Sub Rule as a career prolonger?

[spuzzlord]

Could the sub rule have the effect of prolonging the career of some players by allowing them to become impact players off the bench?

Maybe Adam Goodes gets to the point where his body isnt up to the rigours of a full 4 quarter match every week, but as an impact player in the last quarter he could be pretty damn handy.

Of course this type of player would have to be able to run out a full game if required as well, but the question still remains, could the sub rule create a new specialist position which could prolong the careers of some players?

 

[thedaz47]

Facetious or not, Chris Judd certainly believes so.

 

[lamaros]

No.

Players have too much pride for that.

 

[DaVe86]

Nah I don't think it will.


I doubt any club is giong to have a designated sub. I think it will be a week by week prospect.

You can't have a guy in your 22 that isn't match fit and ready to play 100+ minutes.

If an injury happens in the first quarter, you need someone capable of playing the rest of the game.

As is the case is someone is a late withdrawal...you need your sub to step into your side.



I think it will be used as a means of preserving the star players in the 2nd half of the year in the lead-up to finals. However, I can't see it been used as a method of preserving older players through the end of their career.

 

[coryne]

Facetious or not, Chris Judd certainly believes so.

He was taking the piss out of a rule he think is crap .........................

 

[Byron_Clanger]

Don't think so, teams need the subs to make an immediate impact, not to lumber around and do nothing, ala Seaby

 

[jonoman89]

I think it gives 30+ year old players a bit of leeway. They can play for the first half or so then get subbed off. Should enable them to notch up a few more games.

But countering that, players who play the whole match will be more fatigued which could lead to more injuried and thus a shorter career.

 

[dumb]

could be cancelled out by the less time those 3 remaining bench players spend resting during rotations?

 

[coryne]

Teams also won't take a risk on players anymore. Look at Hawthorn with Hodge, Carlton with Bower, WCE with Kerr last week etc. There is no point going into a game with an underdone player/someone who can only play half a game as you would get caught out the moment ANYONE else got injured.

 

[UrLordUnbeliever]

Nah I think it will shorten players careers, tbh. Because of the reduced interchanges, teams with older players who have lost some speed and endurance will be given the chop because they're bringing the teams whole performance down.

 

[McCrann]

Could the sub rule have the effect of prolonging the career of some players by allowing them to become impact players off the bench?

Maybe Adam Goodes gets to the point where his body isnt up to the rigours of a full 4 quarter match every week, but as an impact player in the last quarter he could be pretty damn handy.

Of course this type of player would have to be able to run out a full game if required as well, but the question still remains, could the sub rule create a new specialist position which could prolong the careers of some players?

Not with 1 sub, but if they go to 2 or 3 subs next year or the year after, then in that situation there would be space for an impact player off the bench. You're very unlikely to suffer 3 serious injuries early in the game for instance.

With just the 1 sub though, its not likely.

 

[stmookeyj]

Teams also won't take a risk on players anymore. Look at Hawthorn with Hodge, Carlton with Bower, WCE with Kerr last week etc. There is no point going into a game with an underdone player/someone who can only play half a game as you would get caught out the moment ANYONE else got injured.

I'd just wait till the finals though, and see if they'll take the punt on them being the Sub knowing that there may not be a next week to rest them for.

 

[theboxmike]

Personally for NLM in our side i think it just might. He's the perfect Sub player in that he can play any position and do it decently. (perhaps not ruck that well.) He is the perfect Sub player for us.

 

[JADED]

I don't see the rule lasting a significant number of seasons anyway.
So far it's been used early on to cover injuries. As has been said above, you need a guy who can possibly play 100minutes.
If there were 4 on the bench + 1 SUB, then I could see it used as a token pre retirement position for guys like Embley, Kerr for us.

If I were to make the rules, there'd be 4 on the bench plus a SUB.
Would be nice if the sub (5th bench player) had to be a first or second year rookie.

 

[thedaz47]

He was taking the piss out of a rule he think is crap .........................

Perhaps you need to look up 'facetious' in your dictionary.

 

[Pessimistic]

Simon Taylor and a few other players probably have had their career shortened by the rule.

Ironically when the AFL needs more players to staff two new teams

 

[krusden]

No.

Players have too much pride for that.

some do, but if it came down to being a sub or being a great Two's player......

 

[UrLordUnbeliever]

Not with 1 sub, but if they go to 2 or 3 subs next year or the year after, then in that situation there would be space for an impact player off the bench. You're very unlikely to suffer 3 serious injuries early in the game for instance.

With just the 1 sub though, its not likely.

This is it, in a nutshell.
Only with more than 1 sub rule could it start being used to extend players' careers. Right now, every player in the lineup has to be 10% fitter and faster than they were last season, due to fewer interchanges. Which is much harder for blokes past the prime of their career, but with 3 interchanges and 2 subs it could start extending players careers instead of shortening them.

 

[telsor]

I don't see the rule lasting a significant number of seasons anyway.
So far it's been used early on to cover injuries. As has been said above, you need a guy who can possibly play 100minutes.
If there were 4 on the bench + 1 SUB, then I could see it used as a token pre retirement position for guys like Embley, Kerr for us.

If I were to make the rules, there'd be 4 on the bench plus a SUB.
Would be nice if the sub (5th bench player) had to be a first or second year rookie.

So why is 4 the magic number for the bench?

Why not 3 ( or 2 or 6 or 10)?

 

[pazza]

No doubt that it can be.

 

[XFactor1979]

It needed to change for last year! It came to a point where the Interchange bench was abused

I remember playing a game, and I was shunted onto the bench because I wasnt the greatest player, not because teams structure a rotation process and its a merry go round

2 subs and 2 interchange for next year!