Finally a columnist who makes sense - The Age

[my les foote]

Harvs delivers an evolution lesson
Lenny Hayes | April 2, 2008

AGE alone does not explain why Robert Harvey is not the player he was when he won his Brownlow Medals. His game, like The Game, is different. Both have evolved.

Harvs was, and is, a merciless runner. At his prime, one of his great assets was his pace, as well as the fact he could just run all day and grind his opponents into the ground. But rotations have changed that. Now, when opposition teams think Harvs is getting on top, they just bring on another fresh player. So he has had to learn to change his game and become more of an impact player.

If you go back and look at one of his games when he won his Brownlows, it is very different to the game he plays now. Partly that is because he is older but also it is because he has worked out how to adapt his game. Fortunately, he is such a great player he was able to evolve and still be an important part of the side.

I think Harvs is a good example of why you let the game grow, evolve and adapt and not jump in to make changes for it. The good players, like the good coaches, will always find ways to adapt and survive. The game now is not a war of attrition in the way it was — it is a burst game. You get in, do your work and get off.

But the bench is not just about resting. It is used as a tactic to shake a tag. You can pull yourself off the ground to lose an opponent and bring someone on to mix things up.

I know that with the pace of the game now you need those regular breaks on the bench because with the midfielders' job being to push hard into defence as well as deep forward, you simply can't sustain the effort required to play without a regular spell on the pine.

I know Leigh Matthews said it can cause headaches for coaches trying to work out match-ups but it also creates confusion for players on the ground. The players can get lost with who they are supposed to be on at times so you need to regularly work it out at stoppages.

A coach will try to swing in a quicker bloke at times, such as an Eddie Betts or Aaron Davey to someone such as myself or Josh Carr, so you have to make sure you mix it up on the ground and avoid a mis-match. At centre bounces, we will always have a conversation about who is going to take who to make sure we are accountable.

I can understand Luke Power's comments about capping rotations because you want to keep those one-on-one battles but I'm more of a mind to believe that, like Harvs evolving, the game should be allowed to find its own answer.

It's worth noting that despite rotations, and despite the concerns of flooding a few years ago, the points scored, or average points a game, have not really varied in the past 10 years.

People have argued that with more interchanges there might be more goals but points scored have stayed relatively stable. The game is in a pretty good state and I think coaches have evolved with the game as much as they have made it evolve.

The Terry Wallace idea of replacing injured players has some merit and should be looked at because there is no doubt going one or two down in a game is a big disadvantage. Still, it wouldn't be great to be one of those emergency players sitting on the bench unsure if you are even going to get on.

[Otiman]

The Terry Wallace idea of replacing injured players has some merit and should be looked at because there is no doubt going one or two down in a game is a big disadvantage. Still, it wouldn't be great to be one of those emergency players sitting on the bench unsure if you are even going to get on.

Any saints fan, player, or official should know this already, looking at the '06 Elimination Final vs Melbourne.

Agree with his sentiments on being a bench-named emergency. It also prevents you from playing in the Scorpions game that week, should the AFL game be on after (or at the same time as) it.

I can see the "emergency bench", if brought in, to house some aging champions of the game, guys with experience and ability to play the burst game. Imagine someone like Harvs coming on with scores level, 15 minutes to go, with fully fresh legs.

It might even develop into a "pinch hitter" type role, with certain players in the squad trained up for this position, with fitness coaching focusing on burst rather than endurance.

[rodgerfox]

"At his prime, one of his great assets was his pace"

I'm glad to hear this acknowledged.

People forget how quick Harves was.

[Dan Warna]

quick? he burnt off Juddy on the weekend

the game against Melbourne was bad luck, it happens, the GT haters and the Melbourne apologists spin it how they want.

the reality is we were hit with 1 in a 100 game bad luck.

while we have had injuries before, having 5 players get injuries in game and 2 others lame was bad luck.

I can't think of another game where thats happened before (maybe the bloodbath against Brisbane in 02?03?)

and the better team lost.

If you did bring in a substitution mechanism, coaches will incorporate it into their day planning mechanism.

I vote no for it, 4 on the bench is sufficient.

[GrumpyOne]

A future coach has just spoken.

[SENsei]

Good article from Lenny.

Although I'm more of the thinking of Luke Power with regards to interchange and rotation.

I miss the days where you would have Harvey v Voss in the middle, going all day, head to head. The game is losing it's rivalry between opponents.

Harves has evolved and so has the game, but has the spectacle?

Limit the interchange and let's see footy the way it should be.

<living in the past mode?>

[st_Trav_ofWA]

leave the damn game alone limiting interchanges is a crap idea what happens if your down to your las rotation ans two of you blokes knock eachother out in a head clash ? who gets to sit out ?? for crying out loud let the damn game be we made it so we dont have to wait for the flags to be waved after a point to kick in to speed the game up for the rules commitee to turn around and bring in limited bench rotations to slow the game down ..... make up your F***ing minds either speed it up or slow it down !!!!

[SENsei]

Chill, Trav, chill.

My theory would be more of a interchange substitution with an injury allowance, which granted becomes the hard part.

Ideally, the rule would be like it was back in the old days....you get interchanged off you stay off.

My idea....you start a quarter with 18 on the field. You can rotate, but when you rotate a player off he can't return until the start of the next quarter.

It will mean that we will see the better players on the park for longer. The better players will stay on for 17mins a quarter instead of bursts for 5-6 minutes.

Or we will have the resting players in the forward line rather than on the bench. Ruckman to the forward pocket, etc.

[Oh When the Saints]

"At his prime, one of his great assets was his pace"

I'm glad to hear this acknowledged.

People forget how quick Harves was.

Had an acceleration that few other players in the AFL could match.

IMO that started to disappear in '05 and was gone by last year.

But watch him at his peak (10-12 years ago ) and he had great burst speed.

[Armoooo]

Jeez, I didn't read the name before I got into it, I was asking myself where has this journo been all this time...

[esaint66]

Jeez, I didn't read the name before I got into it, I was asking myself where has this journo been all this time...

Hahaha thats a good one

Read it directly from the age and saw his name and photo and thought thank god

[Saints Premiers 2008]

that melboune game was tough...it should have been over at quarter time

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Good article from Lenny.

Although I'm more of the thinking of Luke Power with regards to interchange and rotation.

I miss the days where you would have Harvey v Voss in the middle, going all day, head to head. The game is losing it's rivalry between opponents.

Harves has evolved and so has the game, but has the spectacle?

Limit the interchange and let's see footy the way it should be.

<living in the past mode?>

I don't understand why there's this belief that limiting interchanges will change the game back to a previous form - I see it as far more likely that it will simply homogonise the players who make the grade by making the key attributes fitness, endurance and workrate.

Coaches will still target the modern game, with it's numbers moving in cohesion to create zones as well as one on one contests all over the ground an keeping things busy - but fatigue will mean that the best way to achieve this is to have a bench full of midfielders.

2nd Ruckmen will be a rare luxury, 3rd key forwards or backs will only make the grade if they have the abovementioned attributes - which makes the game sound like it's made for Jason Blake. I like Blake, but I wouldn't be a huge fan of a game which makes him the prototype player.

I'm probably wrong about how it pans out, but that's the fundamental thing with rule changes, they almost never work directly as intended... the intechange was extended to reduce injuries, and it's allowed the evolution we've seen (I think we'd have seen that evolution regardless myself, but the last 5 years have certainly seen a massive speed increase as the interchange has become a fundamental tactic)... if the AFL wants a return to a certain style of football, the rule has to be specific. i.e. if we want a return to pack footy, carve the field up ala netball and restrict players to the packs, because trying to nudge it via an interchange restriction WILL change the game, but it will just nudge it in a different direction.

I tend to be a minimalist anyway, I don't see the need for most rule changes meant, but the interchange limit just confuses me.

[SENsei]

Interchange as such only came into the game in the 1970s. How did the game go in the 70 years prior to that with the reserve system.

My theory has evolved too.

Don't limit interchanges. Give the coaches as many as they like. Just say that once a player comes off, he stays off for the rest of that quarter.

Better players will stay on longer and natural fatigue will mean more contests and less zones.