The Sub rule

[Kirk Hinrich #12]

I was writing my best 21 down today for the up coming season and then thought about the Sub. Who or what type of player do you think should be the Pies Sub. Should it be a runner?, a tall? mid fielder, utility?

After thinking of them all I was thinking more of a taller utility which I came up with one name. Leroy Brown.

I think a player like, Davis, Beams, McCarthy, who IMO are fringe best 22 players are wasted on the bench and would be better being used for the entire game. Jolly can ruck all day and to be honest he needs to to use this sub the best.

I do think its a risk but could be best way to use the sub.

 

[Ed D]

This has been talked about quite a few times and pretty much always comes down to the answer that it should be a running player with fresh legs. We have enough versatility within the team to be able to cover players missing so it doesn't quite matter, but if it's someone who can give us some run then it's probably going to advantage the team the most.

 

[Swooop]

Well King H #12, i was trying to help with links to previous related discussions re the choice of sub, I found two threads one Leon Davis possible Sub? and another Andrew Krakouer as Sub, 10 and 12 pages back on the thread pages.


http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=788581

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=791089

Very likely since the Krak thread as possible sub was discussed, he has taken his game to another level, or at least showed us he's clearly best 21, so possible some comments there need to be seen in that context.

Leon's standing has also changed since then aswell.

 

[ralu]

I reckon Tyson Goldsack is the ideal sub.

He is flexible, can play back or forward and play where needed.

Do you guys think many games will go by where the sub is not used at all?

 

[Wooljay]

I reckon Tyson Goldsack is the ideal sub.

He is flexible, can play back or forward and play where needed.

Do you guys think many games will go by where the sub is not used at all?

I doubt they'd keep fresh legs on the bench for no reason, generally there will be at least 1 person who isn't having an amazing day and would likely be subbed for form reasons if not injury. Only problem with that rationale is when do you sub someone for form? Would be shocking to sub someone at the start of the second half and have one or even two players go down with injury in the third quarter and be totally shafted.

I still despise the sub rule, hope to christ it gets modified/removed.

 

[Swooop]

Would be shocking to sub someone at the start of the second half and have one or even two players go down with injury in the third quarter and be totally shafted.

I still despise the sub rule, hope to christ it gets modified/removed.

Agree.

Logically, you'd think if you played your sub at half time because of someone's poor form in the first half, and then in third qtr someone else gets badly injured, that the injured person could then be assigned the sub role, freeing up the guy you subbed off at half time, to re-enter the game.

The farcical situation would then be only exacerbated in there was a second, third or fourth injury, forcing players out of the game.

You may end the game with 17 out on the field, and a perfectly fit sub sitting on the bench.

It would seem a fairly simple thing for the rule committee to rectify, and surely it fits with their intent of the sub system?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Goldsack would be the ideal sub if he was in our best 22. Not sure he is.

I'd say Davis. He has played in the preseason in defence but when the real stuff starts there will be no spot for him there.

He can cover forward back and in the midfield. I'd say Davis to come on and barrng injury one of Sidebottom Beams Blair Ball Krakouer or Johnson to go off. Or Tarrant/ L Brown if you want to bring in a small for a tall.

 

[Ed D]

I would think a lot of clubs would use their sub into the 3rd qtr or even at 3 qtr time if they hadn't had any injuries.

Also it's doubtful they'd continually use the same player as the sub.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Up until the time N Brown got injured I thought Tarrant would be a good sub.
Now I like the idea of someone like Macaffer who could go forward, back or pinch hit in the middle

 

[soreplums]

Goldsack has always been my choice as a sub. If Tarrant or Reid go down, who takes the tall? Rather have Maxwell and O'brien running up the ground (not sure of how they are playing key position) and Leigh Brown will be used as pinch hitting in the ruck. Who goes back if Jolly is resting (or back if Leroy is in the Ruck)?

IMO we have enough runners to rotate through the mids- even if we get an injury, but we lack that third defender who could take a key tall in our best 21.

Goldy can play forward and back releasing a HFF or a HBF to run through the middle when/if needed.

 

[The Get Up Kid]

Up until the time N Brown got injured I thought Tarrant would be a good sub.
Now I like the idea of someone like Macaffer who could go forward, back or pinch hit in the middle

I thought Tarrant too and that wasn't to use forward just down back or maybe a wing even!

Macaffer might get it early because his form isn't holding up over a full game and he looks short of a run.

Ideally I think it would suit someone like Beams, he is definitely a burst player and he can kick goals quick or get some clearances in a short space of time. The downside is he wouldn't be used for a full game and then the question of who is subbed out?

Bloody AFL and their tightening of rules which don't need to be. It restricts our advantage in terms of depth.

 

[cleomenes]

I agree with the get up kid that this rule cuts at our advantage, but disagree with his complaint. I yearn for the days when players occupied all of the ground. The only way to regain some of this is to remove interchange altogether. Keep as many subs as you like so injured players don't have to stay on. Modern skills and fitness mean that we can't go back to the game that was, but we could regain some of the spectacle.

 

[The Get Up Kid]

I agree with the get up kid that this rule cuts at our advantage, but disagree with his complaint. I yearn for the days when players occupied all of the ground. The only way to regain some of this is to remove interchange altogether. Keep as many subs as you like so injured players don't have to stay on. Modern skills and fitness mean that we can't go back to the game that was, but we could regain some of the spectacle.

I would love to have 16 players on the field and even then run with your limited or no bench with subs. I reckon it would be good if they removed the wings or played with only 5 forwards, that would open the game up more.

 

[Ed D]

Bloody AFL and their tightening of rules which don't need to be. It restricts our advantage in terms of depth.

But it also gives us an advantage with our flexibility and fitness, works both ways.

 

[shawthing09]

Ed D has it. The sub will almost certainly not be picked on a "incase of injury basis" therefore it won't be a utility type. The sub will be used to inject fresh legs and will therefore be a running player. Leon Davis and Ben Johnson are the two best fits. I also doubt any one play will be used as the sub for extended periods of time.

 

[The Get Up Kid]

But it also gives us an advantage with our flexibility and fitness, works both ways.

I'm not being sarcastic, but how? Please explain...

If the interchange got expanded to 6 we'd be more dominant because of our depth. Now other teams won't have to rotate their 22nd player through the interchange which cleearly wouldn't be as good as ours. Our 22nd player won't be a fringe player so we're losing their ability (80% game time down to two 40% contributions).

 

[Ed D]

I'm not being sarcastic, but how? Please explain...

If the interchange got expanded to 6 we'd be more dominant because of our depth. Now other teams won't have to rotate their 22nd player through the interchange which cleearly wouldn't be as good as ours. Our 22nd player won't be a fringe player so we're losing their ability (80% game time down to two 40% contributions).

Just a lot of our players can play multiple types of roles, meaning they can cover for each other, cover injuries to other positions or be swapped around for a bad match up/poor form. If someone gets shut down another can take their place etc. Other teams don't have that and now are down a bench player so they might lack depth in a particular area if things don't go right for them.

As for fitness if the opposition players are getting tired we can run over them late in games or score late goals. It's what Brisbane used to do when they were the best team in the comp, score a lot in time on because they had superior fitness. Having one less player to rotate will widen this gap.

 

[Kirby]

Ed D has it. The sub will almost certainly not be picked on a "incase of injury basis" therefore it won't be a utility type. The sub will be used to inject fresh legs and will therefore be a running player. Leon Davis and Ben Johnson are the two best fits. I also doubt any one play will be used as the sub for extended periods of time.

This is it.

 

[The Get Up Kid]

Just a lot of our players can play multiple types of roles, meaning they can cover for each other, cover injuries to other positions or be swapped around for a bad match up/poor form. If someone gets shut down another can take their place etc. Other teams don't have that and now are down a bench player so they might lack depth in a particular area if things don't go right for them.

As for fitness if the opposition players are getting tired we can run over them late in games or score late goals. It's what Brisbane used to do when they were the best team in the comp, score a lot in time on because they had superior fitness. Having one less player to rotate will widen this gap.

Yeah I agree on your points and has got me feeling more confident now! I just know when teams are flying rule changes can bring them apart.

If we played 30 on 30 we'd be even more ahead of the comp with our depth but 21 on 21 it's still a gap between us and the field. Hopefully with your points on flexibility and multi-positional strength the coaching staff can take advantage.