The Sub Rule.

[baja]

In another thread I mocked someone for suggesting how the sub rule should be used. Ive been thinking about it and as its kinda new, I gotta admit Im not exactly sure how it should be used.
I dont think it should be a player that would make a bigger impact that would by starting. Obviously you wouldnt start a ruck man as the sub(Horse), or would you? If the starting ruck man will make an impact but is only 50% fit then sub him out.. Do you really need a versatile type player? Is there such thing as a 'super sub'? Their only role is to come on and make an impact late in the game? Why wouldnt you start that player?
Is it a good way to ease a newbie in? I think it is but it would change imo at what time of the year, especially finals.
The whole concept is new so to act like I am authority on it is silly so sorry to mock you RUNVS..
What are other peoples thoughts on the sub rule? Who has been good? What teams have got it right? Can it be used to prolong a players career as suggested by another poster? The rule was implemented as a safe guard for an injured player but its not always used in that manner..
Thoughts?

 

[AG]

I think people worry about it too much. Of all the decisions made on game day it's towards the bottom of the list imo.

 

[Dangas]

Who has been our worst sub of the year? Last year it was probably Seaby early on in the season.

 

[SM]

I think people worry about it too much. Of all the decisions made on game day it's towards the bottom of the list imo.

Disagree, especially in Finals. Can turn a game.

 

[S120]

It can, but I think more often than not it won't.

Agree completely with AG.

 

[CAS79]

baja did you get the popcorn to watch AG and SM slug it oiver the sub rule again.

When selecting the right sub I only support one pre set rule

the footlong chicken classic with the ranch sauce.

 

[RobbieK]

I think it is pretty clear now how the sub rule should be used. In the modern game winning the midfield battle is all important and teams are running midfield rotations that are up to 10 players deep (look at our last team sheet, we started with 9 - O'Keefe, Kennedy, Jack, Hannebery, McVeigh, Jetta, Bolton, McGlynn and Bird). The sub should be a guy that slots into that rotation late on in the game (and so it was against Adelaide, with Parker as the sub). There should be enough flexibility in the rest of the team to accommodate your ruckman or a key position player going down injured or not being able to run out the game, your sub should not be there to account for those possibilities.

Will it extend the careers of some players? Maybe, if they are midfielders and so it allows them to continue to have an impact without requiring a four quarter effort. However, I don't think you should be picking a player to start the match who you know is not going to be able to finish it. If a ruckman or a full foward or the like isn't capable of running out a full game then I don't think they should be selected, either to start or to be the sub. If a midfielder is only capable of putting out a few quarters of effort, they could be used as the sub but certainly shouldn't start.

Should it be used to slowly introduce young players to the game? Maybe, but only if they are going to be slotting into the midfield rotation. If not, they should be playing full games in the reserves until they justify being able to play a full game at senior level.

 

[baja]

baja did you get the popcorn to watch AG and SM slug it oiver the sub rule again.

What I miss?

 

[baja]

I think it is pretty clear now how the sub rule should be used. In the modern game winning the midfield battle is all important and teams are running midfield rotations that are up to 10 players deep (look at our last team sheet, we started with 9 - O'Keefe, Kennedy, Jack, Hannebery, McVeigh, Jetta, Bolton, McGlynn and Bird). The sub should be a guy that slots into that rotation late on in the game (and so it was against Adelaide, with Parker as the sub). There should be enough flexibility in the rest of the team to accommodate your ruckman or a key position player going down injured or not being able to run out the game, your sub should not be there to account for those possibilities.

Good post, youd be stiff to be that tenth best mid though.. Are you suggesting Parker(or any tenth mid) start every week as a specialist? Or select on form? I think you night mean the second option and if so sounds reasonable.
Id like to see some stats for the subs over the year from all clubs it would be an interesting read.

 

[RobbieK]

Good post, youd be stiff to be that tenth best mid though.. Are you suggesting Parker(or any tenth mid) start every week as a specialist? Or select on form? I think you night mean the second option and if so sounds reasonable.
Id like to see some stats for the subs over the year from all clubs it would be an interesting read.

Yes, it gets picked on form or on needs/roles (imagine you get down to a choice between Bird and Parker, the difference might be that the opposition has a player that Bird would be suited to tag, so he gets the nod). With constant injuries and form changes it is unlikely that one player would sit in that 10th mid slot for too long.

Better to be the 10th mid and in the green vest than the 11th mid and in Canberra.