Matthews: Interchange system ruining football

[Hollow Knight]

I agreed with that as well.

I don't want players injured and having to play on as we have no replacement as we have used up our number of interchanges for the match.

Yeah, because the AFL wouldn't put a provision in place for such an occurance.

C'mon campbell, you are smarter than that, surely.

 

[campbell]

Yeah, because the AFL wouldn't put a provision in place for such an occurance.

C'mon campbell, you are smarter than that, surely.

are you sure about that.

 

[Hollow Knight]

That would never work.

What happens in Rugby League when a team has used all their interchanges and a player gets injured?

 

[Loose Cannon]

I think it's a great idea. Especially if it limits flooding.

But if certain coaches have been building their lists toward a faster running games and the rules were changed, certain clubs may be disadvantaged. Like mine and the doggies.

Nevertheless, I can see the change limiting injuries, by slowing down the game; bringing back the contest and it would also make the game more exciting by making the final quarter the survival of the fittest.

 

[giantroo]

That would never work.

Why not? It works in soccer, it works in rugby.

 

[giantroo]

I agreed with that as well.

I don't want players injured and having to play on as we have no replacement as we have used up our number of interchanges for the match.

Thats why leigh wants to increase the number of subsitutes. Instead of 4 will have 6.

Who was there in the 70's? Has anyone ever experienced this subsitute thing in the 70's?

 

[Andrew Mc]

I can see where Matthews is coming from, but might removing unlimited interchanges result in players staying in defence as a result - we'd like to think that coaches and players would resort to more matching up and one-on-ones, but maybe they'll just leave players in the back 50 permanently.

 

[wagstaff]

People have been saying that ever since I can remember. I stopped listening about ten years ago.

Notwithstanding that I think the game was at its best in the early to mid 1990s, there's a lot of truth in what you say. People have been complaining about the stock issues of the game going downhill and umpiring not just for years, but for generations.

A while back I remember seeing a news report from the mid-1960s where they interviewed supporters before a VFL match. All of them were complaining about how bad the umpires were and what was going wrong with the game.

The game may not be quite as good or as entertaining as it was a decade ago, but it's still got a lot going for it and usually, great entertainment to watch.

 

[general mac]

I don’t think it helps or hinders a team that cops injuries compared to one that doesn’t and even if it did so what? If you cop injuries you are disadvantaged. That’s life. It is something that would even out over time. Bing overly concerned about it is, in part, a function of a soft, welfare regardless of merit mentality AFL.

I do have an issue with the expanded and “overused” interchange system though. IMO it facilitates the running, flooding game by allowing rotations to keep fresh legs on the ground at all times. The best way to reduce the negative flooding tactics is not to annually bastardise the rule of Australian Football it is to reduce the impact of the bench on games. Cut the numbers back to 2 and then perhaps consider limitations on use although I’d leave that for a secondary consideration.

As for ruining football, if anything is ruining football, it is coaches and the idiotic reactions to their tactics from the AFL. As for injuries in general, Mathews’ teams cop their share because they are Mathews teams. He grinds his players hard, demands they keep going and some of them break. That is not a sledge, just an observation. It is an approach that helped win a flag for my club. Mathews is ruthless and pragmatic.

As for the bench and all the issues, I blame Sheedy. He led the charge and started it all from expanding the bench to increasing its use, to tagging and general negative, stalling and flooding tactics. The flags say he did the right thing by his club. Just don’t whinge about it being ramped up and used against you now Kevin.

Excelent post.

 

[Grimreepah]

I agree. Too often a game is ruined by one side suffering an early injury or two. At the end of the game you are still left wondering who would have been the better side if all players were fit. A limited interchange would reduce that chance factor resulting from injuries, and the better team would win more often.

The NRL trialled unlimited interchange and it received unanimous disapproval, and they quickly reverted back to limited interchange.

 

[banzai]

I can see where Matthews is coming from, but might removing unlimited interchanges result in players staying in defence as a result - we'd like to think that coaches and players would resort to more matching up and one-on-ones, but maybe they'll just leave players in the back 50 permanently.

Not sure about that, because if the spare players in defence arent prepared to break quickley, the team will never get the ball forward, the opposition will just set up a wall around 70 out and will score.

 

[banzai]

What happens in Rugby League when a team has used all their interchanges and a player gets injured?

Teams usually save their last interchange for the last 5 mins.

 

[Wing Commander]

Limited interchange and off until the end of the quarter not the end of the game.

 

[MarkT]

TBD, would going back to 2 interchange achieve what you want? If you had an additional emergency (or two) that you could only call on in the event of injury and the injured player could not return then maybe we could cover the rare event that 2 on the bench isn’t enough. I am not convinced that is necessary but it is an option.

 

[Hollow Knight]

TBD, would going back to 2 interchange achieve what you want? If you had an additional emergency (or two) that you could only call on in the event of injury and the injured player could not return then maybe we could cover the rare event that 2 on the bench isn’t enough. I am not convinced that is necessary but it is an option.

I personally think a limited interchange of 4 players makes more sense than a smaller bench with unlimited interchange.

Haven't really given ti too much thought to be honest, I'm actually supposed to be writing an assignment about "biological vs social drivers of gendered behavior". If I was asked to write an assignment about AFL interchange benches, I probably would have finished it by now

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Haven't really given ti too much thought to be honest, I'm actually supposed to be writing an assignment about "biological vs social drivers of gendered behavior". If I was asked to write an assignment about AFL interchange benches, I probably would have finished it by now

Nah, you'd just be on BigPolitics.com.au talking **** on there and not doing your footy assignment.

 

[Tuco]

Yeh? Not everyone likes to see a bunch of middle distance running short people move the ball uncontested from one end to the other......then cough it up and flood back to defense as quickly as they can!!

Go and watch basketball Tosser

Mate, if I seriously thought footy was only ever going to be what you described I might agree with you. But there's no chance of it happening. That horrible uncontested stuff we all hate was part of the process, but it's not the finished product. The game is definitely opening up again and becoming more direct.

Guess I'm just more optimistic than I was a few seasons ago. Although I can understand why a Hawthorn fan might not be. That lazy zone defence stuff you guys play is just painful.

 

[Slacker]

The NRL trialled unlimited interchange and it received unanimous disapproval, and they quickly reverted back to limited interchange.

League is an interesting example as it is the ultimate flooding game, everyone is behind the ball. The only real excitement in this game tends to happen towards the end when the players are all buggered and/or have minor injuries. If they allowed fresh legs on the field all the time it would turn it into a grinding defensive bore.

AFL would see a similar effect IMO.

 

[Tas]

WTF??? What Leigh is saying is that you can use 6 interchange players but once someone is substituded, they are off for GOOD, like in soccer and stops coaches running players backsides off flooding then resting on the bench!!!! The rucks have to then rest in the forward pocket like they should be doing anyway.

Good idea IMHO

It is why players in soccer fall over and fake injuries so they can have a rest without being forced off.

Do we really want to follow codes we laugh at and are disgusted at how they play the game?

 

[Hawkers]

I'm a fan of unlimited interchange but not the amount of players on the interchange. Drop it back to two like it used to be

You still get all the benefits of unlimited interchange but you also need to conserve your players on the field

 

[Slacker]

It is why players in soccer fall over and fake injuries so they can have a rest without being forced off.

Do we really want to follow codes we laugh at and are disgusted at how they play the game?

Most of the time it is just play on when someone goes down. But yeah, I do vaguely remember a time when AFL players would regularly require the stretcher - it usually coincided with the other team getting a run on. When the hell was that?

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

I actually liked the way Matthews was thinking, and realistically th eEagles are one of the bigger beneficeries of the current system. With more quality midfielders, and depth, the greater the rotational power, and hence our ability to cme from behind and beat Carlton, Geelong, and overcome Collingwood, Melbourne and Hawthorn at the death last year. Simple logic really, if Judd, Kerr, Cousins, Fletcher, Embley etc etc can keep being rotated, and have played 65 minutes each coming into the last quarter against say a Collingwod midfield where their top few have to stay on the ground longer, fatigue will eventually be telling.

There were 5 games last year that I think the Eagles ability to keep midfielders fresh swayed in their favour. Then look at a game like the final between St Kilda and Melbourne. The longer than contest went, the further it moved into Melbourne's favour as wave after wave of rested player came at the 18 or so St Kilda players who hadn't been able to rest after the injuries they got early. Changed the entire game.

If you get cut down to 20 fit players early these days, you are in BIG trouble against a side that can keep rotating through a 4 man bench. The game has changed in such a way that you can't even give a ruckman or midfielder a decent rest in a pocket really, as with flooding etc, if you have 16 players in the opposition half as happens, all bar the FF and one other player are doing a pile of running.

 

[Dean3]

Haven't read the thread with a fine tooth comb, but just an idea from left field:

Keep the bench at 4 but have 2 as permanent replacements and 2 as interchangeable. So you choose 2 players (pre-designated) who can come on as a replacement for an injured or dud player, and 2 who can interchange freely.

Haven't really thought it thru but something like that might work.

 

[Father Jack]

Haven't read the thread with a fine tooth comb, but just an idea from left field:

Keep the bench at 4 but have 2 as permanent replacements and 2 as interchangeable. So you choose 2 players (pre-designated) who can come on as a replacement for an injured or dud player, and 2 who can interchange freely.

Haven't really thought it thru but something like that might work.

hey, a compromise between the new and old rules. might work. As the old adage says, the taller players don't get any shorter as the game goes on, nor do the bigger, better skilled, better readers of the play etc etc lose their edge, but the running players surely do get tired.

Its probably worth looking at, imo, possibly in the preseason, and get rid of the stupid supergoals.

 

[Beckers]

Mate, if I seriously thought footy was only ever going to be what you described I might agree with you. But there's no chance of it happening. That horrible uncontested stuff we all hate was part of the process, but it's not the finished product. The game is definitely opening up again and becoming more direct.

Guess I'm just more optimistic than I was a few seasons ago. Although I can understand why a Hawthorn fan might not be. That lazy zone defence stuff you guys play is just painful.

So you are happy for the mids to rotate 10 times a quarter off the bench after running from end to end so they can flood and block space with no real structure what so ever?
Or like the Rucks sitting it out on the pine instead of providing a tall option in the forward pocket?
Or players constantly running off the bench to blind side a contest on the wing?


The game would be much more interesting if the tired legs came into it in the last quarter so players knew they had to conserve energy along the way!! Adds the extra element of endurance to the game!