The Sub

[Buddy and Roughy]

Fantastic year by Hawthorn and a cracking performance tonight we should all be very proud of the club's efforts.

Just thought i'd note one aspect i think Hawthorn really stuffed up in September; the sub. Throughout the year, it appeared as though Hawthorn had mastered the new rule by bringing in a running player or forward who generally had a big impact on the last quarter; Luke Breust was used particularly effectively in this role. In the finals though, the Hawks' selection of Bateman against Geelong and Suckling against Sydney and Collingwood as the subs were puzzling decisions (particularly Suckling) and ultimately ineffectual. At 3 quarter time tonight i really wanted Breust to be the sub coming into the game; not Suckling who either should have been a starting player or omitted. To me it makes much more sense to have the player substituting into the game at around 3 quarter time to be a forward or midfielder than a player who predominately plays in the backline; the game is there to be won so you want an enigmatic forward or a fresh midfielder to enter the game. Thoughts?

 

[Hawkzzz]

Fantastic year by Hawthorn and a cracking performance tonight we should all be very proud of the club's efforts.

Just thought i'd note one aspect i think Hawthorn really stuffed up in September; the sub. Throughout the year, it appeared as though Hawthorn had mastered the new rule by bringing in a running player or forward who generally had a big impact on the last quarter; Luke Breust was used particularly effectively in this role. In the finals though, the Hawks' selection of Bateman against Geelong and Suckling against Sydney and Collingwood as the subs were puzzling decisions (particularly Suckling) and ultimately ineffectual. At 3 quarter time tonight i really wanted Breust to be the sub coming into the game; not Suckling who either should have been a starting player or omitted. To me it makes much more sense to have the player substituting into the game at around 3 quarter time to be a forward or midfielder than a player who predominately plays in the backline; the game is there to be won so you want an enigmatic forward or a fresh midfielder to enter the game. Thoughts?

Yep I agree, in part. The only hard part was that Stratton was back and everyone else looked settled in their positions. Especially after our win vs Sydney. Can you suggest something because I really don't know.

Bruest was not finals ready yet and he is not a midfielder. Great year from him, though.

My feeling is that Savage was the one they should have played. Especially during the last few home and away games. He always plays better in the seniors than VFL. He may have been the ideal sub, but who knows...

 

[PottSie2]

Agree with the OP. Bruest has performed excellently throughout the year, and people are happy to indicate he is not finals ready after 1 poor game, or even Savage to give us run.

Anyway, so many what-ifs ....

 

[grizzlym]

Fantastic year by Hawthorn and a cracking performance tonight we should all be very proud of the club's efforts.

Just thought i'd note one aspect i think Hawthorn really stuffed up in September; the sub. Throughout the year, it appeared as though Hawthorn had mastered the new rule by bringing in a running player or forward who generally had a big impact on the last quarter; Luke Breust was used particularly effectively in this role. In the finals though, the Hawks' selection of Bateman against Geelong and Suckling against Sydney and Collingwood as the subs were puzzling decisions (particularly Suckling) and ultimately ineffectual. At 3 quarter time tonight i really wanted Breust to be the sub coming into the game; not Suckling who either should have been a starting player or omitted. To me it makes much more sense to have the player substituting into the game at around 3 quarter time to be a forward or midfielder than a player who predominately plays in the backline; the game is there to be won so you want an enigmatic forward or a fresh midfielder to enter the game. Thoughts?

Your point re Breust is a salient one. If ever there was a game to play him as a sub and ease him into finals footy, was that first final against the Cats. And then we drop him, based on that game, and lose our second highest goal scorer for the year.

Yes, I think we could have done better with the sub.

 

[Buddy and Roughy]

Yep I agree, in part. The only hard part was that Stratton was back and everyone else looked settled in their positions. Especially after our win vs Sydney. Can you suggest something because I really don't know.

Agree that none of the players from the Sydney game really warranted being dropped. But of those 22 players, i don't think it was advantageous to select Suckling as the substitute; he either should have been a starting player or omitted for Breust/Savage.

Bruest was not finals ready yet and he is not a midfielder. Great year from him, though.

i don't understand this sentiment. If Smith, Puopolo, Suckling, Whitecross are all considered finals ready than why not Breust, Hawthorn's second highest goalscorer for the year? Sure, he had one bad game against Geelong but so did plenty of other players. i think a better option would have been to keep him in the side and play as the sub against Sydney.

My feeling is that Savage was the one they should have played. Especially during the last few home and away games. He always plays better in the seniors than VFL. He may have been the ideal sub, but who knows...

Yeah Savage would have been a fantastic sub as well coming on last night.

 

[walhawk]

Yes, but whaT if we got an injury in the first quarter.'Bruest will be a star but he can only play one position and lacks endurance and intensity.
Not why we lost.

 

[seysearles]

I was sure Clarkson was going to sub Bateman off who had been disposing of the ball really badly and appeared to be slowing down. In hindsite i think he should have. Youre right though, a Bruest in that final term would have been very handy. In fact although admittedly underdone I think Savage would have been a great sub last night. Someone to push fwd and break lines is what we were missing in the last qtr. I still cant believe we lost that game

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

In hindsight, if you knew the game would unfold like that, Savage or Breust would have been better subs than Suckling. Suckling was a safer choice from the start of the game.

Suckling isn't really an impact player and that is probably what we needed in the end. a burst player to have an immediate impact.

 

[whiteTiga2k]

I think subbing Whitecross off was the wrong move. Was very accountable on Maxwell. That lost us the game really... so disappointed at the moment

 

[Paul Kersey]

I think subbing Whitecross off was the wrong move. Was very accountable on Maxwell. That lost us the game really... so disappointed at the moment

Yes, Bateman kicking to a free Maxwell in the last.

 

[King Elvis]

Poor use of the Sub arguably cost you the game.

Which I absolutely hate - it's one of my issues with the sub since day one.

Why should a game be decided on a tactical decision which has nothing to do with the actual game?

You guys busted your arse all game, something that isn't part of the actual onfield game of footy should not be a deciding factor in a final - it's bullshit.

Not only that, the purpose of the sub is to cover for injuries, right?

Well, Jolly and Reid were both injured; but the Pies didn't sub them off - because it'd be more harmful than helpful.

The rule is a joke.

 

[Unknown Man No89]

Subbing a HBF for a HFF, was there an element of trying to save the game instead of trying to win it?

 

[xellis]

I think the plan was to bring Suckling on and release Burgoyne onto the ball. Burgoyne was playing really well where he was and seemed stuffed by the time he went onto the ball.

Sub should be used to bring fresh legs onto the ball, not release tired legs.

Wrong choice for mine.

 

[bards]

Our game is based around precise kicking to free players. The players get free by running their butts off. This takes a toll. To have a sub on the bench for more than three quarters doesn't make sense. I know most clubs dont sub too early in case there is an injury, but with our running style, we needed to roll the dice. Plan that say, Bateman, will be subbed off. Reduce the number of rotations he gets, knowing that he only needs to get to 15 minutes into the third. This gives every other player more rotations. Then get the sub in at the 15 minute mark, and make them run out the game as much as possible, again allowing more bench time for the players playing the whole game. I agree that Suckling isn't really suited to the roll, but who else would we have as the sub? Ideally it needs to be a midfielder, but then you are down on rotations for longer.

 

[seysearles]

i think the plan was to bring suckling on and release burgoyne onto the ball. Burgoyne was playing really well where he was and seemed stuffed by the time he went onto the ball.

Sub should be used to bring fresh legs onto the ball, not release tired legs.

Wrong choice for mine.

^ ^ this ^ ^