Substitutes

[BEEG]

The sub will be a midfielder 100%

What will happen is a Dayne Beams/Wellingham for example will play almost the first half without a break and also playing the first 5 to 8 minutes in the 3rd then the Sub will come on doing the same thing

No way they will have talls as a sub with the amount of interchanges that would be my guess

 

[Old Spice]

Let me start be saying what a sh*t rule-change this is.

Second, the most banal answer is undoubtedly right here, depends on the opposition.

However, I tend to the view that the sub might be a player to replace someone integral, eg. Blair for Ball if he is struggling with tog, and where we want optimal output. Ball one game squeezed into 2 3/4 quarters and Blair for an explosive quarter and a bit.

It seems to me that our defenders and forwards spend a lot of time on ground because they are further from the interchange bench. Our mids who press forward and into defence probably get run the most ragged and might be the ones most adversely affected by the loss of one interchange spot. Ergo, probably makes sense to sub on a player like Leon (if fit) who can go into the midfield and prove dangerous up forward.

Wouldn't be at all surprised though if general fitness was a determinant. A player whose endurance is suspect or whose injuries / body might need managing are replaced by a young zippy type whose fitness is not optimal, or if they are better burst players. Maybe a Rounds for Dick for example.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Let me start be saying what a sh*t rule-change this is.

Its the least of all the proposed evils. Its better than capped rotations.

Some of our mids/flankers will get fewer rotations. But the guns - Swan Pendelbury Thomas Ball etc - will be able to rotate on and off the ground just as much as they have before. I doubt this rule will affect us too badly.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The sub will be a midfielder 100%

Or an athletic tall like Goldsack or Tarrant, capable at running at either end and adding height as well as legspeed to the team.

 

[Old Spice]

Its the least of all the proposed evils. Its better than capped rotations.

Some of our mids/flankers will get fewer rotations. But the guns - Swan Pendelbury Thomas Ball etc - will be able to rotate on and off the ground just as much as they have before. I doubt this rule will affect us too badly.

Certainly was the best of the shithouse 'options' put up. A bit like sea-water over urine.

 

[loki04]

Let me start be saying what a sh*t rule-change this is.

Yep can't stand the rule, would of preferred the muted '80 interchanges cap'.

 

[Ed D]

I don't know why they had to bring any rule in. I don't see how high rotations were causing injuries or making football boring. Look back to 2005 and you tell me which is better to watch.

 

[drummoyne]

I don't buy into the need for a spare ruckman or KP player. It is rare that teams are burnt by injury to a KP player given the versatility of players and their ability to adapt. For example the loss of Reid early against Geelong this year may have had a huge impact on some sides but the depth of our backline was able to absorb this loss and still perform effectively.

A damaging midfielder would be an ideal substitute and more often than not would provide the most beneficial option.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

The sub will be a midfielder 100%

This

I don't buy into the need for a spare ruckman or KP player. It is rare that teams are burnt by injury to a KP player given the versatility of players and their ability to adapt. For example the loss of Reid early against Geelong this year may have had a huge impact on some sides but the depth of our backline was able to absorb this loss and still perform effectively.

A damaging midfielder would be an ideal substitute and more often than not would provide the most beneficial option.

And this. Great post.

It will be a midfielder or a midfielder/forward (probably this) as a small player will be useful as a sub in every game. A tall player is a contingency and will be used "for the sake of it" more often than not.

 

[cleomenes]

The issue of desirability of this rule has been canvassed. I would like to say that, successful as we have been at exploiting the 4 interchanges, it has been to the detriment of the game. I would really like to see the interchange dispensed with, and reserves reinstated. This would force the return of positions as more than a published list, and decrease the flooding. The superior fitness and skills of modern players would mean that it would not be a reversion to seventies footy, but I believe that it would see the return of some of the spectacle that we have lost.

 

[shanman]

Suprised the obvious question of who will be subbed hasn't come up.

To me the sub rule will be utilised from the first bounce and one player will be used with just one half of footy in mind.

Putting aside players being towelled up or injured, the sub question is 2 fold.

Who is the sub?

Who will be subbed?

 

[shanman]

I think getting 2 small forwards that we are trying to get midfield miles into should make up our "22nd player". Get them to run through the midfield safe in the knowledge that it's only a half of footy, and they aren't in danger of blowing up.

Our on field KPP depth and versatilitynis enough that we don't need a contingency on the bench.

 

[shanman]

Apologies to above posts, all pretty much said...didn't read them. Shanman out.