What type of player is the 'Sub'?

[The Coon Dog]

Next year the interchange rules will differ from 4 rotating players to 3 rotating players & a substitute.

The role of the substitute is interesting in that he can replace a player at any time, but the player he replaces cannot return to the field.

In most cases the sub will wait in the wings, looking to make an appearance when a team mate sufferers a game ending injury.

The longer the game progresses without an injury the more likely the sub will replace a player who is either playing poorly or is fatigued, in other words, a fresh pair of legs.

So, is there a specific type of player the sub should be ie: someone like a Mitch Hahn type who can play both forward & back, or doesn't it really matter?

[DOG GOD]

I think it will be your old type of "utility" player. I dont think you can pigeonhole your sub. I think he needs to be durable in ability to play a number of roles just in case.

[hujsh]

I'd have thought a guy like Everitt would be a good candidate for a sub. Could play key in a pinch at either end or on the flanks or could ruck a bit if needed. Covers most possibilities. Otherwise a runner can can tear a game apart with a quarter or two burst of gut running when others are feeling fatigued

[mighty_west]

I don't think there is a perfect player as a sub, i believe clubs will use it as a ploy but will eventually get found out when players get injured after they have used the sub for a match up, on the other hand they can't afford to go in with the same player/s each week and just have them sit on the sidelines.

[LongWait]

If the club doesn't think that this is the future role for Mitch Hahn, then he has to go (regardless of his veteran's list status.) I can certainly see Mitch being a sucess playing the emergency, being able to play up forward, in defense and for short bursts in the midfield to add some grunt if we need it.

[Desipura]

It could be a variety of players ie someone that can play at both ends. A jack of all trades in a way.
Or a lightning quick player with little endurance ie Alwyn Davey

An opportunist forward that can play tall can catch the opposition off guard ie Josh Hill would be a very good sub to have IMHO. He has shown he is capable of kicking a few goals in as many minutes.

The sub may somewhat address a weakness in your side, however that player may only be on the fringe of your best 22. If you can manage to cover if a Ward gets injured but do not have too many key positions, it would be safer to go with the kpp as a sub

[Flamethrower]

This is the major weakness with this rule - how many other team sports only have 1 substitute to choose from - none! Even cricket, with a nominated 12th man, allows you to use any number of players in the role of substitute fielder.

Only allowing one player to be substituted is fine as long as the team can have a pool of players to select from. At the moment each team names 25 players in the squad for a game - I would keep that and allow any of the 4 players not in the starting 21 to be used as the substitute, depend on the needs of the team. That way if your only ruckman is injured in the first few minutes, you can use a ruckman to replace them and not a midfielder/utility.

[LostDoggy]

I wonder if we will see clubs roll the dice and pre-determine the player to be subbed.
He knows he is coming off at half time and tries to run his opponent ragged in the first half. So in effect two specialist burst players sharing the one role.

[mighty_west]

This is the major weakness with this rule - how many other team sports only have 1 substitute to choose from - none! Even cricket, with a nominated 12th man, allows you to use any number of players in the role of substitute fielder.

Only allowing one player to be substituted is fine as long as the team can have a pool of players to select from. At the moment each team names 25 players in the squad for a game - I would keep that and allow any of the 4 players not in the starting 21 to be used as the substitute, depend on the needs of the team. That way if your only ruckman is injured in the first few minutes, you can use a ruckman to replace them and not a midfielder/utility.

So what happens when the team travels interstate and /or play the same day as Willy play?..and do you rotate those 4 players week in week out to make sure players are keeping match fit?

[Doc26]

The rule stinks but for us it's probably anyone who can cover for Tom Williams. I'd err towards someone who can play the role of a tall defender although opposition match ups will play a part.

[Bulldog4life]

The rule stinks but for us it's probably anyone who can cover for Tom Williams. I'd err towards someone who can play the role of a tall defender although opposition match ups will play a part.

With Everitt going and possibly Tiller we haven't got many capable players of filling in for Tom & Brian too for that matter.

[LostDoggy]

Does the sub have to be named prior the start or can it be any of the four on the bench?

Either way I think it will be used by players that aren't 100% pre match either as the one coming off or on. Also there are a number options as mentioned an extra runner is great but maybe we could go in with a sub ruck against a side with only one? The Darcy-wynd trick of 10 years back.

[LostDoggy]

I wonder if we will see clubs roll the dice and pre-determine the player to be subbed.

He knows he is coming off at half time and tries to run his opponent ragged in the first half. So in effect two specialist burst players sharing the one role.




I think this is how it may go, Frank.

I do not like this rule at all. I like the art of rucking and this rule is doing rucking (and the game as a whole) no favours.


I bitched about this the other night. (http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?p=185607#post185607)


On the bright side, for all of us who miss the good old days when you could demand that a player be benched as a punishment instead of as a rotation, now we can go one step further and call for someone to be expelled from the game!

[SlimPickens]

I think this change of rule might be the reason why Setantas' name has been thrown up as a possible trade to our club.He is versatile although not very good at anything.

[Greystache]

I think it's a role for an opportunist forward who struggles for consistancy and doesn't have a big enough tank to rotate through the midfield all game. Someone like a Brennan Stack, although ideally they'd be a better player.

[Desipura]

I think it's a role for an opportunist forward who struggles for consistancy and doesn't have a big enough tank to rotate through the midfield all game. Someone like a Brennan Stack, although ideally they'd be a better player.
Hence my Josh Hill nomination in the above post. ;)

[Mofra]

Vezpremi? Not much of a tank, but has everything else.

[Greystache]

Hence my Josh Hill nomination in the above post. ;)

I don't see Hill as an opportunist as such, he tends to be pretty consistent in bobbing up and kicking a goal or two each game usually from a mark, plus he has the potential to have a massive tank, but like most other things in his game he hasn't done enough to make the most of him.

So I suppose I agree with you he could be an option. I just think it's a bit of a waste.

[bornadog]

I think the Sub could be an ageing star, eg, if we had an Aker type, around 30 who is an oportunist. Brent Harvey from North would be ideal, and the sub will prolong his career.

[Greystache]

I think the Sub could be an ageing star, eg, if we had an Aker type, around 30 who is an oportunist. Brent Harvey from North would be ideal, and the sub will prolong his career.

Maybe also for a young big man who clubs are worried will get beaten up playing seniors week in week out. Might mean we'll see more opportunity for someone like Cordy to get some game time, or Jones to play for longer stretches of time.

[stefoid]

I reckon the sub will have to be a midfielder. If a non-mid goes down, you can play switch between forward and back line (Lake, Hargrave, Gilbee, Murph). But if a mid goes down, you want a real mid to step in.

Moles, Reid maybe Addison, Djekurra. These guys will be subs I reckon.

[LostDoggy]

It is strange that one single player has to be nominated as a sub -- this would immediately show the tactical thinking of the sub chosen (a ruck will obviously only be substituted for a ruck etc.) and also limit the flexibility to cover for injuries, which was the original nominal reason for having a sub at all.

The most organic way to implement this change would be to still have the same 25 named, 18 starting, three interchanges, and 4 emergencies, where any of the emergencies could be subbed in during the game. It would also make naming the team a lot more streamlined, as we already have provision for starting, interchange and emergency players, without having to introduce a special 'sub' category just for one player.

It makes sense to me, which means that there is no way the AFL will go for it -- manufacturing complexity seems to be their modus operandi.

[bulldogsman]

^ I was just going to post something similar. Like you said though, no way will the AFL do it.

[azabob]

If the sub comes on with ten mins to go does it ad to their games played??:confused:

Does the sub now water down games played?

[Sockeye Salmon]

If the sub comes on with ten mins to go does it ad to their games played??:confused:

Does the sub now water down games played?

For 80 years all we had were 'subs'

[azabob]

For 80 years all we had were 'subs'

Ok then, it's a non issue then. :o

[jeemak]

It will be interesting to see Roughead's and Cordy's development over the next twelve months. If the rule is here to stay then both are extremely valuable players, post Barry Hall (concerned that we could be too top heavy with Hall, Jones, Cordy/Roughead and Grant in the same forward line) as they're supposed to be competent tall forwards. I really don't like the idea of playing out a game with two ruckman on the bench, one injured and one not able to come back on.

I've thought about the potential for Jones to play some backline football over the next couple of years allowing Williams to play second ruck. It doesn't sit well with me due to us needing to develop a bonafide CHF, and also because of Tom's body.

I'm in favour of having a running player or a utility that can have an impact up forward or fill a spot back (Hahn for example) as the substitute rather than a second ruck. I think in modern football if you're able to retain your run longer than the opposition and you're competitive with them talent wise, then you're a better chance of winning the game.

[jazzadogs]

Tarrant could be a very good 'sub' for Collingwood.

[the banker]

Flexibility would seem to be a key. For us it is important to be able to cover if someone goes down in the back half. Therefore whether they are in the starting line up or the sub they can play back. Besides Murphy we dont have many and anyone of size. Hahn is an option with Addison and possibly Tiller. Or it could be a midfield burst player who could kick a goal - moles type.

[GVGjr]

I haven't quite worked out how club will assign the new sub position on the interchange bench for next season.

Do you put a ruckman there just as a back-up bringing them on late in the game?
Does the club take a chance on a player that might not be 100% knowing that they might only have to play half the game?
Is the position best suited towards inexperienced players giving them a taste of senior football but not having to play them the full game?
Do you put the most versatile player outside of the best 21 there?

I'm not sure how it will play out but having a look at our list these are some of the players that might be good candidates are:

Veszpremi - can fill a number of positions and his fitness level might not be terrific.
Addison - quite versatile.
Reid - somewhat forgotten but if he can get over his injuries he might be an ideal sub.
Minson - provide Hudson with support for part of the game.

How do you see us using the sub position next year and what sort of player would best fulfill that position?

[mighty_west]

I believe it will all depend on match up's any given week and also rotating players throughout the year to play as that sit on the bench player, for instance if they go in with a ruckman each & every time, it limits that players game time for the year, he isn't even getting full game time at Williamstown either.

Forget about having your best 22 every week, we will need to have a best 28 or so, and using one of those players, could perhaps rest a player here & there later on in the season as well by just giving him a quarter or so, such as Barry Hall, Ben Hudson etc.

[Dry Rot]

Super sub Murphy, if his knee keeps on getting worse.

A season of good late 3rd quarter and 4th quarter cameos may end up better than a season of full games and having him restricted for half the season.

[soupman]

It would be a good way to ease a player back in after an injury.

Another option could be to play around with 3 ruckmen (I doubt we'd do this though). ie. Begin with Minson in the ruck with Roughead as support and up forward. Minson rucks almost the entire first half with a view to tiring out the opposing ruck. Minson has to bash and crash and make life as difficult as possible. Then at half time Minson comes off for Hudson, who rucks the vast majoirty of the second half fresh whilst the opposing ruck/rucks are still sore.

[mjp]

Who is the sub? Someone not good enough to be in the first 21!

It would be very risky making it someone down on fitness - you might need him within 2 minutes if a Cooney vs Sydney situation occurs...whoever it needs has to be able to play out a full game.

In reality, it is a midfielders game. The most likely outcome is that the bench will change from a tall utility, ruckman and two mids to a tall utility and two mids with the sub also a midfielder.

The chopping the arms rule aside, this is the single dumbest rule change ever made.

[EasternWest]

Who is the sub? Someone not good enough to be in the first 21!

It would be very risky making it someone down on fitness - you might need him within 2 minutes if a Cooney vs Sydney situation occurs...whoever it needs has to be able to play out a full game.

In reality, it is a midfielders game. The most likely outcome is that the bench will change from a tall utility, ruckman and two mids to a tall utility and two mids with the sub also a midfielder.

The chopping the arms rule aside, this is the single dumbest rule change ever made.

Couldn't agree more. I can't even postulate on this thread because the notion is so ridiculous to me.

[Sockeye Salmon]

this is the single dumbest rule change ever made.

I don't get this at all.

The death of the ruckman? It will be until some coach brings a fresh ruckman on late in a game and he wins the game for his side, then everyone will want to do it.


I actually suggested this rule change to Rodney perhaps 18 months ago and he hated the idea. He said he would instruct his guys to waste time but holding the ball in the back half and kicking back and forth to each other to give everyone a rest.

I didn't understand this either. I could if the other mob were fitter than you and running over the top, but if you were travelling better than them, surely you would be putting your foot to their throat?



I like the change but not for the reasons the AFL have given. I don't care how many interchanges a game a coach makes, it doesn't hurt ice hockey.

What I do want is to see is Barry Hall beating his direct opponent one-on-one because the other mob is too tried to flood back.
Adam Cooney resting in the forward pocket instead of sitting on the bench.
Daniel Cross outrunning Dane Swan in the last quarter.

[jeemak]

I don't get this at all.

The death of the ruckman? It will be until some coach brings a fresh ruckman on late in a game and he wins the game for his side, then everyone will want to do it.


I actually suggested this rule change to Rodney perhaps 18 months ago and he hated the idea. He said he would instruct his guys to waste time but holding the ball in the back half and kicking back and forth to each other to give everyone a rest.

I didn't understand this either. I could if the other mob were fitter than you and running over the top, but if you were travelling better than them, surely you would be putting your foot to their throat?

I like the change but not for the reasons the AFL have given. I don't care how many interchanges a game a coach makes, it doesn't hurt ice hockey.

What I do want is to see is Barry Hall beating his direct opponent one-on-one because the other mob is too tried to flood back.
Adam Cooney resting in the forward pocket instead of sitting on the bench.
Daniel Cross outrunning Dane Swan in the last quarter.

I don't buy the death of the ruckman line of thought either. It just means some ruckmen will survive and others will have to work on their game and add more strings to their bows.

Bolded point is a concern for me. I tend to think if teams are fatigued they will be more inclined to sacrifice the attacking aspect of their play and restrict the oppositions ball movement forward. Then rely on their ability to hit up targets more effectively than other teams. I fear that like other rules introduced to stop teams from putting numbers back this will have the opposite effect (think not allowing a mark to be paid after kicking it backwards, and increasing the minimum kicking distance). Anyway, time will tell but I can see a slow, basketball style of transition being more prominent when teams are tired.