Your teams Sub - who and why?

[WATTSJURRAHDUNN]

If I were to coach a side I'd think more laterally about the sub. Everyone seems to think having a utility is the option. Maybe someone who can pinch hit in the ruck, like a Paddy Ryder. I'd go the other way. Start with your best ruck and a back up, a Lynden Dunn type up forward. When Jamar needs a break or whoever your No.1 ruck is, move the forward to the ruck. Then as the game wears on bring in a dashing type. Someone who can really break the game open. Use your sub on a player you can add pace to an already tall side in order to help the team run the game out. If you go with a mid-tall you are conceding that your team will slow down in the second half. If you keep your team quick, you will give your already tall forwards more chance on the home straight. Just a thought, and some taps on a keyboard.

 

[lards]

Nathan Lovett-Murray for us is perfect since he can play all over over the ground. Unfortunately he is pretty shit so hopefully by the end of the year one of the younger lads can overtake him.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

the sub themselves don't necessarily need to be versatile, other than to say they won't be picked for a specific position (eg ruck)...I imagine coaches will implement a system whereby several players will be shifted on-field to accomodate the sub in any given circumstance...every team has several players who can play several positions, so it doesn't have to fall on the sub's shoulders...

other than that, the sub will be a fringe player (you wouldn't bench one of your best 16 players for no reason)...they may be someone who doesn't have the biggest tank, and ideally they'd be an impact player, someone who can change the contest/cause matchup probelms etc, just having someone as insurance, rather than attacking the opposition would be using the sub rule too conservatively, and would put you at a disadvantage if the opponent's coach utilizes the sub as a game-breaker...

I think the sub policy will change come finals as well, during the season I expect to see rookies/youngsters used as subs whereas in finals we'll probably see coaches go with experience

I think the sub rule adds an interesting element to footy, you'll see which coaches earn their salaries on game-day, there will be interesting moves made, some absolute masterstrokes and I'd assume we'll see some decisions that backfire...it'll definitely be a new area coaches can exploit, whatever the effect, it's interesting times ahead

 

[pazza]

Lovett-Murray for sure at Essendon.

6"3', can play as a tall defender, running defender, midfielder, crumbing forward or marking forward.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

As I said above...i don't see why the sub has to be flexible. I don't think coaches will use subs defensively for match-up purposes. I think coaches will use subs attackingly in the sense that an impact player can come on and turn a match.


If your down by 20 points, bringing on a utility isn't going to turn the game. Bringing on a Krakouer or Davis might, especially if they are completely fresh whilst other mids are tiring.

The counter argument to that of course is that if your plan is to be attacking - then surely you'd plan to be 20 points in front, not behind.

I actually think the sub will largely be older blokes or blokes coming back from injury. I'd rather a young recruit play a full game in the WAFL then 30 minutes as a sub. They aren't going to get miles in the legs by playing 1 quarter.

Embley is a decent option for WC. He's no longer the damaging player he once was - but perhaps coming on in the 3rd he might have the extra run that he once had - added to his alround ability (or inability)

 

[The OBSTacle]

One of the medium sized forwards.

Edwards, Warren or McKinley.

 

[Football Tragic]

For the Tigers the most likely choice is Matthew White - has electrifying pace and endurance which he can use for the last half of the game when the opposition midfielders are tiring.

The most interesting tactical phenomna for mine to watch this season is positional changes and how sides will rest ruckmen. I think the 2nd ruck will become an additional forward or 'tall midfielder' for this point on. Midfielders will rest in the forwardline which may mean less congestion around stoppages as a result.

I am very interested in how the rule changes the way the game is played because I feel it will make more of a difference as the season transpires and coaches adapt to it.

 

[strengthwithin]

I would like to see a 3 men named as Subs and the chocie be made during the game on which one gets a chance (much like soccer).

Would be a good way to:

A) Cover for injuries
B) Give assurances to defence if you're winning or bring on some x-factor if you're losing
C) Put a young player on for experience if you're winning by 50+ going into the final quarter
D) Make the game more tactical

 

[Swans120]

Didn't he place highly in your B&F? Doesn't make sense to leave one of your more effective players on the bench for a large chunk of the game IMO.

In 2009 he placed 2nd but last year (up until he moved into the middle of the ground to play as a tagger) he was way down on his form.

I doubt he will be our sub, but he proved he can play a bit all over the ground so was more a note on his versatility than his potential effectiveness as a sub.

Rohan or Everitt would be better suited I think.

 

[Silvagnis]

The sub isnt going to be one of your better players, as he's most likely going to only play a qtr and a bit.

He will be a runner than can add some fresh legs. Coaches arent going pick a guy for injuries because there wont be an injury more often than there is.

Feel the same way.

I can see the versatile and athletic Lucas being the substitute to replace someone like Robinson who could start.

Or vice versa.

Carrazzo has a huge motor, but I can't see him resting in the forwardline and being a contributor like the rest of our onballers. Will eventually be surpassed by players with superior disposal, decision making and more tricks up their sleeves.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I am not convinced you particularly need too much flexibility in a sub. I wouldn't name a utilty type just for the sake of it. I would use the 22nd player that would ordinarily be selected

Pretty much my thoughts. You want your best players available all match, regardless of position. Any utility used as a sub should be a fringe player. No point in having a gamebreaker off the bench when the game could be over by the time they get on.

 

[Quixote]

There will be all sorts of interesting interpretations of this one, from the various coaches. Looking forward to it.

For the Saints, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Tommy Walsh or Rhys Stanley type run on and cause havoc as a sub.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Lovett-Murray for sure at Essendon.

6"3', can play as a tall defender, running defender, midfielder, crumbing forward or marking forward.

Would have thought Lovett-Murray would be too valuable to the Dons to be a sub. He'd be first XVIII, wouldn't he?

 

[pazza]

Would have thought Lovett-Murray would be too valuable to the Dons to be a sub. He'd be first XVIII, wouldn't he?

He's on the fringe - probably has been passed in the roles he did play consistently in throughout the majority of his senior career.

 

[mysainters]

Jason Blake, can play multiple positions.

Before (saints supporters) argue that he is one of the first ones picked, I actually think it's likely that subs will play large portions of games and often.

I progressively saw his role diminish somewhat towards the end of 2010, when Dawson plays, he can struggle to find a good matchup.

In a sense this would give him a new role and purpose.

 

[Falchoon]

Jason Blake, can play multiple positions.

Before (saints supporters) argue that he is one of the first ones picked, I actually think it's likely that subs will play large portions of games and often.

I progressively saw his role diminish somewhat towards the end of 2010, when Dawson plays, he can struggle to find a good matchup.

In a sense this would give him a new role and purpose.

Blake's biggest strength is his tank, you're more likely to see an impact player like Armitage come off the bench for a Hayes/Baker/McQualter.

 

[IheartCarrots]

Marcus Davies. A 188cm running defender who can play tall, small or midfield.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I'm thinking the sub will be a runner, someone who has good pace and can provide real burst impact but probably can't run out a full game (whether that's because of injuries, lack of preparation, or a naturally low endurance base etc).

For us I'd probably say that means young Steven Motlop.

Duncan or Menzel could also be options because of their positional versatility, but they should be in the best 21 (as should Mackie if he responds well to his finals rocket) and probably will be.

I also think as regards this thread no team will have a specific sub, yes certain players are more likely than others, and as has been pointed out, rucks are automatically excluded, but as the sub will play less than a half most weeks, the conditioning people won't want that to be the same person all the time because they'll lose a lot of fitness base over 2 or 3 months.

So most teams will rotate the sub between about half a dozen players (maybe even more) across the whole season.

 

[Obeanie1]

One of the medium sized forwards.

Edwards, Warren or McKinley.

McKinely would in interesting.

Not super fast but can kick goals and does well out positioning opponents forward. Wants to play more of a midfield role as well so his lack of pace would be offset by his opponent tiring late in the game.

 

[johncitizen]

Chris Tarrant = Versatile.

 

[Quigley]

Polec I am thinking.

As he showed in the SANFL finals he is not afraid to run himself into the ground in a half off football and he can come on and impact a game. He would be ideal as a sub as he doesn't yet have the tank to do it for a full game.

 

[Morro]

Polec I am thinking.

As he showed in the SANFL finals he is not afraid to run himself into the ground in a half off football and he can come on and impact a game. He would be ideal as a sub as he doesn't yet have the tank to do it for a full game.

I personally am really looking forward to how the sub is used and am yet to form an opinion based on anything but BF views from fellow posters.

As stated by Quigley, I wouldnt be suprised to see the sub being used on youngsters to drip feed them into the rigours of AFL.

This being said, maybe a Conca for the Tigers, can play anywhere and as the game slows late, his disposal could really hurt.

 

[captain peanut]

tyson goldsack at the pies. he is the prototype for the new sub rule. tall enough to pinch hit in a key position down back, mobile enough to play on smalls down back or as a defensive half forward, and capable of having a run through the midfield if required

 

[Darkdayz]

tyson goldsack at the pies. he is the prototype for the new sub rule. tall enough to pinch hit in a key position down back, mobile enough to play on smalls down back or as a defensive half forward, and capable of having a run through the midfield if required

I see where your coming from but I don't necessarily think it will pan out like most people think it will. I honestly think a lot of the footy public are thinking too narrowly. I mean its all good to have a player that is super versatile but it would be crazy to sub a starting 22 player just because he is a utility and its equally as ludicrous to push a fringe or young player in. The example from the OP works embers I don't believe can run out a game at full flight anymore, however the question would be if you bring him in at say half time will be able to match the tempo of the game at his age.

lets take my team for example. 2010 2nd GF team:We all know that at some stage Reid hurt his leg and was pretty restricted, aka perfect example of the need for a sub rule. Now naturally we would all say Goldsack would probably have been used as the sub. And yes he does do the job, a luxury that the pies have over most. But what if it was GF1 and leon was in and Reid went down? I mean the sub still works out, leon would go foward and Mcaffer/Brown goes back.

IMO I seriously think its a lot more beneficial to have the versatile players start then to sub them on. A lot of the time people are thinking the sub can be used as a string board, but how many times do we see half fit bench. It a hell of a lot easier to just bring on a midfielder who can make an impact then a medium sized bloke who is only a fringe player who more often then not struggles to get any momentum on a game.

 

[The OBSTacle]

A player like Majak Daw is also ideally suited to a sub role.

He can ruck, run at midfielder pace and take a mark.