Substitutes

[Boris the Contradiction]

Most people have suggested that we use a utility such as Goldsack or Tarrant in this position next year but I feel that this would be a mistake. Our on-field team is so versatile as it is that in the event that we need a structural change, we can make it using the players that are already on the field or the bench.

I feel that we should use a runner in that position who can be brought on half-way through the third quarter and used at every opportunity. We could really stretch teams this way and it could be a massive factor in final quarters against tired teams, especially if they are using the conservative method of putting a utility in this position as people are suggesting we should. Perhaps one of our young quick draftees or someone with goal-sense like Davis if he gets himself fit enough to play wing/half forward again.

We're the best team so we should be using the sub position as a weapon, not a contingency plan.

Thoughts?

 

[mattys123]

I've changed my thinking on how we should use the subs position also.

Initially I thought that a "utility" type like Tarrant, Goldsack or Anthony (who has since left) would have been the best option, but now I believe the selection of the 22nd player should be solely based on our opposition.

Think about it, you are playing Fremantle, yet you go in with Jolly and Leigh Brown, against the man mountain that is Sandilands, so in that case, I would select Wood or a ruckman (Ceglar, McNamara) as the 22nd player.

Likewise if we are playing Hawthorn, and we may need some defensive backup against the likes of Buddy and Roughead, so a Tarrant or another key defender could be no.22 in that case.

Simply, it should be based on what "we need" as far as "extra depth" goes against each opposition.

Some weeks that will be extra speed (Josh Thomas, Dick etc) and some weeks it will be talls.

Will be interesting to see how the pies use it early in the season.

 

[Zahki]

Tarrant will be our substitute next year, almost guaranteed. Malthouse got him for his versatility, his ability to play forward or back. Using the substitute simply as a way to bring on fresh legs would be silly. Instead with Tarrant we have a number of options, is Franklin killing us and we could use an extra defender? Is our forward line not firing and we could use another target? They even suggested he could've taken a role like running with Goddard in GF1, though I'm sceptical of that myself.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Tarrant will be our substitute next year, almost guaranteed. Malthouse got him for his versatility, his ability to play forward or back. Using the substitute simply as a way to bring on fresh legs would be silly. Instead with Tarrant we have a number of options, is Franklin killing us and we could use an extra defender? Is our forward line not firing and we could use another target? They even suggested he could've taken a role like running with Goddard in GF1, though I'm sceptical of that myself.

Tarrant's one of the best tall players in the competition and would be our best tall back from the outset. I find it really hard to believe that he will not be in our best 21 all season.

As has been stated previously, he can play on smalls too so it's not as if Nate will need to be dropped for him. His adaptability is just as useful if he was on the field in the first place as it would be if he is sitting on the substitutes bench. Why can't he be moved?

Also, why would it be silly to use the sub position to bring on fresh legs? The midfield is the most important position on the ground now and as the game wears on, teams get slower. Being able to rotate and have fresh mids all the way through the game is a massive advantage and the reason most games are won or lost. I understand if you don't have many multi-positional players in your best team but the majority of our list can play multiple positions. We are adaptable regardless of the sub so why use it do do something we can already do from within the team?

 

[TradeDraft]

Daniel Farmer could be a Good Substitute with his Versatility

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Daniel Farmer could be a Good Substitute with his Versatility

See I like that because he's adaptable and quick, best of both worlds. I think pace is the go with the sub position.

 

[Zahki]

Tarrant's one of the best tall players in the competition and would be our best tall back from the outset. I find it really hard to believe that he will not be in our best 21 all season.

He won't push out Brown or Reid, count on it.

As has been stated previously, he can play on smalls too so it's not as if Nate will need to be dropped for him. His adaptability is just as useful if he was on the field in the first place as it would be if he is sitting on the substitutes bench. Why can't he be moved?

Here are our back 6 as I see them next year:
Maxwell - N.Brown - Toovey
Shaw - Reid - O'Brien

Who would you drop out of them to squeeze Tarrant in?

Also, why would it be silly to use the sub position to bring on fresh legs?

Because that is not using the substitute to it's fullest potential. Ideally coaches will use the substitute to make changes to the structure and change things if they're not working. They certainly can use it to just swap a midfielder for another midfielder, but in a team of 22 players having 1 with fresh legs for less than half a game will not be the difference between winning or losing. Having an extra utility to play forward or back just might, see Gilbert in GF1.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

He won't push out Brown or Reid, count on it

Never said he would but we didn't recruit one of the best defenders in the competition to keep as an insurance policy though. As has been said, he can play multiple roles.

Here are our back 6 as I see them next year:
Maxwell - N.Brown - Toovey
Shaw - Reid - O'Brien

Who would you drop out of them to squeeze Tarrant in?

Mick is on record as saying that he wants to use Toovey up the ground next season, perhaps as a tagger I'm guessing. I have no reason to believe that he is lying. In any case, we do not play with 6 defenders and even if those 6 play back, Taz could still play. We generally play a 7 man backline and the only reason the team is named with 6 backs is because that is the format the AFL requires for list lodgment purposes. The Herald Sun think it looks pretty also. Those are our 6 "regular backs" and we typically have one other player rotating through there at all times. Having 7 "regular backs" will not change anything structurally.

Because that is not using the substitute to it's fullest potential. Ideally coaches will use the substitute to make changes to the structure and change things if they're not working. They certainly can use it to just swap a midfielder for another midfielder, but in a team of 22 players having 1 with fresh legs for less than half a game will not be the difference between winning or losing. Having an extra utility to play forward or back just might, see Gilbert in GF1.

As I said previously, I would agree with this thinking if we weren't able to do this from within the team we have currently.

L Bown can play back, ruck or forward
Jolly can play ruck or forward
Goldsack can play back or forward
Reid can play back or forward
Dawes can pinch hit in the ruck
Macaffer can play back or forward
Max has played forward to good effect
Heater can play midfield
Most of our mids can play forward, a few can play back

Our team is adaptable to cover all possible circumstances as it is currently without even thinking about the substitutes position. This is why we should be thinking of ways to use the substitutes position to gain a positive advantage, not as an insurance policy "in case" something goes wrong.

 

[mdc]

Most people have suggested that we use a utility such as Goldsack or Tarrant in this position next year but I feel that this would be a mistake. Our on-field team is so versatile as it is that in the event that we need a structural change, we can make it using the players that are already on the field or the bench.

I feel that we should use a runner in that position who can be brought on half-way through the third quarter and used at every opportunity. We could really stretch teams this way and it could be a massive factor in final quarters against tired teams, especially if they are using the conservative method of putting a utility in this position as people are suggesting we should. Perhaps one of our young quick draftees or someone with goal-sense like Davis if he gets himself fit enough to play wing/half forward again.

We're the best team so we should be using the sub position as a weapon, not a contingency plan.

Thoughts?

Yeah, you've said it pretty well there.

People can have all the thoughts they want, but it would be a fundamental mistake to have anyone other than a damaging runner in that spot. Unfortunately, it's not entirely clear who that would be in our case, as we obviously don't want our best candidates (Swan, Wellingham) to miss more than half the game.

If Krakouer can break in to the 22 and take Blair's spot, then he'd be the natural first choice I think.
Davis would have been a fine choice 2 years ago, but I don't know that he has the pace anymore.

If neither of those guys breaks in, and our only change is Tarrant for Goldsack, then I imagine we might have Johnson start as the sub and come on for Blair mid-way through the 2nd quarter or something similar. That way our best 21 players (and it's a pretty clear-cut best 21 at the moment) are playing the most game-time, which is the ideal result.

 

[Zahki]

Never said he would but we didn't recruit one of the best defenders in the competition to keep as an insurance policy though.

But we did. The club has said exactly that. "We see him as the ideal substitute player". Thats the entire reason they were so keen to get him. Tarrant will be our sub, I think it's a good call and leaves a lot of options open for Mick to play with that plonking a midfielder there would not allow.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

But we did. The club has said exactly that. "We see him as the ideal substitute player". Thats the entire reason they were so keen to get him. Tarrant will be our sub, I think it's a good call and leaves a lot of options open for Mick to play with that plonking a midfielder there would not allow.

If Tarrant starts playing brilliant football I'm not too sure the club will feel bound by this statement.

Put it this way. Cloke gets an injury 10 minutes into the second quarter (touch wood).

The two options are:
1) Ben Johnson is the sub and Tarrant is playing in the backline or
2) Tarrant is the sub and BJ is on the halfback line

With option 1, Ben Johnson is substituted for Cloke and moves to play as a half back. Tarrant goes to CHF

With option 2, Tarrant is substituted for Cloke directly

How is the team different after the substitution when comparing the 2 options? It's not. Which option makes us more adaptable? Neither. In the case that there was no injury in the first place, which option allows us to run out the game better if we're struggling in the last quarter? Option 1.

 

[Pie eyed]

Yeah, you've said it pretty well there.

People can have all the thoughts they want, but it would be a fundamental mistake to have anyone other than a damaging runner in that spot. Unfortunately, it's not entirely clear who that would be in our case, as we obviously don't want our best candidates (Swan, Wellingham) to miss more than half the game.

If Krakouer can break in to the 22 and take Blair's spot, then he'd be the natural first choice I think.
Davis would have been a fine choice 2 years ago, but I don't know that he has the pace anymore.

If neither of those guys breaks in, and our only change is Tarrant for Goldsack, then I imagine we might have Johnson start as the sub and come on for Blair mid-way through the 2nd quarter or something similar. That way our best 21 players (and it's a pretty clear-cut best 21 at the moment) are playing the most game-time, which is the ideal result.

I reckon that any sub will come from a "stable of suitable players" chosen to best expose the specific weaknesses in any given side on any given day.

Tarrant
Goldsack
Davis
Krakouer

and you can probably add a few more to that list would all be possible sub-selections in a given week depending on the opposition, thier announced side, weather conditions etc.

It actually adds a whole new dimension to selection.

 

[mdc]

I reckon that any sub will come from a "stable of suitable players" chosen to best expose the specific weaknesses in any given side on any given day.

The problem with this line of thinking, as Ruslerman has suggested, is that it's never optimal to have someone who could expose a weakness start as the sub. If they're truly capable of exposing a weakness, they should be on the field to start. I.e. if we think Hawthorn struggles against tall forwards, we should go in with our forward-line tall from the start, and not have it sitting on the bench as a potential hail-mary play.

If you look at other sports that have subs like soccer, basketball etc...overwhelmingly the best subs tend to be small quick damaging players who probably don't have the stamina to play a whole game at their top pace.

 

[Hagla]

I was also thinking that it might be used as a position for young players who are knocking on the door to have a crack. It could work out good or bad though but in my opinion the sub is the least important position of all so if we are going to try someone out then thats how I think they'd come into the side.

 

[Lockyer24]

I feel it needs to be your 2nd ruck or a backup key position player who can possibly play both ends.

So Leigh Brown for me.

Other 3 bench spots should be rotating mids or utilities like Toovs. Can't have running power out of the game.

 

[Ed D]

I think you play your best 21 and whoever is next best is your sub (as long as he can play more than 1 role). You don't need Tarrant to be a sub if he's already in the 21. If a back or forward goes down just move someone like Tarrant there or shift players around a bit. I think it's more important to have mulitple players in the team being able to play more than one role than your sub. As long as you have someone to fill the injured players role then you're fine as you can just change the line up with the existing players.

So in saying that it's probably best to have someone with fresh legs as your sub who can give some run late in the game. Unless you know you're going to go into a game short of a certain type of player (like defenders against Hawthorn), but I think the Pies have most areas covered with their starting players already.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

The problem with this line of thinking, as Ruslerman has suggested, is that it's never optimal to have someone who could expose a weakness start as the sub. If they're truly capable of exposing a weakness, they should be on the field to start. I.e. if we think Hawthorn struggles against tall forwards, we should go in with our forward-line tall from the start, and not have it sitting on the bench as a potential hail-mary play.

If you look at other sports that have subs like soccer, basketball etc...overwhelmingly the best subs tend to be small quick damaging players who probably don't have the stamina to play a whole game at their top pace.

This, especially the bolded.

I feel it needs to be your 2nd ruck or a backup key position player who can possibly play both ends.

So Leigh Brown for me.

Other 3 bench spots should be rotating mids or utilities like Toovs. Can't have running power out of the game.

The problem with this approach is that you would be forced to take off a player who you don't want to. Having a backup ruck as a sub automatically translates to substituting your number 1 ruck off the ground to bring them in. This would competely eliminate the possibility of giving your rucks short bursts on the bench to maintain their intensity from start to finish. You don't want to get taller as a game goes on because you'd have less people runnning the same mileage with less energy therefore you would have to take off Jolly. If Leigh Brown is getting killed what happens then? If you have him there as a key position player and your key position players are dominating, what happens then? You don't use him? This would be a waste in my opinion.

 

[Thommo 42]

He won't push out Brown or Reid, count on it.

why not?

he's currently better than both of them.

 

[Gambit78]

The substitute system requires a broader look than just 'which player will sit the bench'.

I like the assertion that the substitute will be a player that mirrors our opposition. It is ideal for the horses for courses approach.

Due to the increase in rotations, we were able to flood our team with versatile midfielders and flankers who rotated not only on and off the bench, but through most positions on the field, be it forward, back or midfield. We've lost a quarter of the that capacity off the bench.

I wonder if that will trigger a re-think in terms of how versatile our midfield needs to be and whether we will revert back to having specialist forwards and backs who simply play their position. A bench that has been contracted down to three may mean our midfield is also condensed. Instead of having 15 midfielders, we'll come down to 12 rotating through the bench, leaving others to play their positions.

In that case, the substitute would need to be more of a specialist. Again, in line with horses for courses, the specialist on the bench would give us more flexibility if plan A doesn't work. Example, go tall in the forward half against the hawks, who are a little light on for defenders. If that isn't working, bringing in a small forward (davis, kraks whoever) to balance that out.






It's a theory, is all...

 

[sr36]

I was also thinking that it might be used as a position for young players who are knocking on the door to have a crack. It could work out good or bad though but in my opinion the sub is the least important position of all so if we are going to try someone out then thats how I think they'd come into the side.

I like this and think that it will often be used this way.

 

[Dundalis]

Do people genuienly think the sub is actually going to be used every game? I don't. I may be wrong, but I genuinely expect it to only ever be used if a player picks up a knock. It may be used if things are going badly and you really need a structural change, but otherwise you have picked your best 21 because they are your best 21, I don't see why you would take off a player you rated in your best side for one you rated outside it, unless you really have to.

So I don't really expect the sub to get much game time throughout the season unless a side has a lot of injuries, or are getting pumped and really need a change up.

Plus I think a player may find it hard getting into the flow of the game having sat and watched for say 3 quarters and then coming into a possibly heated 4th quarter.

 

[mattys123]

Do people genuienly think the sub is actually going to be used every game? I don't.

Hell yes. Any club, with the pace, speed and endurance requirements of the current game, would be "nuts" not to use that 22nd player, unless they are getting absolutely thumped.

There are varying ways you can use that player.

If no injuries occur, let's say by half time, or 3/4 time, you could send one midfielder out there for 10-15 minutes and basically tell them to run themselves into the ground, where they simply have nothing left afterwards, and then your "sub" comes on and takes his place.

That's just one scenario, but for me, unless the 22nd player is a ruckman (such as in the vs Sandilands scenario I stated earlier) I can't see any reason why that 22nd player will not be used, even if you are getting thumped, it would be an opportunity to get that player some time on the ground.

I simply can't see sides simply leaving a fresh player on the bench for the whole game, our game is too tough, both physically and mentally for that to happen.

 

[cleomenes]

It is clear that the selection crew will choose their sub to match the opposition each week. How could they do anything else? All the talk about who will be dropped for Tarrant (or anyone else) ignores the inevitability of injuries. We will not have the run we had this year. Many holes will have to be filled, and many variations on the sub choice will occur of necessity. I can't see a single policy operating for the season.

 

[vjknight]

i think this is the one issue that will drive us all mad - drive us all to argue repeatedly, as there are so many issues involved with every player nominated.

there is a case for nearly every player to be used as a sub in some regard, but the funny thing is theres an even stronger argument NOT to use that player, both for the reasons already listed, as well as the fact we do have such an even & versatile list.

other clubs down the list might find this an easy question to answer, but we wont.

personally i do favour cam wood - we have an established backline, 2 tall forwards and a long long list of onballer/forwards. if jolly is allowed to ruck as he likes (all day with momentary rests) then leigh brown is free to run hard for 2 to 3 quarters then be relieved by wood who is the fresh tall. just my opinion.

it will probably sort itself out by round 1 - whatever the approach is.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The sub should be a versatile player and one capable of making an impact. This should preclude most players with experience of less than 10 games or under 20 years of age. I dont think it should be used as a nursery for trainees.

Ideal subs at Collingwood may include Tarrant Johnson Goldsack Buckley Krakouer (initially) Davis and N Brown. This will depend of course on matchups, form and injury. But I think Taz would make an ideal sub for most occassions.