Darren Jolly: 2 subs, 2 interchange is "bloody stupid"

[MarkT2]

2 and 2 would also probably end Jolly's career earlier as a young ruck takes his spot there is no room for him on the bench, that's probably why he is so upset

On the contrary, with less runners to be interchanged the ruckman that can rest up forward, take marks and kick goals will be gold. The second ruck won't be a ruckman as such but a forward who can ruck. That is not a Leigh Brown by the way but more an Anthony Rocca (in a Collingwood context). WCE have the perfect 2 ruckman combination. If 2 and 2 has any impact on ruckman it will be to kill off the Cameron Wood types. They wont get a game until the numer 1 is injured and won't be much value resting forward and/or be run off and prove liabilities.

 

[Collingwood 4 eternity]

Football games should be decided by the players and their actions on the field.

Not by a right or wrong decision of which player to sub and when to sub them.

Especially when a game ending injury occurs after the sub has been played.

Keep 4 interchange but no sub

 

[The Prosecutor]

The OP's argument doesn't make sense.

They won't pick more footballers, all they will do is pick more athletes, as they would have more endurance and be able to run out games.

If you want more footballers, you need more players on the interchange, rendering need for athletes useless.

 

[thebulldog]

Why not make it when you come off the field there is a minimum time you must stay off. Trial it with say 10 minutes and assess it from there.
Will restrict the number of changes you can make per quarter automatically without giving coaches a cap to work around.

Make it reset at each break and you can therefore make changes in the last few minutes when supposedly most fatigue injurys occur without too much penalty.

 

[Father Jack]

Football games should be decided by the players and their actions on the field.

Not by a right or wrong decision of which player to sub and when to sub them.

Especially when a game ending injury occurs after the sub has been played.

Keep 4 interchange but no sub

how about the game being decided by the players on the field, not how effectively a team uses unlimited interchange?

You know, like how the game was played for about 100 years.

 

[Baldur]

OP is correct.

Note that 80% of the sub haters are Collingwood fans. Given that Collingwood has made no bones about the fact that they consider the four interchanges gave them a advantage, not a surprise.

 

[Zahki]

how about the game being decided by the players on the field, not how effectively a team uses unlimited interchange?

Can you point to an example of a game that was decided by more effective use of the interchange bench rather than the players on the field? Maybe 2 or 3 just to be sure this is something thats actually happening and not something made up in your head.

 

[LeverPuller]

Sub rule has actually been okay, don't agree with returning back. The sky hasn't fallen in.

That said, I don't agree with 2+2 as I think the point of players' careers ending earlier as too much is expected of them in the modern game is a good one. 3+2 would probably work, however.

 

[Lensen]

holy shit I thought no one else got this but me

tremendous OP

 

[Dumpstar]

Why don't they just bloody leave things for a bit.

 

[legend166]

If only they went with a capped interchange instead... *sigh*

Agree with this so much.

Disregard all the injury stuff, the main goal of the sub rule was to reduce interchanges, because the AFL wanted to change the style of the game.

So, what's the best way to reduce interchanges?

Surely it makes much more sense to simply cap them?

20 per quarter. Done.

 

[cmndstab]

2+2 is stupid. As much as people don't like to recognise it, it's not the 80s or 90s anymore. Football has changed, and is more of an athletic game now.

No coach is going to accept a player putting in less work because there is less bench space - and if he does, he'll be beaten by another team whose coach doesn't accept it. So the players will be asked to maintain the same level of output with fewer opportunities to rest, and the level of injuries will slowly rise.

What will the response be by the coaches? To say "okay, fair enough, you guys can do less work now since the bench dictates it - it's better to take a decrease in output than to suffer these injuries"? Of course not. The response will be to place even higher priority on recruiting athletes that can withstand that level amount of exertion rather than footballers.

The thing with life is that you can't go backwards. We can't pretend that going to 2 interchange positions on the bench is going to return us to the 80s, because it won't. It will simply drive talent and footy nous even further down the list of priorities for recruiting staff, and in the interim it will be responsible for cutting short the careers of talented young men.

I know they're not introducing it "yet", but even trialling it is ridiculous. It's summer, for Christ's sake, if anything they should be giving additional bench space.


Darren Jolly is dead on the money.

 

[Father Jack]

Can you point to an example of a game that was decided by more effective use of the interchange bench rather than the players on the field? Maybe 2 or 3 just to be sure this is something thats actually happening and not something made up in your head.

the point is that a hell of a lot of work goes into each game 'off the field', such as selections, team structures and deciding on interchange rotations. To say that the only way a game is going to be affected off-field is via the use of the sub is a bit silly imo. The sub is part of that, but whether or not it is the most 'dominant' is debatable.

The interchange bench was never intended to be used to heavily, such use wasn't foreseen when it was brought it, and now that the exploit has occurred, steps are being taken to remedy it. If a player can't run a game out, too bloody bad.

 

[cmndstab]

Agree with this so much.

Disregard all the injury stuff, the main goal of the sub rule was to reduce interchanges, because the AFL wanted to change the style of the game.

So, what's the best way to reduce interchanges?

Surely it makes much more sense to simply cap them?

20 per quarter. Done.

The problem with hard and fast caps like this is that there will always be the situation where your rotations are used up, and a player breaks a leg or something. What do you do then? You can't rotate the player. I guess you just play with 17 on the field. Of course, the AFL starts to look like a bit of a farce when you have fit men warming the bench while 17 players are on the field.

I know the response is "just manage your rotations properly" but rare events are difficult to predict.

 

[dazbroncos]

Its the players out there doing it not us....

It's their livelihood - well paid as it is - it is still their's to lose to injury.

I think its wrong to have a player have to keep playing because a sub has been made....

Go with 4 inter and a sub....

or 3 inter and 2 subs.....

just my 2c....

Go Catters...

 

[Zahki]

If a player can't run a game out, too bloody bad.

So what you're saying is that you're ok with good footballers not being drafted in favour of good endurance athletes, because the good athletes will be able to run out games? I dunno about that.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

TI know the response is "just manage your rotations properly" but rare events are difficult to predict.

So this whole premise of having a sub to restrict the amount of rotations is based on something that is difficult to predict.

If you get an injury, BAD LUCK!

 

[clobba]

Agree with OP, good post.

 

[cmndstab]

So this whole premise of having a sub to restrict the amount of rotations is based on something that is difficult to predict.

If you get an injury, BAD LUCK!

Bad luck for the club, yes. But the point is, if you get an injury, then bad luck - now you have to deal with fewer bench spots to rotate between. It hurts the club, sure, but that's just bad luck.

However, the capped bench thing is a different proposition altogether. Now we've got a player who actually isn't allowed to rotate off the field at all. So what is he supposed to do? Stay on the field? Come off with nobody to replace him despite fit men sitting on the bench? Very different proposition.

 

[legend166]

The problem with hard and fast caps like this is that there will always be the situation where your rotations are used up, and a player breaks a leg or something. What do you do then? You can't rotate the player. I guess you just play with 17 on the field. Of course, the AFL starts to look like a bit of a farce when you have fit men warming the bench while 17 players are on the field.

I know the response is "just manage your rotations properly" but rare events are difficult to predict.

I can't ever imagine a situation where this happens.

 

[Father Jack]

So what you're saying is that you're ok with good footballers not being drafted in favour of good endurance athletes, because the good athletes will be able to run out games? I dunno about that.

The good endurance athlete will still have to be a good footballer. We won't be having pure athletes taking the place of footballers. We'll also likely see footballers whose footballing ability will get them over the line against burst runners. It works both ways, just because you may not have elite endurance doesn't necessarily mean you are a better footballer because of it.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Bad luck for the club, yes. But the point is, if you get an injury, then bad luck - now you have to deal with fewer bench spots to rotate between. It hurts the club, sure, but that's just bad luck.

However, the capped bench thing is a different proposition altogether. Now we've got a player who actually isn't allowed to rotate off the field at all. So what is he supposed to do? Stay on the field? Come off with nobody to replace him despite fit men sitting on the bench? Very different proposition.

No one said you had to use up all of your interchanges per quarter. You might only use 15 or 16 (If the cap is 20).

 

[Zahki]

The good endurance athlete will still have to be a good footballer. We won't be having pure athletes taking the place of footballers.

I wasn't aware that we had good endurance athletes taking the place of good footballers? As far as I know good skills are still prized above all else, that might change though once the skilled players can't run out games anymore, having a good tank might overtake having silky skills on the priority list. Gameplans are never going back to 80s type positional play, never. Any team that tries will get flogged, coaches will recruit the players who can run all day and get to every contest and not anything less than netball style positions will change that, time to move on, the genie is out you can't force it back in.

Apart from that I'd just like to know who you think are players getting games because they're good athletes and not footballers? When I think 'good athlete' I think Buddy Franklin, not Jake King, some of the games most exciting players not the duds, so I have no idea why you'd want to remove them from the game.

 

[cmndstab]

I can't ever imagine a situation where this happens.

It's really not that difficult to imagine. Clubs would manage their rotations over the quarter. Last couple of minutes, they blow their last few rotations, then cop an injury.

I'm not really concerned that it's a disadvantage for clubs, as much as it would make the AFL look ridiculous to have implemented a rule that results in a club having 17 men on the field through sheer bad luck.


The problem is every time the AFL puts a rule into place to tackle a problem (which is always caused by a previous rule change), they end up introducing a new problem they hadn't thought of. Coaches are innovative. They're always looking for a way to exploit the rules. Certainly none of them are going to say "well, it was nice while it's lasted but now we need to go back to playing football 80s style" simply because of a rule change. They're going to find a way to exploit the system and create another ugly problem.

The AFL should have learned its lesson years ago and stopped trying bandaid solutions to problems - especially when they're not really problems to begin with. Has expanding the interchange bench to include four players really ruined the spectacle of the game? I'd argue that the sub rule was far uglier than anything imposed by the fourth interchange position.

 

[donbooger]

2+2 is stupid. As much as people don't like to recognise it, it's not the 80s or 90s anymore. Football has changed, and is more of an athletic game now.

No coach is going to accept a player putting in less work because there is less bench space - and if he does, he'll be beaten by another team whose coach doesn't accept it. So the players will be asked to maintain the same level of output with fewer opportunities to rest, and the level of injuries will slowly rise.

What will the response be by the coaches? To say "okay, fair enough, you guys can do less work now since the bench dictates it - it's better to take a decrease in output than to suffer these injuries"? Of course not. The response will be to place even higher priority on recruiting athletes that can withstand that level amount of exertion rather than footballers.

The thing with life is that you can't go backwards. We can't pretend that going to 2 interchange positions on the bench is going to return us to the 80s, because it won't. It will simply drive talent and footy nous even further down the list of priorities for recruiting staff, and in the interim it will be responsible for cutting short the careers of talented young men.

I know they're not introducing it "yet", but even trialling it is ridiculous. It's summer, for Christ's sake, if anything they should be giving additional bench space.


Darren Jolly is dead on the money.

You are correct only under the assumption that players can just be pushed further and further as the coaches require. That is not the case, players are very likely at peak human endurance currently with relation to there size and strength.

Increasing the endurance demands on defensive gamestyles will work, there will come a tipping point where it is just not the optimal way to play football anymore and new strategies will be developed that may be more pleasing to the viewer.

I am with the OP, push the limits further, 2+2, open the game up more and see what we get.