Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:New Interchange Rules
|
#331446 |
|
the only people concerned about high player rotations is people involved with clubs without the depth to name 22 decent players each game.
i give it three rounds before collingwood or essendon (or more likely the gold coast club) use up their substitute only for a player to then be injured and forced off, leaving them with two interchange players. even if a player comes off on a stretcher, if the sub has already been used the team has only two interchange players for at least twenty minutes.
can someone tell me the problem with high rotations?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:New Interchange Rules
|
#331447 |
|
"The use of interchange has created more congestion, more stoppages, more defensive pressure and has contributed to a drop in disposal efficiency," Anderson said.
So tired blokes don't try as hard?
Just another use of stats provide the answer you want. There's a lot of it about.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:New Interchange Rules
|
#331452 |
|
Haven't worked this through just yet, but it smells like it's good to eat to me.
This year, when we are fit and firing, Sandi in effect gave us an extra man, because you have to play two genuine ruckman to stop him slaughtering you, and the Kamikaze Death Tackle Squad (Ballas, Mayne and deBoer) gave us another because they multi-task so effectively. That's why we ran teams down; we effectively had two extra guys in the rotation. With only three on the bench, that advantage will be even more pronounced.
Which leaves the substitute. He's got to be someone who gives you coverage for Sandi, I think, and some around-the-ground utility. He's got to be a SUPER SUB!
Come on down, Kepler Bradley!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:New Interchange Rules
|
#331461 |
|
This will only make things worse.
Don't know how yet, but this is the AFL. It will only make things worse.
2011/12: tinker, tinker...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:New Interchange Rules
|
#331471 |
|
Mattis117, Pav's been on the rules committee for quite some time now.
All the excitement of that new aerobics strip must have blinded you, eh?
I reckon it's a good move... mainly because it's the option I favoured. Originally, lobbyists like Mick Malthouse wanted the interchange bench increased to cover the potential for injuries... with the corresponding increase in rotations then helping tactics like flooding.
I reckon they should have cut the bench to two interchange and two subs... just for the hell of it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:New Interchange Rules
|
#331476 |
|
Doubt many teams will take two dedicated ruckman into the game. they will have to be able to ruck and be competent enough to play forward also.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:New Interchange Rules
|
#331511 |
|
So stupid ...
This just means (even more than it already happens) when clubs have the choice between a kid with footy smarts and natural football ability (quick hands, great awareness, strong grab) and the 'athlete' (big tank, big jump, taller, etc, etc) they take the athlete to give them more running power and the guys who were born to play this game get overlooked ...
No way in the world Hase would go top 10 in a draft these days, more and more Barlows and Broughtons will get missed, and it'll mean the end for guys like Sam Mitchell, Brett Kirk, etc.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:New Interchange Rules
|
#331554 |
|
if clubs are dumb enough to let smart footy players slip through the draft (a very rare occurence), then our smart recruiters will snap up the smart footballers, quick-smart
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:New Interchange Rules
|
#331556 |
|
I would buy the substitute thing as the AFL's conern to prevent injury and make it even playing field etc ect - but do they also not want to make the season longer next season to accomadate for an extra team - two soon. The contradiction doesn't add up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:New Interchange Rules
|
#331563 |
|
From listening to the puppet on the news, it sounds like they brought the rule so if someone sues them for an injury at some point, they can claim that they made an effort to try and prevent injuries.
There's also the other school of though that they are doing it because they think actually do want to try and prevent injuries but I'm inclined to take the less charitable opinion of that AFL.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 3 Days ago
Re:New Interchange Rules
|
#331574 |
|
So this rule essentially means a team now has 21 players to work with instead of 22..
There could be some advantages though (given every team has 21 players now)
- if one player is injured, you can bring on your substitute and not be a player down - which has been a big disadvantage to us throughout the year
- you can bring on an impact type player later in the game - for example Michael Walters didn't have a big enough tank to play a whole game with intensity this year, but with this new rule he could be brought on later in a game to provide a game-winning spark (disclaimer: i'm sure he'll get there soon and be a 100% game winner). I've seen it work in soccer and rugby union, and with good coaching it could be very useful for young or players with not as big a tank who can dominate during brief periods
IMO
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1 Week, 2 Days ago
New rules 2011
|
#331730 |
Change to interchange rules
No interchange cap, however, the bench is now made up of three unlimited interchange players with a fourth being a substitute who replaces a player, and that player, after coming off can no longer take any part in the game.
This is thought to slow the game down? This will lower interchange numbers? - How? I think that the three players will be rotated more heavily. While there will probably be a lower net rotation number, rotations per player will surely rise.
What happens say if a player is 'substituted' and the substiute is injured five minutes in? Teams are effectively down to two players on the bench rather than what would normally be three, as the substitued player cannot return to the field under the new rules.
What a load of nonsense.
www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/substitut...-20101004-164bz.html |
|
|
|
|
