good hard contested footy and the fans love it. If I want to see basketball I'll go watch the 6'ers

 

[Firewalker]

I think this new rule should be called the "Collingwood Whinge rule", as if the AFL would've capped rotations at 80-100 per game the Pies no doubt would've cried bloody murder that it was an AFL objective to stop their game plan and dominance over the competiton they had this year.

Agree also the days of the second tall ruckman are now well and truely dead, would be interesting to see if this changes the thoughts of recruiting departments and in our case in going after the big tall un-mobile Jacobs, as where would it leave guys like Maric on our list and whether you would have someone like a McKernan as the substitute player or use Tippett as the pinch hitting 2nd ruck and have an extra midfielder as a sub.

 

[Drummond]

"The use of interchange has created more congestion, more stoppages, more defensive pressure and has contributed to a drop in disposal efficiency," Anderson said.

I honestly don't know why I bother with this competition.

 

[Crow-mo]

What a joke! Just cap rotations at 100.

or leave well alone.

as a number of clubs have said, there is no evidence linking # rotations with injury.

stupid meddling interference.

 

[thebirdman 24]

Are we the only national sport in the world to change our rules every year? Whats wrong with defensive pressure? The AFL just want shootouts with no intensity. Time to go back to SANFL?

 

[dplggr47]

one of the stupidest rules introduced. why is there a continual need to change things up. reducing interchange players (and adding a substitute) will not reduce the rotations or injuries that occur during a game, not that number of rotations have been proven to be linked to increasing injuries. there will still be games next year where a team is left with no bench (i.e. suffering 4 injuries in a game).

 

[Mismatched]

or leave well alone.

as a number of clubs have said, there is no evidence linking # rotations with injury.

stupid meddling interference.

Well no, I believe its more a case of the AFL protecting the weak. I may be wrong, but when Collingwood and others have been arguing against the capping of interchange, their chief argument has been that those clubs with the highest injuries are those that have been using the least number of interchanges.

When its been claimed that these interchanges have increased injuries, its instantly been assumed that they mean those players being heavily interchanged have been receiving more injuries, when in fact its the exact opposite. Those clubs (such as the Crows) who haven't quite kept up with the interchange numbers have been been experiencing more injuries.

Players with higher levels of mental and physical fatigue are far more likely to experience an injury. With the disparity in interchange numbers between clubs, a disparity has been created between the mental and physical fatigue levels of players. I believe this is something the Crows have already identified as a fault in their training in that they've been too focused on aerobic fitness and not anaerobic, so whilst our players are aerobically fit, they haven't had the anaerobic fitness to keep up with opposition clubs.

This is where the AFL's communist policy comes into play and their anti-Darwinistic ideals come into play. Instead of letting the other clubs catch up to the likes of Collingwood and relying that a natural ceiling would be found in terms of interchange numbers, they're bringing the fittest, back to pack. Albeit in a very strange way.