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

[The Coon Dog]

Sam Landsberger - Herald Sun - 12 June

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/06/11/1226073/587486-dahlhaus.jpg

FANS hate it, but Western Bulldogs debutant Luke Dahlhaus has a message for AFL coaches: Give first-gamers the substitute vest.

Dahlhaus admitted that when he arrived at Etihad Stadium for Friday night's match against St Kilda and saw his name on the whiteboard as the sub, he believed it was "a bad idea", but he thought differently after the match.

"Everyone would like to start on the ground, but probably in your first game it's good to have two quarters to run by," he said.

"It's a big buzz watching the boys run around, you want to get on straight away. But just watching it, you sort of get used to it.

Article in full... (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/western-bulldogs-rookie-luke-dahlhaus-happy-to-start-his-afl-career-as-a-sub/story-e6frf9jf-1226073587017)

[Desipura]

I like the fact that he mentioned he was able to study the play whilst on the bench, seems like a guy who analyses the game.
Aldo liked that he mentioned that his tackle count was down, with that mindset, he could go a long way.
Is very light so will need to work at building up during the off season

[LostDoggy]

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

[bornadog]

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

not sure I would be relying on an 18 year old to win the match.

I don't mind new players starting on the bench, but I don't like if they are dropped for the following week like Skinner was.

[G-Mo77]

not sure I would be relying on an 18 year old to win the match.

I don't mind new players starting on the bench, but I don't like if they are dropped for the following week like Skinner was.

I do, we've dropped the ball with the sub rule. Starting Doll House as the sub was a mistake again, like Wallis, like Skinner and like the next debutant. I'm just glad he delivered when he did come on the ground. I have to wonder how much time he would have got had Mulligan not been injured.

[bornadog]

I do, we've dropped the ball with the sub rule. Starting Doll House as the sub was a mistake again, like Wallis, like Skinner and like the next debutant. I'm just glad he delivered when he did come on the ground. I have to wonder how much time he would have got had Mulligan not been injured.

In the scheme of things for the long term, why would you have a problem with a player starting on the bench? If they are going to play say 100 plus games, who is going to give a toss?

[G-Mo77]

In the scheme of things for the long term, why would you have a problem with a player starting on the bench? If they are going to play say 100 plus games, who is going to give a toss?

In the scheme of things it's a game there to be won on the day is it not? Did bringing Wallis on for 1 quarter help us against Freo? Did Skinner help when he came on the ground against Sydney? Dahlhaus produced some good football when he came onto the ground but I can't help but think what could have been had he started in the first quarter. IMO we have been absolutely stupid with the sub rule. The mentality comes across as, "I can't decide lets make the debutant a sub" I don't understand why we continue to push the first gamer to the pine for 3 quarters before he finally gets a chance for a run. They sit there and watch nearly the entire game with nerves flowing through their body and then have the pressure to deliver as soon as they run out on the ground. It's ludicrous.

Can't wait for the MC to debut Tutt and Schofield in the green vest.

[Mofra]

In the scheme of things it's a game there to be won on the day is it not? Did bringing Wallis on for 1 quarter help us against Freo? Did Skinner help when he came on the ground against Sydney? Dahlhaus produced some good football when he came onto the ground but I can't help but think what could have been had he started in the first quarter. IMO we have been absolutely stupid with the sub rule. The mentality comes across as, "I can't decide lets make the debutant a sub" I don't understand why we continue to push the first gamer to the pine for 3 quarters before he finally gets a chance for a run. They sit there and watch nearly the entire game with nerves flowing through their body and then have the pressure to deliver as soon as they run out on the ground. It's ludicrous.

Can't wait for the MC to debut Tutt and Schofield in the green vest.
WCE had Gaff as a permanent sub for the first few weeks and that's worked pretty well.

If the difference between us winning and losing is the % of gametime we get from a first gamer, then we're cooked.

[G-Mo77]

WCE had Gaff as a permanent sub for the first few weeks and that's worked pretty well.

If the difference between us winning and losing is the % of gametime we get from a first gamer, then we're cooked.

Hey we have racked up the losses this season but we could have easily won a few of them. The right sub may not have been teh difference but it could have been. There have been quite a few games I have seen that have changed because of the right sub choice. Arguably our choices have not made an impact at all for the entire season. IMO we have failed in this area.

[Rocco Jones]

I posted this in the MC thread but perhaps it can be discussed here...

Quite a few posters are saying we: 1/ have not adapted to the sub rule and 2/ incorrectly use rookies in the role.

I think before anything else how hand in forced due to playing so many kids anyway, however we should also look at those sides who have done well with the sub rule. Would the critics of Dahlhaus as a sub agree that the Hawks and Eagles have done well with the new rule? I definitely believe so and both clubs have predominately used 1st year/inexperienced players in the role such as Gaff, Breust and Savage. I believe that Dahlhaus' strengths as a player suit the role.

The critics point towards his potential impact if he started but what about the other scenario? What if he simply ran out of gas and really dropped off? What we (should) primarily want is what's best for his development and despite the limited TOG, Friday night should give him a fair bit of confidence.

I ironically found it a rare sub 'win' for us on Friday night. That's where it's catch 22 though. If your sub does well, cynics will ask why he didn't start and is the sub fails, the same cynics will criticise the decision as well. The difference for me is the gloss/taint of winning/losing.

[G-Mo77]

I think before anything else how hand in forced due to playing so many kids anyway, however we should also look at those sides who have done well with the sub rule. Would the critics of Dahlhaus as a sub agree that the Hawks and Eagles have done well with the new rule? I definitely believe so and both clubs have predominately used 1st year/inexperienced players in the role such as Gaff, Breust and Savage. I believe that Dahlhaus' strengths as a player suit the role.

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.


The critics point towards his potential impact if he started but what about the other scenario? What if he simply ran out of gas and really dropped off? What we (should) primarily want is what's best for his development and despite the limited TOG, Friday night should give him a fair bit of confidence.

I ironically found it a rare sub 'win' for us on Friday night. That's where it's catch 22 though. If your sub does well, cynics will ask why he didn't start and is the sub fails, the same cynics will criticise the decision as well. The difference for me is the gloss/taint of winning/losing.

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.

[Mantis]

I don't mind new players starting on the bench, but I don't like if they are dropped for the following week like Skinner was.

Skinner isn't ( wasn't) ready.

[Topdog]

Skinner isn't ( wasn't) ready.

I agree he wasn't but in that case why did we promote him?

[bornadog]

Skinner isn't ( wasn't) ready.

Well my point is he shouldn't have played at all. If he is not ready then he shouldn't be a sub either

[soupman]

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 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.

[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. :D

[Desipura]

Did Rocket and the MC read this post. :D

You are a gun! ;)