Western Bulldogs rookie Luke Dahlhaus happy to start his AFL career as a sub

[bornadog]

They're 2 teams that have used it well. I think Sydney have adapted to the rule as well as Geelong. I don't think the experience of the players makes a difference for any of these clubs really they've just chosen the right type of player/s. Apart from Friday night and to a lesser extent DJ against the Lions in Round 3 I really haven't seen any of our players making an impact. The way I have seen our selection of the sub is by choosing the player outside of the best 21 not someone who can make a difference later in the game if that makes sense? Of course this process is all well and good if a player goes down but the rule is being used a strategic play as well, we have failed in that area.



I'd kind of agree we did have a rare win with the sub but had we not had an injury when would they have made the call? What is Mulligan didn't go down with an injury would they have waited until late 3rd early 4th? I know what you're saying though if Dahlhaus gasses and we have an injury as well we're basically down 2 players.

We need to manage it a lot better, it's a rule that unfortunately won't go away and if we don't get it right we'll fall behind.

The sub is there to cover injuries and in theory is the 22nd best player. A first gamer = 22nd best player. We need the BEST 21 available for a full game.

[LostDoggy]

I think Milburn is a good example of a Sub. Older experienced player who may struggle to play all/every game. I felt he came on against the Hawks and had a real Impact. Cross would make a good Sub for us.

[Ghost Dog]

I think Milburn is a good example of a Sub. Older experienced player who may struggle to play all/every game. I felt he came on against the Hawks and had a real Impact. Cross would make a good Sub for us.

Disagree. Think cross just doesn't have the height / speed / kicking power to be effective as a sub, which is where he's being played now.

He'll continue to be a good leader and ball ferret in the midfield against certain opponents, but not all IMO, as we need to start giving wally and Libba the reins.

[bornadog]

I think Milburn is a good example of a Sub. Older experienced player who may struggle to play all/every game. I felt he came on against the Hawks and had a real Impact. Cross would make a good Sub for us.

Milburn is no longer in the best 21, but at least the best 22nd player.

[Happy Days]

I think Milburn is a good example of a Sub. Older experienced player who may struggle to play all/every game. I felt he came on against the Hawks and had a real Impact. Cross would make a good Sub for us.

Sorry but I disagree; Cross is all about endurance, its his big trick. He's never going to be the type of impact player you've suggested, and to have him as the sub would take away what he offers to the side.

[LostDoggy]

Maybe if he actually started on the Ground we might have won. I guess we will never know?

That's a lot of pressure to put on our younger guys, don't you think?

[G-Mo77]

I find this comment interesting. So you're saying that we should pick a player who can impact the game late and isn't one of our worst players, which means we should pick an ideally offensive player who is in our best 18? Someone who can kick or create goals, keep the opposition guessing and has an attribute like pace to make other teams worry.

Now aside from the fact we are short on these types as it is, if we had this "ideal sub" wouldn't we play him for the whole match? The players which sound as if they are suited to this are guys like Sherman, Cooney, Murphy etc. They are players you want playing the whole match.

So the best method, and the method we have generally taken I believe, has been to select either young guys who probably aren't fit enough yet but have enthusiasm, or pick guys like Djerrkurra who aren't really in our best 22 but have the attributes for the role.

I just think it's a bit simple to say the perfect sub is someone in your best 18, when surely any player that has the ideal subs attributes and is in your best 18 needs to play the whole match, and not less than half of it.

You wouldn't put your best player as the sub but I really think it needs to be someone who delivers when it counts. Looking back, and it's easy to say this now after what has happened but Adam Cooney would have been a good sub early on, Higgins after he came back from injury could have been a good selection as well. I think DJ is a good sub personally and thought he played the role perfectly, Hooper will get time eventually this season and can see him adapting to the role. Gilbee while is probably done and dusted now could have been used to come on and do some damage if we were contending for a place.

Maybe your right, maybe we don't have the right player there for the role. Who's fault is that though? There was plenty of time to plan for the rule but it doesn't seem like we've thought about it at all.

The sub is there to cover injuries and in theory is the 22nd best player. A first gamer = 22nd best player. We need the BEST 21 available for a full game.

Kind of echoes my point, so thanks. Our MC have thought as the sub this way and not used it as a strategic play.

[Mofra]

Sorry but I disagree; Cross is all about endurance, its his big trick.

+1

You take away his major/only advantage over other players and he'd be nigh on finished. He'd be one of the last players I'd choose for a sub.

[bornadog]

Kind of echoes my point, so thanks. Our MC have thought as the sub this way and not used it as a strategic play.

If we had 23 players available that were all good and hard to pick the best 21/22 then I would agree, but at the end of the day, your best 21 must start. We are in no position to use the sub purely as strategic.

[G-Mo77]

If we had 23 players available that were all good and hard to pick the best 21/22 then I would agree, but at the end of the day, your best 21 must start. We are in no position to use the sub purely as strategic.

Well there is no point now but there was merit for it early on in the season.

[Happy Days]

Well there is no point now but there was merit for it early on in the season.

Ideally, the sub would be used for strategic reasons, but with the amount/likelihood of injuries occuring, it really just needs to be a team's worst midsized player.

[G-Mo77]

You wouldn't put your best player as the sub but I really think it needs to be someone who delivers when it counts. Looking back, and it's easy to say this now after what has happened but Adam Cooney would have been a good sub early on, Higgins after he came back from injury could have been a good selection as well. I think DJ is a good sub personally and thought he played the role perfectly, Hooper will get time eventually this season and can see him adapting to the role. Gilbee while is probably done and dusted now could have been used to come on and do some damage if we were contending for a place.

Did Rocket and the MC read this post.

[Desipura]

Did Rocket and the MC read this post.

You are a gun!