Substitutes in for 2011

[soupman]

Massive change.

But what is the thinking behind it? It means the bench will be used even more frequently.

It will be interesting though to see the clubs come up with new and different ways to gain an advantage through the sub.

Theoretically you could play 2 pure ruckman through the sub system. Get one to work his arse off in the first half with minimal breaks, then sub him at half time and repeat. Might work well with wearing down the opponents ruckman.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

The whole concept of a 'substitute' just doesn't fit into the AFL game. I'd rather see a five man bench as opposed to a three man/one sub bench. It just doesn't achieve anything for the greater good.

Another stupid move IMO.

[jazzadogs]

Massive change.

But what is the thinking behind it? It means the bench will be used even more frequently.

It will be interesting though to see the clubs come up with new and different ways to gain an advantage through the sub.

Theoretically you could play 2 pure ruckman through the sub system. Get one to work his arse off in the first half with minimal breaks, then sub him at half time and repeat. Might work well with wearing down the opponents ruckman.

The ruckman idea was one way which I thought teams would attack it, but I think it's an extremely risky way to go.

I think that interchange numbers will go down as a consequence of having one less player to change, but proportionally there will be very little difference.

[GVGjr]

The whole concept of a 'substitute' just doesn't fit into the AFL game. I'd rather see a five man bench as opposed to a three man/one sub bench. It just doesn't achieve anything for the greater good.

Another stupid move IMO.

I think a 3 man IC bench with 2 Subs is more workable but it does appear to be another overreaction by the AFL.

Would we have been better off with an IC cap? Harder to police but a better outcome.

[Go_Dogs]

Would we have been better off with an IC cap? Harder to police but a better outcome.

Rather than a cap, which is hard to police, I think a rule that you can't interchange for say, the first 10 minutes of a 1/4 would have been good. Obviously if there is an injury that player can be substituted but then perhaps they couldn't come back on for at least 10 minutes.

I think this is a pretty interesting change.

Could see a specialist type role develop, perhaps with a couple of players that each play a half each week. Interesting stuff.

[soupman]

Could see a specialist type role develop, perhaps with a couple of players that each play a half each week. Interesting stuff.

Could it prolong players careers? I seem to remember Ricardi at Geelong being used as an impact player in his later years, but this may no longer apply to the modern game.

[LostDoggy]

Setanta?

I haven't heard his name mentioned as someone we are looking at.

Mentioned here on woof not by me.
http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthr...setanta&page=7

[Flamethrower]

I can't believe the AFLPA agreed to this - they have effectively cost their constituents 17 jobs (18 when GWS start), as each team now only plays 21 players at a time. If there are no major injuries the substitute may only get 15 minutes game time (or none at all if a game is really close and the 21 are all playing well). There is no way a club will pay a player a full match payment in this situation.

The MLB, NHL, NBA or NFL players union would go on strike over this.

The only way a substitute system works is if each team still has 22 players, but then also has a minimum of 4 to 6 subs to cover for injuries. Then you could have a ruckman, a couple of midfielders and a couple of KPPs on the bench depending on who gets injured. Could you imagine if Ben Hudson goes down in the first minute and we have Andrew Hooper as the 22nd man.

[Rocco Jones]

I can't believe the AFLPA agreed to this - they have effectively cost their constituents 17 jobs (18 when GWS start), as each team now only plays 21 players at a time. If there are no major injuries the substitute may only get 15 minutes game time (or none at all if a game is really close and the 21 are all playing well). There is no way a club will pay a player a full match payment in this situation.

The MLB, NHL, NBA or NFL players union would go on strike over this.

The only way a substitute system works is if each team still has 22 players, but then also has a minimum of 4 to 6 subs to cover for injuries. Then you could have a ruckman, a couple of midfielders and a couple of KPPs on the bench depending on who gets injured. Could you imagine if Ben Hudson goes down in the first minute and we have Andrew Hooper as the 22nd man.

The sub will be used regardless of injury due to the fresh legs they offer.

[bornadog]

The sub will be used regardless of injury due to the fresh legs they offer.

A fresh player coming on say half way through the third quarter and out running everyone at a crucial time when meanwhile the opposition have had a bad injury and have used their sub in the first quarter.

[LostDoggy]

Opens up a new can of worms! All we know the coaches will use it as a major tactic.

[Rocco Jones]

A fresh player coming on say half way through the third quarter and out running everyone at a crucial time when meanwhile the opposition have had a bad injury and have used their sub in the first quarter.

Yep.

I think it will be interesting to see the type of player teams go with for their sub. A player with a great tank would be wasted in the spot. It would end up lengthening the careers of players as 35-40% TOG can end up being quite legitimate.

I am the godfather of the part time ruck option as a 2nd ruck This rule makes playing two pure ruckmen as redundant as the discman. I think it makes anyone who can easily warrant 80% TOG now even more important, whether they be the pure ruckman in the 1st ruck role, a KPP or a runner. A good day for Daniel Cross.

[Go_Dogs]

A good day for Daniel Cross.

And a good day for the "let's train Roughead up to spend 50%+ game time in the F50" cause in my mind too, which is a good thing.

[Bulldog Joe]

Might it also lead to more game by game rotation.

If we are going to need players like Hudson and Hall to play close to 100% game time might they then need to have games off more often.

Perhaps the idea of keeping Minson and having Roughead, Hudson and Hall as a regular rotation with three of the four playing each week and one being rested. Hudson and Hall having full weeks off every 4 would make it more likely that they could get to finals in a better state.

[Mofra]

This could make injuries during the game substantially more fo a disadvantage.

Sub 1 comes on after halftime, and a player immediately is injured. The team is then down to 2 available for rotations on the bench as the player subbed off cannot return.
The teams with the fewest soft tissue injuries ( up to round 17 or 18 anyway) were the Bulldogs & Collingwood - the teams that had the highest number of rotations. This could be a disaster waiting to happen on two fronts.