One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on July 30, 2010, 05:36:55 AM
-
Split bench mooted
* Mark Stevens and Jackie Epstein
* Herald Sun
* July 30, 2010
A SWITCH to three interchange players and a single substitute has emerged as an option as debate rages about capping rotations.
The move is one of several scenarios the AFL will put to clubs as it seeks stuff on the issue.
A drop from the four to three "live" players on the bench would restrict rotation options.
Any substitute could only replace a player who is off the ground for the rest of the game.
Injury would obviously bring the substitute into play, but it is unclear whether a player could be "subbed" off early if he was having a bad day.
Some clubs feel it is more likely the AFL will place a straight cap on bench moves.
But there is concern there could be a combination of a cap and three/one split on the interchange bench.
AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson did not rule out the three interchange/one substitute option when the Herald Sun put it to him, but he stopped short of saying it was in the mix ahead of next month's Laws of the Game Committee meeting.
Anderson simply said there were many options under consideration.
Coaches continue to speak out on the cap debate, with Richmond's Damien Hardwick yesterday declaring the future of Ben Cousins could hinge on whether there is a limit.
North Melbourne coach Brad Scott condemned the cap, warning it could turn the game into a "circus".
Hardwick said he wanted to know now what changes the AFL would implement so he can plan for next year.
"That's something we'll have to weigh up (about Cousins) and that's why we'd like to know earlier rather than later," Hardwick said.
"The four interchange players has allowed you to play guys a little bit older but the speed of the game can also take that away.
"It's on a knife edge either way. From our point of view all we want is to be informed about which way it's going."
The AFL is set to restrict the number of interchange rotations teams can make, despite the opposition of other coaches including Carlton's Brett Ratten, Collingwood's Mick Malthouse and the Western Bulldogs' Rodney Eade.
Cousins, 32, is hoping to play on and has bounced back well after a health scare.
Scott said the AFL had presented North with evidence that he described as "flimsy at best" relating increased interchanges to more injuries.
"We could get into a situation where it's really, really messy," he said.
"If we pluck an arbitrary figure of 80 rotations per game, which is 20 a quarter, and if we get to the 25 minute mark in a quarter and we've had our 20 rotations and there's a guy limping around in the forward pocket, what do we do?
"Do we take him off, do we leave him on, if we take him off what penalty do we get for going over our 20?
"If they allow for an injury, what's an injury? He could get a knock (and) we're not sure whether he's injured or not. It will be an absolute nightmare."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/split-bench-mooted/story-e6frf9jf-1225898708789
-
Substitutes in for 2011
By Adam McNicol
12:15 PM Mon 04 Oct, 2010
AFL TEAMS will have three interchange players and one substitute on their benches in 2011 after the League acted to curb the dramatic rise in the number of rotations during matches.
The new rule, which was trialled in the 2009 and 2010 NAB Cup competitions, will allow clubs to introduce their substitute into games at any time, but the player who is replaced cannot return to the field.
"Interchange numbers per club have doubled from an average of 58 per game in 2007 to 117 per game in 2010," AFL football operations manager and chairman of the laws of the game committee Adrian Anderson said.
The AFL has cited three reasons - congestion, fairness and injuries - for changing the interchange rules for the first time since the fourth bench player was added in 1998.
"The use of interchange has created more congestion, more stoppages, more defensive pressure and has contributed to a drop in disposal efficiency," Anderson said.
"The laws committee was also concerned about the increasing effect of the interchange on match fairness.
"The interchange was originally designed to help teams when they had an injury, but was increasingly a disadvantage to a team with an injury, because it was unable to rotate their players as much as the opposition.
"The medical advice was also telling us that a restriction should be applied to try to arrest the current injury trend."
The league has made two other changes for the 2011 season.
The advantage rule trialled in this year's pre-season NAB Cup competition, whereby the player not the umpire determines whether there is an advantage in playing on after a free kick, will be introduced.
In addition, the rule on head high bumps has been clarified.
A player who elects to apply a bump in any situation can now expect to be reported if he makes forceful contact with the head, unless:
- the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball
- the contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not be reasonably foreseen.
The laws committee did not recommend any change to the game's scoring system, nor any change to the length of quarters.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/103656/default.aspx
-
Interesting. The club was certain they would go with 2-2.
-
This is a rediculous decision which would have been recommended on by the very clubs that have most abused the interchange process. Reducing the amount of players that can interchange will reduce the amount of interchanges initially but will not curb the frantic process at all. In fact it could be argued it will increase it with fewer players able to swap during the game so the more changes that would need to be made. If the AFL was serious about changing the way the interchange is being used they should have placed a cap on the amount of interchanges made and/or more substitutes ie 2/2 split.
I can't see this changing much at all other than add an extra interesting dimension to the game as to what type of player to have as a substitute and when they will be introduced. This is a similar rule to Soccer.
Stripes
-
You never know, this may be part of a plan to phase into a 2+2 arrangement, they will dip their toe in the water with 3+1 and see how it goes from there.
In a way, given they were always going to make a change, this is probably the best of the methods provided
-
does not go far enough as usual anderson lacks the courage of his convictions. im sure malthouse and maguires bleating had them only do half a job.
-
WHAT A JOKE!
THIS WILL CAUSE MORE INJURIES!
BIG poo IF INTERCHANGES ARE OVER 150 PER MATCH!
BIG stuffing poo!
WHAT HAPPENES IF TWO PLAYERS GET INJURIED DURING THE MATCH?
stuffing JOKE AFL! THIS IS A RULE THAT DID NOT NEED TO BE CHANGED!
PLAYERS WILL NOT ENJOY THIS RULE!
THOSE PLAYERS THAT ARE A SUB, THEY WILL NOT ENJOY PLAYING 20-30 MINUTES PER MATCH!
Edit: swearing
-
WHAT A JOKE!
THIS WILL CAUSE MORE INJURIES!
BIG stuffing poo IF INTERCHANGES ARE OVER 150 PER MATCH!
BIG stuffing poo!
WHAT HAPPENES IF TWO PLAYERS GET INJURIED DURING THE MATCH?
stuffing JOKE AFL! THIS IS A RULE THAT DID NOT NEED TO BE CHANGED!
PLAYERS WILL NOT ENJOY THIS RULE!
THOSE PLAYERS THAT ARE A SUB, THEY WILL NOT ENJOY PLAYING 20-30 MINUTES PER MATCH!
They use one of their interchange players.
:thumbsup
-
WHAT A JOKE!
THIS WILL CAUSE MORE INJURIES!
BIG stuffing poo IF INTERCHANGES ARE OVER 150 PER MATCH!
BIG stuffing poo!
WHAT HAPPENES IF TWO PLAYERS GET INJURIED DURING THE MATCH?
stuffing JOKE AFL! THIS IS A RULE THAT DID NOT NEED TO BE CHANGED!
PLAYERS WILL NOT ENJOY THIS RULE!
THOSE PLAYERS THAT ARE A SUB, THEY WILL NOT ENJOY PLAYING 20-30 MINUTES PER MATCH!
They use one of their interchange players.
:thumbsup
Yes, correct.
However, they brought this rule in, not just for the interchange, but they (The AFL) want "fairness".
That would still make it 2 v 3. My point is that it is really something that did not need changing.
That situation of 2 v 3 will happen during match reguardless.
The AFL are worring about stupid things like this instead of worring about how to expand our great game everywhere around Australia and the world.
Plus, that poor player who will only play 20-30 minutes of a Grand Final, come 2011!
Leave the game how it was!
-
why not just have 4 on the bench still and 3 "subs" who were previously the emergencies? so what if teams are doing 100+ interchanges per game, if it keeps the players fresh then so be it.
-
should have just capped it.
-
AFL Football has become a joke. Next we will see a breakaway league :pray
-
Should've have been 2 + 2.
-
Goodbye specialised 2nd ruckman. You won't be able to carry two anymore. In the old days when there was only subs you could as back then the ruckman was plonked in a forward pocket or even two/three interchange in the 80s/90s with in defence a kick behind the play. Now days with forwards needing to chase and apply forward defensive pressure a lumbering 2nd ruck is a liability. A 2nd ruck could be the "sub" as a spare ruckman but then they are just a back-up whereas going with a small "sub" is more flexible and could be used as a damaging burst player in the second half when the game slows down.
Interesting to see who we eventually use as our "sub". Maybe a skillful young ballwinner who hasn't yet built up his full endurance yet to play 4 quarters.
-
The AFL's red-vest rule
By Jennifer Witham
1:57 PM Mon 31 Jan, 2011
CLUBS will not have to wait for a break in play or an injury to occur before activating the new interchange rule when it is introduced in the 2011 home and away season.
Coaches will be able to make their one substitute per game, which replaces the fourth member of the interchange bench, at any time during play.
Clubs will need to officially name their substitute - who will wear a green vest while on the bench - when the final teams are lodged 90 minutes before the bounce.
"It's not required that there's an injury; there will be three interchange players as per normal and one will be the substitute," AFL general manager of operations Adrian Anderson said on Monday.
"When the substitute comes onto the ground, the player that comes off - the substituted player - can no longer take any part in the game."
The teams, spectators and media will be informed of an activated substitute via the scoreboard and the player coming off will don a red vest.
Penalties will apply to teams that don’t follow the procedures that were outlined to clubs on Monday morning.
"It depends on the nature of the error but if for example like with the normal interchange there are too many players on the ground or they haven't notified the interchange steward, then a free kick and a 50m penalty can apply," Anderson said.
"If it’s a procedural error, then financial sanctions can apply."
The rule was announced at the start of October after the Laws Committee decided to tackle growing concerns surrounding congestion, fairness and increasing injuries.
Anderson said he expected the clubs to positively accept the details of how the rule would be enforced.
"The main news has already arrived in terms of the guts of what's going to happen and how it's going to work," he said.
"This is really about the details of operationally how it's going to work on match day so I'm sure the clubs will work through that in the professional manner they usually do."
The Toyota AFL Premiership Season gets under on Thursday March 24 with Carlton versus Richmond at the MCG.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/107121/default.aspx
-
I can just see an AFL official stopping an injured player and making him put his red vest on before going to the rooms or hospital. :banghead :help
But who wears it when he is gone?? The mascot??
-
I can just see an AFL official stopping an injured player and making him put his red vest on before going to the rooms or hospital. :banghead :help
But who wears it when he is gone?? The mascot??
The player will need to wear it all the way into the operating theatre and an AFL official must be on hand at all surgeries to ensure that the red vest is not removed. A failure to keep the vest on during surgery will result in a free kick in opposition's forward 50m. :banghead
-
The player who will be the substitute is to be named 90 minutes prior to the start of a match and he must wear a green vest whenever he goes onto the arena from the time that 90 minute threshold starts even if he's still wearing a suit and tie or tracksuit.
The player who is substituted off during a match must put on a red vest.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/green-light-for-subs-on-bench/story-e6frf9jf-1226014396119
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/nice-look-on-a-suit-for-subs/story-e6frf9jf-1226014397755
-
what an absolute crock of poo this is! i feel sorry for the substitute player! extend the bench by one! have five players on the bench!
-
If we had 5 interchange players on the bench rotations would probably reach 200 a game :help. The only issues with the sub is working out what type of player is best suited for that role (ruck, KPP or midfielder) to maximise the benefit to the whole team and that you would need to rotate the sub every few weeks so that player doesn't lose fitness being stuck on the bench for what could be most of a game each week.
-
what an absolute crock of poo this is! i feel sorry for the substitute player! extend the bench by one! have five players on the bench!
:lol Didn't play footy back in the 70's did you Torch. :lol
It was a double-edged sword. Dragged and that was it for the day but on a cold winters afternoon with the rain almost turning to snow, being first into the showers that only stayed hot for 5 minutes was a blessing.
-
what an absolute crock of poo this is! i feel sorry for the substitute player! extend the bench by one! have five players on the bench!
:lol Didn't play footy back in the 70's did you Torch. :lol
It was a double-edged sword. Dragged and that was it for the day but on a cold winters afternoon with the rain almost turning to snow, being first into the showers that only stayed hot for 5 minutes was a blessing.
;D
Yep our last premiership captain was a substitute on GF day and Royce Hart was a sub in the 1973 PF and turned around a 6 goal half-time deficit on our way to the flag.
-
Pretty sure the they were interchanges on the bench not substitutes in 1980. I think the change happened late 70's
I read somewhere not that long ago that Monteath went into the game injured and spent a long time on the interchange bench, so that could be why you have the impression he was a substitute MT?
-
One sub hasn't even tested in a real game yet and Adrian Anderson is already looking at two subs ???
----------------------------------------------------------------
AFL to consider two subs
Michael Gleeson
March 19, 2011
THE AFL is looking at an even more radical overhaul of the interchange next year, including cutting the bench to just two players with two substitutes, in the event that the new rules introduced this year fail.
Football operations manager Adrian Anderson surprised and dismayed the AFL captains on Thursday when he told them that if the rule changes introduced this year - under which the bench is reduced to three players with one more substitute for a player who cannot return to the ground - did not have the effect they wanted, they would look at the more dramatic "two and two" rule.
The captains laughed at the suggestion, having expected that if this year's rule - which they oppose - proved a failure then previous bench arrangement of four players with unlimited interchanges would be reintroduced.
In a combative meeting, the captains challenged the new rule and, in particular, the way it had been introduced without trial.
Essendon captain Jobe Watson queried Anderson about not doing appropriate due diligence before making the change. When Anderson protested that the use through the NAB Cup of a bench of six players including two substitutes was a suitable trial, Watson interjected that that was "bulls--t". Watson, Chris Judd, Nick Riewoldt, Nick Maxwell, Cameron Ling, Matthew Pavlich, and Adam Goodes were the most vocal in condemning the new rule and raised the idea that far from preventing injuries, the change was likely to lead to more fatigue injuries.
The captains met league football bosses on Thursday ahead of the official AFL launch. AFL coaches also met the AFL, but the issue of the reduced interchange bench was not raised by the league, which updated the coaches on other football matters.
Not all coaches are opposed to the rule change and some have spoken out in favour of the move, though the opponents have been more strident. North Melbourne coach Brad Scott last weekend called the new rule a "disaster".
"I'm staggered that we spend our time in the coach's box now managing and mitigating fatigue and injury," Scott said after last weekend's practice game, in which he was forced to leave sore players on the ground.
"This rule was supposed to be introduced under the guise of player health and safety. Well, we're going to see injured players having to stay out on the ground, otherwise you'll be playing with 17 men."
The captains' criticism of the AFL on the rule change was unconnected to the ongoing collective bargaining agreement negotiations but was nonetheless a measure of the level of angst among players over the way they feel they have been disregarded by the AFL in recent years.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-to-consider-two-subs-20110318-1c0n7.html
-
How many times have we heard a rule was going to be determental to the game with coaches, players and media alike bagging a rule before anyone has even had an opportunity to get used to it. ::)I remember all the song and dance people went through with the whole rushed behind rules, center circle rule for the ruck, etc etc. I heard there was strong opposition when the kicking out of bounds rule was first introduced too!
I'm not saying this will be remembered as a positive rule but if it reduces the way teams zone now and allows more freedom and flow of ball. I would be wrapped. I notice it is predominately the captains from the clubs who have been very successful abusing the interchange to date who are most vocal in their disapproval. Newman has remained quite to date....what that means, well lets hope the rule change assists our log kicking game plan :thumbsup
Stripes
-
I'm all for having four subs.
That would put a stop to all this rotation nonsense.
:thumbsup
-
what an absolute crock of poo this is! i feel sorry for the substitute player! extend the bench by one! have five players on the bench!
:lol Didn't play footy back in the 70's did you Torch. :lol
It was a double-edged sword. Dragged and that was it for the day but on a cold winters afternoon with the rain almost turning to snow, being first into the showers that only stayed hot for 5 minutes was a blessing.
nope, wasn't born!
-
I'm all for having four subs.
That would put a stop to all this rotation nonsense.
:thumbsup
Yep.
-
not sure if i like the idea of four subs....but it would probably lengthen the careers of players.
Perhaps 4 subs per quarter?
-
all we need now is for the afl to get some real balls take it back to 2 interchange and 2 subs and say hello to contested footy again.
-
all we need now is for the afl to get some real balls take it back to 2 interchange and 2 subs and say hello to contested footy again.
You have never spoken a more wise word Claw. :thumbsup
-
all we need now is for the afl to get some real balls take it back to 2 interchange and 2 subs and say hello to contested footy again.
You have never spoken a more wise word Claw. :thumbsup
Completely agree. The AFL only increased the bench size at the urging of Sheedy when he had depth to burn in his squad and wanted to expose other teams for bredth of talent. It all comes down to how we want the game to be played and I don't think there are many spectators out there supporting any rules that assist teams in defensive tactics that prevent the best elements of the game being utilized less. When the game game turns into scrums, errors, chip kicking and endless stoppages over one on one contests, high marking, run and carry, long kicking and incredible skillful individual feats then something needs to be changes.
Any way floods and zones can be reduced or broken is a great move by me and 2 subs and 2 interchange players seems like a great start. :thumbsup
-
An article about Newy and the sub rule.....
Tuesday on my mind
By Geoff Slattery
Wed 06 Apr, 2011
TUESDAY is a regular day for AFL players to be wheeled out to face the media. It's far enough away from the previous round, and not too close to selection day, thus allowing for broad discussions, and the occasional debate.
Such a relaxed state allows broadcasters, scribes, analysts, Tweeters, Facebookers, and whoever else is alert to the moment to listen, interpret, and find perhaps a little of the truth of what makes a player, and what views that player has on the game.
This Tuesday after a very broad press conference in which a change of role and expectation was revealed by veteran Port Adelaide performer Chad Cornes, he also let fly on the new interchange rule; later in the day I heard the more measured views of Richmond captain Chris Newman on the same topic.
This was Cornes' position: "I just can't see any benefit in it [the rule] at all. I think it's ridiculous, actually."
On Melbourne radio 3AW, Newman was asked whether he would have supported the concept of a sit-in as a protest against the rule, a concept apparently floated by Essendon captain Jobe Watson, and supported, in principle, on the same radio show by Sydney's Jude Bolton the previous day. Newman's response was a carefully, considered, a polite 'No'.
His connected discussion suggested that all clubs would prefer that the rule had not changed, but that it was causing more stress to the coaching staff than it was to the players. He said: "As a player we have to accept it, and move on."
Newman then noted the key point of this debate that seems to have been lost in all the emotion of the moment: "We have to let it pan out, and see how it goes. Where the AFL takes it at the end of the year, we're yet to know."
Two experienced players, two opposite views.
One has taken the route that has caused many successful companies to fall over - 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'; the other has provided some sense to the discussion, while accepting the view that the reasons the AFL have put in the process of change (reducing congestion, limiting high speed collisions, attempting fairness when injury strikes) are reasonable for any managing body.
Not just reasonable, but fundamental to their multiple roles of lawmakers, keepers of the code, and HR managers to more than 700 players.
There have been other reflections like that of Newman, most notably from four-time premiership coach Leigh Matthews, who put it in very simple terms on afl.com.au recently: "The first significant impact of the new system is that this year footy is a game played between two 21-man sides instead of two 22-man sides."
A basic position, hardly considered in any debates I have heard on this rule: the AFL has returned to the future, by reducing the numbers of players from 22 to 21. Simple really, but overlooked as clubs and coaches attempt to replicate with 21 what they had with 22.
Thus the stress on the coaching and sports science staff: do you pick the same player who would have been the fourth interchange player in 2010? Or is the player a pinch-hitter, able to play short, tall, quick, slow, forward back - if such a player exists?
Or is it the view put forward by Collingwood assistant Mark Neeld, also on Tuesday, that hard runners like Dane Swan may be better to have a week or two off through the year to conserve their energy.
Newman made one other point that should not be overlooked. He noted that he did not believe enough had been done to trial the rule before it was introduced to the premiership season.
The fact is that such a fundamental change of player management cannot be trialled effectively, as the usual trial grounds - pre-season games and practice matches - are always going to be less important than AFL matches.
The decision-making of coaches in a match played for premiership points is poles apart from the decision-making in pre-season matches, whether the NAB Cup or NAB Challenge, even if the decision is notionally the same.
The mere fact that many clubs are using these games as training grounds for their assistants underlines that point.
It is not possible to replicate "the moment" in an AFL match in which the decision to switch a player into the red vest is made, in any environment other than the real thing.
To understand that point is to consider playing a stock market game, in which you "invest" a bank of play money, against that moment when you are using real money, and making the choice to go long on BHP. Only the latter really matters.
The Cornes' position is one taken regularly by those of us who are impacted by change but rarely have the opportunity to have seen the data or to have understood the trends and the reasons why change is imperative.
The role of the AFL has always been to manage change to the way the game is played; even in the earliest days of Australian football regular meetings were held between members of the Melbourne Football Club, then the nominal controlling body, to vary the laws written in 1858.
Many changes were made in that first, evolutionary decade.
That role has extended beyond law-making to include player safety and the way the game is played and viewed - the fundamentals behind the change to the interchange.
The debate will roll on, as these things always do when change occurs. Rounds will come and go, teams will be apparently disadvantaged, 21 will play 21, data will roll in and players will be rolled out.
The season will end, the debate will take another level, and the AFL will do what it must do.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111011/default.aspx
-
System that punishes the weak
Stephen Rielly
The Australian
April 23, 2011
THE AFL appears to be succeeding in its quest to halt the number of players passing through the interchange gate, but may be handing a competitive advantage to the stronger teams in the competition by doing so.
The sharp rises in interchange numbers in recent seasons which concerned the AFL hierarchy sufficiently for it to reduce the bench by one this year and introduce a substitute have levelled off.
The average interchange rate per team in 2010 was 117.4. This year, admittedly after only four rounds, the figure is 115.9.
Fearful of a climb to figures approaching 150, and the consequences of a game kept blisteringly quick by such rapid rotations, the AFL also appears to have slowed the average speed of matches.
GPS data from several clubs indicates that in 2011 players are covering more ground than in 2010 and working harder to do so but at a slower rate than they were last year. The league argued, when it introduced the changes, that a slower pace would reduce the incidence and severity of high impact collisions. While this is contested by many clubs, particularly by sports science staff who see a spike in soft tissue injuries coming, an unforeseen by-product of the changes may be emerging.
The teams with the highest interchange rates are, for the most part, the teams in the top eight and the most powerful of last year. If not, they are, like Essendon, a side that has not only improved significantly but bucked the trend and pushed its interchange numbers significantly higher this season.
Undefeated Collingwood, a pioneer of the interchange movement, has refused to yield. While its numbers have not risen, they remain, at 123 per match, above the competition average. A statistical analysis of Geelong, a team predicted to decline this year but to date undefeated, indicates that the one major change new coach Chris Scott has introduced is a significant rise in the use of the interchange bench.
The Cats, under former coach Mark Thompson, who preferred to keep his players "in" a game, averaged 106 rotations per match last year. Under Scott, the number has risen to 124.
A corollary appears to exist.
Seven of the top eight sides in the competition happen to be the highest interchanging teams -- Sydney being the exception -- which, to some, suggests that the league has inadvertently created a competitive disadvantage for the weaker and younger sides, with their fewer stars and greater number of physically immature players being forced to remain on the ground longer than they once would have.
"That's the scenario that worries me," says Bulldogs coach Rodney Eade, who has been a very public critic of the new system.
"I accept that there are positives. When (Jarrad) Waite went down in the first quarter against Richmond, he came out of the game and Carlton basically played out the match with 21 against 21. The same when (Joel) Selwood went down (against St Kilda). It was 21 against 21 for a long time, which is fairer.
"But more is now being asked of the players. They're being forced to stay on the ground longer, which the AFL will say is good, but if it's tough for a very good player who has the cumulative benefit of multiple pre-seasons, how do you reckon it is for younger players? And teams with lots of young players?
"For Gold Coast, it's absolutely diabolical. They had three players cramping last weekend and one of them, (Michael) Coad, is sent back on and he tears his hamstring from the bone."
The Bulldogs are the highest rotating team and have defiantly gone higher this year, from 131 in 2010 to 139. Many things went wrong for the Dogs in round one, when they were mauled by Essendon, but chief among them was a lack of interchange action, according to Eade.
"They rotated a lot and we didn't rotate enough. I think we were 20 or 30 down on our average," he said.
To defy the new system, the Dogs have refined the way in which they bring players from the ground. Players no longer run from the furthest parts of the field to come off and spend less time resting when they do. The "cool down" walk along the boundary is disappearing, replaced by a direct path to a rub down mat and a swift return to the action.
The idea of entrenched advantage within the new system might also be seen in Collingwood's determination to strategically rest players during the season. Coach Mick Malthouse has said repeatedly that he will sit players out when the numbers tell his conditioning staff that a critical physical point has been reached.
Eade, who saw his captain Matthew Boyd cramp for the first time in his career in round two, says he will do the same. But can Damien Hardwick or Matthew Primus or Guy McKenna, coaches with younger and less capable squads that stand to suffer as much, if not more, under the new way take similar liberties? They have more of their team's performance invested in fewer players.
"Our figures tell us the average speed of the game has slowed down, which is what the league wanted," says the midfield coach of one club. "But the load the players are carrying is definitely greater, so from a welfare point of view it hasn't necessarily worked.
"The players are taking longer to recover after games and they're doing less during the week as a result, which may have consequences of its own in terms of keeping the standard of play high.
"Tell me," the assistant coach asks, "is it a good thing if Dane Swan or Chris Judd are having to spend more time on the field but that, in the end, they play fewer matches?"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/system-that-punishes-the-weak/story-e6frg7mf-1226043512834
-
So, Collingwood is still leading the averages with over 120 rotations per game eh? There's a surprise. For the millionth time, the AFL needs to cap the number of interchanges per game to about 80. Then let's see the Maggots stifle every single contest with their constant "four on four off" bullcrap.
-
My thoughts exactly Royce - 20 interchanges per quarter & you can use them as you please.
That'll open the game up more - plus players will get more than enough rest.