Interchange doomsday prediction

[aker39]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225937354671

RODNEY Eade is a fine coach, has an inquiring football mind, sharp sense of humour and is not prone to talking nonsense.
Up until halfway through this last season, Jason Akermanis did that for him and in what is a generous gesture continues to do that for gratis.

Eade is regarded as one the AFL's more strategic and innovative coaches. So it is wise to consider carefully his observations about the game. On the weekend he said the new interchange rules would be the death of the second ruckman. Well, that's plain madness, stupid and an unsustainable argument. Crap.

The Western Bulldogs coach said: "I've got no doubt it (the new rule) will change the game and I can see them (AFL) changing something in two years' time because it won't work out the way they think."

From next season, teams will be allowed to still have four players on the interchange bench but one will be a substitute. The player the substitute replaces because of injury or tactics cannot return to the field. There is no limit on the number of interchanges a club can make but they can only utilise three players to make them.

Eade said the rule had influenced the manner in which clubs addressed the trade period, which ended yesterday. As an example, Eade suggested that clubs would be reluctant to take two ruckmen into a game. "It's a terrible rule. Who do you put as your 22nd man?" he asked. "If you use it (the substitute) as a tactical ploy and change at half-time and you get an injury you're in the lap of the gods," Eade said.

In truth, rule changes do not influence the game. But coaches do. There is a new interchange rule because the coaches had used the old one to utterly change the way AFL football was played. Forward lines are structured differently now with coaches seeking to get multiple scorers and more players capable of rotating through the midfield. The great Matthew Lloyd retired because the full-forward, best playing deep from the goal square, was not allowed to play that way under the game plan of his coach Matthew Knights.

Because coaches want to move the ball with deadly speed, traditional types of footballers have been culled from the game. Not by rule modifications but coaching trends. Teams used to have tall back pocket players to counter the opposition's resting ruckman. The other back pocket would be a nuggety, close-marking player to shut down the resting rover. The warp speed AFL game can no longer indulge them.

The relevance of the rule change to the trading period might be, not the end of the second ruckman, just the evolution of a better one. Hawthorn list management guru Chris Pelchen said yesterday that newly acquired ruckman David Hale was not on his shopping list for next season until the new interchange rule was confirmed last month.

Hale would not have been on the to-get list of many clubs. In 2008 he booted eight goals against Geelong and finished fourth in the best and fairest. But the past two years have been rather grim. In 2009 he did not make the top 10 in the club award and kicked just 22 goals for the season. In the season just gone he played only 12 matches and kicked 17 goals. Obviously he was not in the best and fairest calculations.

And for the next two years he has a contract stipulating that he be paid $800,000 all up. That is not a very enticing package, but Hawthorn chased him because of the new interchange ruling.

Hale will prove a good back-up ruckman and rather than rest on the bench he can be a scoring option resting deep in the forward line. So rather than not play a second ruckman under the new system, Hawthorn has sought to find the best available.

So one club says the interchange rule will be the death of the second ruckman, another has identified the role as one to improve so that it can be better utilised. The reality of this though is the certainty that if a coach has two good ruckmen then he will play them. Good players get games. The best example of this comes with the philosophy of recruiters at draft time. When it is their turn to pick, they invariably go for the best player available.

Eade's concern about who to pick as the 22nd man or the substitute is easily solved. Work it out for yourself, Rodney. You are the coach.

[Scraggers]

Patrick Smith ... you are a tool !!

[chef]

Patrick Smith ... you are a tool !!

And he obviously hasn't seen Hale play lately as he's not a ruckmans a...hole.

[Sockeye Salmon]

"In truth, rule changes do not influence the game. But coaches do. There is a new interchange rule because the coaches had used the old one to utterly change the way AFL football was played".

But interchange is a new rule (well, rules, really). Originally we had 2 subs, then we had 2 interchange, then 3, then 4 (if you want to go back far enough, none, then 1).

They changed the rules, coaches adapted to it, so their response is to change it again.


Eade is wrong about one thing, the AFL will not change it back in 2 years time, that will be admitting they were wrong and that simply will not happen.



From a personal POV, I agree with changing the rule. I want the game slowed down, I want players getting tired, I want it to be too difficult for players to flood back.

I don't want to see 15 blokes in D50, I want to see one-on-ones. I want to see a defender beat his opponent on his merit rather than because he had 2 mates cover for him.

Most of all, I want anyone who uses Ross Lyon's game plan to get right royally smashed.

[bornadog]

[B][I]"From a personal POV, I agree with changing the rule. I want the game slowed down, I want players getting tired, I want it to be too difficult for players to flood back.

I don't want to see 15 blokes in D50, I want to see one-on-ones. I want to see a defender beat his opponent on his merit rather than because he had 2 mates cover for him.

Most of all, I want anyone who uses Ross Lyon's game plan to get right royally smashed.

No amount of changing rules will take the game back to the 1980's.

[Sockeye Salmon]

No amount of changing rules will take the game back to the 1980's.

I don't want to go back to the 80's, I just want it to be somewhat recognisable as the game we've played for over 100 years.

[GVGjr]

From a personal POV, I agree with changing the rule. I want the game slowed down, I want players getting tired, I want it to be too difficult for players to flood back.

I don't want to see 15 blokes in D50, I want to see one-on-ones. I want to see a defender beat his opponent on his merit rather than because he had 2 mates cover for him.

Most of all, I want anyone who uses Ross Lyon's game plan to get right royally smashed.

There is a lot of merit in what you have written but I wonder how it might have been better achieved without putting that particular limit on the bench.

[LostDoggy]

Coaches influence the game rule changes or not.
Instead of letting the game evolve, the afl jump at shadows and continually add new rules without seeing the real consequences. Coaches/coaching/tactics got us to the brand of football that is played today and it staggers me that the afl have no faith that they(c/c/t) will influence it will into a new style.

Essentially this continually rule changing is because the rules/game of football(afl) is flawed. The game can't grow with so many grey areas in its rules. Its happening to rugby(union) to a lesser extent. You hardly see any rule changes in soccer.

[LostDoggy]

I'm happy with limiting interchanges as I want to see teams win on merit and hard work rather than just athleticism — you can watch a track and field sport if that's your thing.

I do wonder though, whether coaches will have the nerve to use the substitute player well. E.g. Barry Hall comes down from a marking contest and rolls his ankle. He comes off. The substitute steps in for Baz, then 10 minutes later it's decided Barry's fit and fine and it was just a scare.

So at what time does the coach use it? The very first sign of a maybe-injured player? Or when said player is in the showers?

See an opposition player go off injured and it's time to turn the heat up, force the energy out of your opponent's legs by running them stupid knowing you've got a fresh player still up your sleeve. Could this have the opposite-to-intended effect in some games?

And who the f**k is Patrick Smith, anyway? Who is he to say that Rodney Eade is full of shit? A bit harsh, I thought, coming from a journalist who most likely doesn't know a Sherrin from a ****.

[boydogs]

The best example of this comes with the philosophy of recruiters at draft time. When it is their turn to pick, they invariably go for the best player available.

Rubbish

[LostDoggy]

I saw on Fox Sports News last night that Port Power are thinking the same thing as Rocket re. 'the death of the 2nd ruckman'. I suppose that's 'crap' too Patrick Smith?

[LostDoggy]

Hey, let's see: Rocket Eade, proven senior coach, multiple premiership winner as a player, renown tactician and game futurist.

Patrick Smith, hack journo, KB talkfest partner, one-note sensationalist who makes up news to manufacture 'controversy', most of which are of the 'storm in teacup' variety (soccer will 'die' in Australia if we don't get the 2022 World Cup. Really? REALLY?)

I wonder who has more credibility when it comes to talking about football. Actually, I don't wonder.

[the banker]

There is something in this article, leaving the abrasive Mr Smiths tone aside. Running 2 ruckmen changing in the forward pocket. With the option of one ruckeman being subbed out by a "Teddy Hopkins" type forward pocket later in the game.

[LostDoggy]

There is something in this article, leaving the abrasive Mr Smiths tone aside. Running 2 ruckmen changing in the forward pocket. With the option of one ruckeman being subbed out by a "Teddy Hopkins" type forward pocket later in the game.

Maybe if it was 1970 not 2010. How many ruckmen can stand in the forward pocket and not be a liability defensively in the modern game?

Better off making the sub a ruck and smashing the opposition ruck(1 only) for 4 quarters half each as we did a number of times with Wynd and Darcy.

[the banker]

You can go big up forward if you have the right mix. Lyons and Bomber liked it. Need the tough, tackling opportunists smalls to compliment. Could see Roughie alongside Barry. Creates match ups.