Use of the sub

[Sedat]

We have stunk at it so far this season compared to other clubs. We've used Sherman, DJ, Stack, Wallis, Moles and Skinner so far, and all of them have had a negligable impact on their sub games. Apart from Wallis, the others are not suited to the role with their skill set - Sherman, Stack and DJ are dicey with their decision-makng and disposal, Skinner is an unproven rookie and Moles doesn't get enough if it in 120 minutes let alone 30. By contrast, other teams are being very tactical with their use of the sub (for example WC using Gaff as a pseudo designated sub effectively, and Hawthorn holding their sub back for as long as possible), whereas with us it feels as though we are selecting random players to perform the role. Thoughts?

[GVGjr]

When the quick in kick rule was introduced a few years back Eade capitalized on it quicker than any other coach and it resulted in a lot of coast to coast goals for us.
With the new sub rule, in all the media discussions I have heard him in I've never thought he embraced it and tried to work out how he could best exploit it for us.

[Hotdog60]

I think we need a sub who can pinch hit in a short period of time, I suppose someone who has a limited tank but will get involved from the start. Who that is is anyones guess, could Lake be a sub for a few weeks. Give him another week in the 2's and then a couple as sub.

Which ever way it's a complex thing to make work and if we get an early injury that player would need to be versatile. It makes you wonder if this role could have suited an older player, someone with experience, knows whats required but can no longer run out a whole game.

The part time footballer.

[AndrewP6]

When the quick in kick rule was introduced a few years back Eade capitalized on it quicker than any other coach and it resulted in a lot of coast to coast goals for us.
With the new sub rule, in all the media discussions I have heard him in I've never thought he embraced it and tried to work out how he could best exploit it for us.

And yet he said in one that it could work to our advantage...haven't seen that yet!

[FrediKanoute]

I think we need a sub who can pinch hit in a short period of time, I suppose someone who has a limited tank but will get involved from the start. Who that is is anyones guess, could Lake be a sub for a few weeks. Give him another week in the 2's and then a couple as sub.

Which ever way it's a complex thing to make work and if we get an early injury that player would need to be versatile. It makes you wonder if this role could have suited an older player, someone with experience, knows whats required but can no longer run out a whole game.

The part time footballer.

I think a sub would suit a gun player in the twilight of their careers. Capable of pinch hitting and influencing a game....maybe even turning the game if its tight. Can't maintain it for a whole game, but good enough to do it for a quarter or so......sadly I don't think we have anyone on our list that fits this bill. It would have been ideal last year for Johnno or Aka.

[LostDoggy]

The Sub in reality has to be the most tactically flexible player on the list, fit enough for 4 quarters to replace a 1st quarter injury , the ability to play defense/midfield/forward , strong enough mentally to be thrown in the deep end at a moments notice . Hargrave once he's fit enough and has the required match fitness is the best Sub player we have . With the revised rules our defense no longer needs Hargrave to play the role he once did *. Gilbee and Wood also make a case for being a tactical Sub.

*( Our defense - ( currently unraveled due to injury ) - is based on 1 Full back, 2 Centre Half Back, 1 Lock Down/ Blocker , 1 Runner )

The Sub has to be a tactical replacement first, an injury replacement second.

Any Club using the Sub to blood young players in the first ten rounds is doing so on the basis of output first and for most, the last ten rounds I would not expect any Club to use the Sub as anything else but a tactical change using a senior player probably at half time

.

[LostDoggy]

Having a first gamer as a sub is just silly IMO. It's better to get them out early and ease the nerves a little.

[Drunken Bum]

the sub makes me think of Bruce Duperouzel

[Scorlibo]

I think the sub needs to be a player who is hungry to win, and eager to get involved and make their presence felt, yet also a player who has a football brain and can quickly adapt to the game. For these reasons I think that Darren Milburn has proven to be an excellent sub.

I would nominate Mitch Wallis first, an experienced junior footballer, with a good footy brain and strong team ethics and hunger for the win. He won't hold his place in the regular team when the rest of the best 22 comes back, so he could aim to be the perma-sub ala Milburn or Gaff.

[bornadog]

with us it feels as though we are selecting random players to perform the role. Thoughts?

I don't think its been random players, we seem to have deliberately used the sub to introduce new players into the team. (except Stack)

[Remi Moses]

Gotta play a first gamer on the park! Why have them sit there and just waste nervous energy! Darren Milburn is an ideal sub player.

[lemmon]

Agree on flexibility being probably the biggest key but Ive always wondered what it would be like bringing on a super quick, Alwyn Davey type for a quarter. The fresh legs might make him nigh on untouchable when considering the fatigue of everyone else around him.

[Hotdog60]

Upon the reflection of the thread, could teams start to look at mature bodied players in the State leagues to become the perment sub. Recruit 2 of these type players purely for this role.

[stefoid]

So Hagrave next week then? Experienced player, short of a gallop, could play forward or back.

[MrMahatma]

Any suggestions on who we should use as a sub? 2 or 3 blokes to rotate through there?

[G-Mo77]

I'm glad someone else brought up our use of the sub rule. I've been extremely critical of our use of it. They've got to get it right!


Having a first gamer as a sub is just silly IMO. It's better to get them out early and ease the nerves a little.


Gotta play a first gamer on the park! Why have them sit there and just waste nervous energy!

Couldn't agree more. Skinner this week and Wallis against Freo were 2 extremely poor choices. Why sit someone on their first game to wait 3 quarters for their chance to play. Show faith in your selection of the kids and let them play. I know the MC know a lot more about football than me but it doesn't take a genius to know a first gamer is going to be nervous.

It seems that it's always someone on the fringe that gets selected for the position and then team runs out with 21 instead of 22. There doesn't seem like a role for them. I know it's hard to predict what's going to happen before the game but there should be a reason or plan behind the sub selection. All I've heard from interviews and press conferences is they thought they'd inject some pace or something similar. I'd rather them just say "We feel he's not in the best 22 so we couldn't fit him in the starting 21" IMO that is the mentality of the MC and the coaching staff.


Darren Milburn is an ideal sub player.

I think Gilbee would be to, it's obvious that he's falling away but can still be effective in spurts.

The only player who have embraced the sub role has been DJ who came on and did everything he could in a quarter of football. He hasn't played since.

[the banker]

Probably 4 guys who can do this role. Sitting on the timber for 2 weeks in a row won't work...

Gilbee, Wallis, Addison, .....guys who want to be where the ball is and can play multiple roles, lockdown or attack.

Definitely NOT first game players. Don't get that.

[G-Mo77]

Definitely NOT first game players. Don't get that.

Schofield's debut is coming and I'd be willing to put money on him being the sub in his first game.

[azabob]

As GVGjr mentioned Eade hasn't really embraced it.

We didn't trial it over the pre-season, we mucked up hugely with selecting only one ruckman against Essendon.

Most teams use the sub as someone who is quick, hard at it and full of energy.

We don't seem to have that type of player on our list.

Hahn and Addison would be good at as they are keen for body on body contest. Except for the fact Hahn is a rookie and Addison is not in our best 28 players.

[DOG GOD]

Schofield's debut is coming and I'd be willing to put money on him being the sub in his first game.

I hope not. We need him in the face of Nahas or King right from the get go. Get him on and let him loose. He wont hold back from what ive heard.

[Flamethrower]

The introduction of the sub rule has been the biggest step backwards in VFL/AFL history.

I have heard that the AFLPA hate it so much they are exploring their legal options to have it removed immediately, and are definitely going to push to have it written in their new CBA to outlaw it.

From the Bulldogs' POV, our club had been disadvantaged by the rule more than any other team as our game plan was reliant on having 4 fresh players on the bench at all times. Even though we have modified our game plan slightly to try to allow for this, we are still seeing long periods in games when the players are physically and mentally spent because the key players in our game plan are not being rotated as often.

[bornadog]

The introduction of the sub rule has been the biggest step backwards in VFL/AFL history.

It has proven absolutely nothing. It hasn't improved the game, in fact as you say its the worst rule change in the history of the game.

[Remi Moses]

It's a pointless rule change. I thought it was for rotations, in fact which haven't gone down!It's definitely hurting us I agree.Using the sub then getting an injury you're two down on the bench. Just justifying their existence the rules committee.

[MrMahatma]

I guess we're still learning how best to use it. I understand the "theory" behind debuting a guy as sub - IE: Bring them on when some of the heat has come out of the game later on. However, that doesn't fly if the game is tight and we end up throwing a kid to the wolves in a make or break 30 min period - which has unfortuantely been the case twice this year.

In which case, the risks outweight the possible rewards IMO - so don't debut kids as subs now. I think that's the lesson learnt.

[Before I Die]

Seems like I am the only one with a differing opinion. There are only really 21 players in a team these days. with the Sub and the player he replaces counting as one of these 21. The idea of a match winner as the sub is great, but why not have that match winner start on the field or as an interchange. If their stamina is an issue they can be subbed off, though I don't think there is any room for unfit players anywhere in the 22. I actually think the sub is a good way to introduce new, young players.

As for the sub being an all rounder, we have plenty of players who can go forward or back, Hill, Stack, Murphy etc. As long as the sub is not a ruckman only we should be ok.

[Swoop]

It's a pointless rule change. I thought it was for rotations, in fact which haven't gone down!It's definitely hurting us I agree.Using the sub then getting an injury you're two down on the bench. Just justifying their existence the rules committee.
People seem to have the sub rule confused, in the off season there were actually 2 rule changes. The first was the reduction of 22 to 21 which was specifically brought in to lessen rotations in a bid to slow the game down.

The second is the sub rule, which was brought in as club's continued to argue that they were at a significant disadvantage if they happened to suffer an injury early in the match. At one point there was a direct correlation between playing with one less player from the first quarter and defeat. The AFL decided that by implementing a sub rule to replace an injured player allowed all clubs to still have the same amount of players (i.e 21 v 21) and would nullify the advantage one club would have over the other if they suffered an injury.

Unfortunately as both rules have been implemented in the same year the perception is that this rule was brought in to some way reduce rotations when the reality is that it is it's own rule brought in to assist clubs to cover an injury throughout a game. If a club chooses to make a tactical change and than suffer an injury than that is their bad luck and the risk they take as they are trying to exploit the rule for their own agenda.

Whether the rule is right or wrong is a different story but that is the actual reason the rule has been brought in.

[jazzadogs]

I posted similar to this earlier in the season, but I think the sub is ideally suited to an older player who has maybe lost a touch of speed or endurance.

Obviously they need to be at a level where they can play a whole game if required, but ultimately the aim should be to get them on at the end of the third quarter where that 5% reduction in game speed will move it down to their level.

I can see what Eade is trying to do by holding off with the young players (and it seems to have worked with Gaff among others), but I agree that they would be much better off as the player subbed out of the game. The other main thing is what the sub is expected to contribute, and where on the ground they are placed.

Personal story, I played on the weekend and would have been lucky to get 50% game time, and it made me think how hard it must be for the sub. It was my first game in the seniors, and I'm used to playing 100% game time in the reserves/19s. Instead I was on the bench most of the time, coming on for 5 minutes at the end of quarters. Sitting on the bench for a large period of time before coming on makes it so much harder to be physically and mentally involved in the game. To put Wallis into the middle at the start of the last quarter was insane, and I highly doubt that he would have been preparing at a necessary level on the bench.

Overall, I really just don't like the sub rule and don't think it is having anywhere near a positive impact. Even when teams do suffer an early injury, they're still disadvantaged later in the game.

[Sockeye Salmon]

The introduction of the sub rule has been the biggest step backwards in VFL/AFL history.



The introduction of the sub rule is just about the only thing the rules committee have got right since they started.

More contests, more long kicking and high marks and less flooding when everyone starts to get tired.


The only thing they got wrong is that it should be 2 I/C and 2 subs.

[chef]

The introduction of the sub rule is just about the only thing the rules committee have got right since they started.

More contests, more long kicking and high marks and less flooding when everyone starts to get tired.


The only thing they got wrong is that it should be 2 I/C and 2 subs.

Agree with this.

[bornadog]

The introduction of the sub rule is just about the only thing the rules committee have got right since they started.

More contests, more long kicking and high marks and less flooding when everyone starts to get tired.


The only thing they got wrong is that it should be 2 I/C and 2 subs.

The sub rule has not resulted in this. Long kicking is what teams are using to get the ball over the press.

[LostDoggy]

No doubt the sub rule has changed the game, though I'm not sure its changed the game into more long kicking. There is natural change every year with coaches looking for different tactics or to counter opposition tactics. Not that the rules committee believe that could happen.

No doubt the sub rule means some players are better off and while some are worse. KB and his mates just think its made the game better and there are no losers here.

[bornadog]

No doubt the sub rule has changed the game, though I'm not sure its changed the game into more long kicking. There is natural change every year with coaches looking for different tactics or to counter opposition tactics. Not that the rules committee believe that could happen.

No doubt the sub rule means some players are better off and while some are worse. KB and his mates just think its made the game better and there are no losers here.

We have to get rid of these old farts like KB having influence in this great game of ours. They think by changing the rules we can turn the clock back to the 70's and 80's but what they fail to realise is that the game is constantly evolving and no rule changes will stop it.

[stefoid]

Bring back mitch hahn to take the kickouts. bang to centre wing.

[LostDoggy]

Gotta play a first gamer on the park! Why have them sit there and just waste nervous energy! Darren Milburn is an ideal sub player.

Couldn't agree more, the sub is a kid killer. Only works for experienced players, not for first gamers. Eade and the MC have not adapted well to this rule.... yet.

[LostDoggy]

The sub should be the 22nd best of our 22. Why wouldn't you want better players on the park asap? I don't see much wrong with what we have been doing so far. We haven't lost cause our sub is crap, it's the other 21. Milburn would be in our best 21 so isn't an ideal sub for us.