Can the sub become a specialist role?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

This leads off a previous post of mine in the match selection thread. The talk so far on the sub role, is that it cannot be the same player two weeks in a row. Whilst there's obvious merit to this justification, I wonder if it become a specialist role? That is, you have 2 players (or so) on your list who share the duties.

The advantage of doing this, is that these players become accustomed to what is expected of them. The role becomes 'second nature' - they know how to mentally and physically prepare and then approach the game.

Most clubs have struggled with the sub role this year, ditto most players. It's not easy to adjust to - but if we allocated a couple of players (Eg. Moles & Hill) and trained/developed them in this way, could it become an advantage?

A lot of other sports have specialist roles in which certain players are trained for, that require only limited amounts of game time.

[The Coon Dog]

Sounds good in theory TBB, assuming you have a certain time in the game where you want to inject your sun into the game.

The problem I see is that the sub is conditioned to playing only a certain amount of game time, but if through injury early in the game, they are called upon much earlier than exoected how will they cope with the additional time (look at Richmond's sub last week, he was on 9 minutes into the match)?

In a perfect world where there were no injuries I think there is merit, but we play a game where injuries are part & parcel.

Also if the sub's form warrants it or there is an injury preventing someone playing the following week & the sub is part of the starting 21, will they have the required match fitness?

[always right]

Sounds good in theory TBB, assuming you have a certain time in the game where you want to inject your sun into the game.

The problem I see is that the sub is conditioned to playing only a certain amount of game time, but if through injury early in the game, they are called upon much earlier than exoected how will they cope with the additional time (look at Richmond's sub last week, he was on 9 minutes into the match)?

In a perfect world where there were no injuries I think there is merit, but we play a game where injuries are part & parcel.

Also if the sub's form warrants it or there is an injury preventing someone playing the following week & the sub is part of the starting 21, will they have the required match fitness?

I can also see these blokes getting pretty sick of being the designated sub after a while. Prime recruting candidates for other clubs I would think.

[bornadog]

In one word, NO.

How would you like to be designated to play only 30 minutes a game. Maybe sometimes longer than 30 but generally one quarter only.

The only players that may agree are an older player such as say Welsh in his last year, or Aker, etc. In order to maintain match fitness, they may have to play one week at Willi and then one week sub, alternating. Then what happens if they get injured?

Personally, the sub rule stinks and should never have been introduced.

[stefoid]

Sub has to be a midfielder who can come in and replace a midfielder who goes down in the first 10 minutes of the game.

I reckon its just going to be a different fringe midfielder every week like Wallis, Moles, Djekurra, etc...

[Bumper Bulldogs]

I don't mind the sub rule but think you should be able to have two players sitting on the bench and as the game unfolds you select only one to come on the field, this would then help out any injuries you may get but enable weather conditions also to be taken into account.....The only down side is you wouldn't want to be the block that didn't get a run as you may miss out on the seconds game also.

For me I would still like to rotate the ruckmen through the sub as they could go harder and through their weight around for 1/2 of a game.

[Before I Die]

This leads off a previous post of mine in the match selection thread. The talk so far on the sub role, is that it cannot be the same player two weeks in a row. Whilst there's obvious merit to this justification, I wonder if it become a specialist role? That is, you have 2 players (or so) on your list who share the duties.

The advantage of doing this, is that these players become accustomed to what is expected of them. The role becomes 'second nature' - they know how to mentally and physically prepare and then approach the game.

Most clubs have struggled with the sub role this year, ditto most players. It's not easy to adjust to - but if we allocated a couple of players (Eg. Moles & Hill) and trained/developed them in this way, could it become an advantage?

A lot of other sports have specialist roles in which certain players are trained for, that require only limited amounts of game time.

How do you make this judgement call? If a sub came on in the last quarter and dominated, wouldn't that indicate an error in selection for that week as the sub would have been even more value to the team if named in the starting 21.

[LostDoggy]

The only down side is you wouldn't want to be the block that didn't get a run as you may miss out on the seconds game also.

The emergencies miss out on a run in the seconds each week don't they?

[Rocco Jones]

Sub has to be a midfielder who can come in and replace a midfielder who goes down in the first 10 minutes of the game.

I reckon its just going to be a different fringe midfielder every week like Wallis, Moles, Djekurra, etc...

I don't think it has to be that black and white but I agree with your sentiments.

Ideally I would have a midfielder/runner too but I think you can have a mobile defender/forward who frees up a player/s to spend more time in the middle.

I like the idea of having a small forward time who can come on and apply forward pressure. DJ's my ideal sub but I see the term ideal/gun/whatever positive term sub as a bit of an oxymoron. If they are that good, they should start.

[gohardorgohome]

We used to have a guy who was effectively a sub in the 80s. Bruce Duperouzel was a gun older player that was a bench player that came on midway though games. He was a real crowd favorite.

[Drunken Bum]

We used to have a guy who was effectively a sub in the 80s. Bruce Duperouzel was a gun older player that was a bench player that came on midway though games. He was a real crowd favorite.

Said the same thing in another thread somewhere. Thinking of the perfect sub player Duper always just popped into my head

[LostDoggy]

A few weeks back I would have said no way but Moles seems the ideal sub candidate. DJ, Hill and Stack are other good options too. maybe Addison?

So I think the answer is yes to a degree, in that it suited to a few fringe players but shouldn't be the same guy too often.

The other part of the question is who comes off. I think we should go in with two ruckmen most weeks, one can be subbed unless there is an injury or a poor performer.