new sub rule and the bench
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
new sub rule and the bench
What is everyone's view on how the sub rule will be used by clubs and especially the saints?
Personally I like the idea of a stanley playing as a super sub. We can therefore either sub him with a ruckman, forward or send a forward down back. We could also move one of schneids or milne into the middle if we have a mid go down injured.
Will teams use a ruckman, midfielder ? Utility?
When would you look at subbing a player. Wait until an injury or risk it during say the third quarter to freshen up your bench?
Personally I like the idea of a stanley playing as a super sub. We can therefore either sub him with a ruckman, forward or send a forward down back. We could also move one of schneids or milne into the middle if we have a mid go down injured.
Will teams use a ruckman, midfielder ? Utility?
When would you look at subbing a player. Wait until an injury or risk it during say the third quarter to freshen up your bench?
FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1558
- Joined: Tue 06 Apr 2004 2:05pm
- Location: NE Victoria
- Has thanked: 19 times
- Been thanked: 283 times
Blake is too good a player to sit on the bench. He is an important part of the defence and should play all game.
I think Raph Clarke might get the sub role. Whoever goes off injured the team could be rejigged with Raph slotted in either down back, midfield or forward. If it was a ruck then Blake could help ruck and Raph to the backline.
If winning save the sub, if losing might have to bring him on to turn things around and hope you don't get an injury.
I think Raph Clarke might get the sub role. Whoever goes off injured the team could be rejigged with Raph slotted in either down back, midfield or forward. If it was a ruck then Blake could help ruck and Raph to the backline.
If winning save the sub, if losing might have to bring him on to turn things around and hope you don't get an injury.
summertime and the living is easy ........
- super dooper
- Club Player
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Sat 20 Mar 2004 12:24am
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30089
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
This...hAyES wrote:I think with the lack of interchanges available teams will bring in a fresh midfielder off the bench to run and run.
Teams will still run their mids-ragged...but now they will run one extra ragged for the first 3 quarters and sub in the fully thresh mid for him if no injuries.
If someone is having a real dog of a game, then they may be sub.
They look for a mid who is versatile...but I would expect it to be an extra mid.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
We may have an extra mid as the sub but I doubt it will be for a mid replacement. IMO it is more likely a tall will be replaced by a mid about half way through the third term. I still think a Blake type will be sub more than most.saintsRrising wrote:This...hAyES wrote:I think with the lack of interchanges available teams will bring in a fresh midfielder off the bench to run and run.
Teams will still run their mids-ragged...but now they will run one extra ragged for the first 3 quarters and sub in the fully thresh mid for him if no injuries.
If someone is having a real dog of a game, then they may be sub.
They look for a mid who is versatile...but I would expect it to be an extra mid.
+1plugger66 wrote:We may have an extra mid as the sub but I doubt it will be for a mid replacement. IMO it is more likely a tall will be replaced by a mid about half way through the third term. I still think a Blake type will be sub more than most.saintsRrising wrote:This...hAyES wrote:I think with the lack of interchanges available teams will bring in a fresh midfielder off the bench to run and run.
Teams will still run their mids-ragged...but now they will run one extra ragged for the first 3 quarters and sub in the fully thresh mid for him if no injuries.
If someone is having a real dog of a game, then they may be sub.
They look for a mid who is versatile...but I would expect it to be an extra mid.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006 8:34am
- Location: Jurassic Park
This rule has the potential to hurt the filth, they we're the ones with the most interchanges for their midfield.
Personally, I think it was a stupid knee jerk reaction by the AFL, for years they we're looking at ways to speed the game up, now they want to slow the game down.
As a supporter, geez I wish they would just leave the damn game alone.
Personally, I think it was a stupid knee jerk reaction by the AFL, for years they we're looking at ways to speed the game up, now they want to slow the game down.
As a supporter, geez I wish they would just leave the damn game alone.
Except for the sanity nothing much has been lost.
Couldn't agree more. It's one thing to limit the number of interchanges but WTF is this sub rubbish? Classic knee-jerk AFL.3rd generation saint wrote:This rule has the potential to hurt the filth, they we're the ones with the most interchanges for their midfield.
Personally, I think it was a stupid knee jerk reaction by the AFL, for years they we're looking at ways to speed the game up, now they want to slow the game down.
As a supporter, geez I wish they would just leave the damn game alone.
plus 1hAyES wrote:Couldn't agree more. It's one thing to limit the number of interchanges but WTF is this sub rubbish? Classic knee-jerk AFL.3rd generation saint wrote:This rule has the potential to hurt the filth, they we're the ones with the most interchanges for their midfield.
Personally, I think it was a stupid knee jerk reaction by the AFL, for years they we're looking at ways to speed the game up, now they want to slow the game down.
As a supporter, geez I wish they would just leave the damn game alone.
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 2:18am
- Location: Noble Park
3rd gen saint, you've touched on something there.
Personally I think that the AFL doesn't want 'dynasties" i.e. a run of multiple Premierships. So every year for the last few they've changed the rules to make that difficult.
After the Hawks' 08 Flag there were 2 "anti-Hawthorn rules":
1. free kick for deliberate behind (they had rushed 11 in the GF)
2. 'transferred 50m, i.e. if you fell the guy who's just handballed it to a kicker (which Hawthorn did all the time to stop flow-on play), the kicking team is awarded 50m.
Hawthorn missed the Finals in '09.
After Geelong's '09 Flag (yes I still hate mentioning it) the "anti-Geelontg rule was effectively "let's get Ablett to the Gold Coast...even though he won't go until 2011 it will weaken the club".
Amazingly Geelong still made the Prelim in 2010 but many people think by then coach Thompson was a little 'off his game" after all the persistent rumours. Were there internal divisions in the club? Certainly the result was an upset...flogged by Collingwood.
After Collingwood's 2010 Flag (yes, hate to mention it too) the AFL has seen how Malthouse took the interchange bench to its ultimate extent and so have changed it from 4 interchange players to 3 plus a sub.
This is effectively the "anti-Collingwood rule".
Personally I think that the AFL doesn't want 'dynasties" i.e. a run of multiple Premierships. So every year for the last few they've changed the rules to make that difficult.
After the Hawks' 08 Flag there were 2 "anti-Hawthorn rules":
1. free kick for deliberate behind (they had rushed 11 in the GF)
2. 'transferred 50m, i.e. if you fell the guy who's just handballed it to a kicker (which Hawthorn did all the time to stop flow-on play), the kicking team is awarded 50m.
Hawthorn missed the Finals in '09.
After Geelong's '09 Flag (yes I still hate mentioning it) the "anti-Geelontg rule was effectively "let's get Ablett to the Gold Coast...even though he won't go until 2011 it will weaken the club".
Amazingly Geelong still made the Prelim in 2010 but many people think by then coach Thompson was a little 'off his game" after all the persistent rumours. Were there internal divisions in the club? Certainly the result was an upset...flogged by Collingwood.
After Collingwood's 2010 Flag (yes, hate to mention it too) the AFL has seen how Malthouse took the interchange bench to its ultimate extent and so have changed it from 4 interchange players to 3 plus a sub.
This is effectively the "anti-Collingwood rule".
In honour of those who went before, in the dark and desperate years.
Biggest load of s*** I've ever read on this forum, and that's saying something!I Love Peter Kiel wrote:3rd gen saint, you've touched on something there.
Personally I think that the AFL doesn't want 'dynasties" i.e. a run of multiple Premierships. So every year for the last few they've changed the rules to make that difficult.
After the Hawks' 08 Flag there were 2 "anti-Hawthorn rules":
1. free kick for deliberate behind (they had rushed 11 in the GF)
2. 'transferred 50m, i.e. if you fell the guy who's just handballed it to a kicker (which Hawthorn did all the time to stop flow-on play), the kicking team is awarded 50m.
Hawthorn missed the Finals in '09.
After Geelong's '09 Flag (yes I still hate mentioning it) the "anti-Geelontg rule was effectively "let's get Ablett to the Gold Coast...even though he won't go until 2011 it will weaken the club".
Amazingly Geelong still made the Prelim in 2010 but many people think by then coach Thompson was a little 'off his game" after all the persistent rumours. Were there internal divisions in the club? Certainly the result was an upset...flogged by Collingwood.
After Collingwood's 2010 Flag (yes, hate to mention it too) the AFL has seen how Malthouse took the interchange bench to its ultimate extent and so have changed it from 4 interchange players to 3 plus a sub.
This is effectively the "anti-Collingwood rule".
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 2:18am
- Location: Noble Park
Your entire post was based around a conspiracy theory that the AFL try to put an end to any potential upcoming dynasty's and the reasoning you used was just ridiculous.
The 'rushed behind' rule was brought in to put an end to teams copying the loophole teams started to cash in on during the 08 season. IIRC Joel Bowden was the first player to do this in the dying stages of a game when Richmond were infront, Hawthorn then took this tactic and used it to their own advantage in the GF. The AFL wanted to make sure that close, exciting games remained exactly that, close and exciting! So they made changes to the game to prevent this tactic.
The rule you provided for the AFL to stop the Geelong dynasty wasn't even a change in rule, even though you stated that the AFL likes to tweak the rules each year to make it tougher for the premiers. Incase it escaped your notice, Geelong were the best team in 07 and 08 despite missing out on the 08 flag. They were already well and truely into their 'dynasty'.
And now you claim that the AFL has brought in this new sub rule to limit Collingwood, even though it was being discussed LONG before Collingwood had won the flag, back when many still doubted that they had the ability to win the flag. If we jag an extra goal in GF1 do you still claim the interchange rule is to stop us from entering a 'dynasty'?
So there's a bunch of reasons, pick one!
The 'rushed behind' rule was brought in to put an end to teams copying the loophole teams started to cash in on during the 08 season. IIRC Joel Bowden was the first player to do this in the dying stages of a game when Richmond were infront, Hawthorn then took this tactic and used it to their own advantage in the GF. The AFL wanted to make sure that close, exciting games remained exactly that, close and exciting! So they made changes to the game to prevent this tactic.
The rule you provided for the AFL to stop the Geelong dynasty wasn't even a change in rule, even though you stated that the AFL likes to tweak the rules each year to make it tougher for the premiers. Incase it escaped your notice, Geelong were the best team in 07 and 08 despite missing out on the 08 flag. They were already well and truely into their 'dynasty'.
And now you claim that the AFL has brought in this new sub rule to limit Collingwood, even though it was being discussed LONG before Collingwood had won the flag, back when many still doubted that they had the ability to win the flag. If we jag an extra goal in GF1 do you still claim the interchange rule is to stop us from entering a 'dynasty'?
So there's a bunch of reasons, pick one!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 2:18am
- Location: Noble Park
All true...perhaps.
Nevertheless, the rule changes had the desired effect. It doesn't matter that Richmond STARTED the clever abuse of the rushed behind. They were never going to make a Grand Final. Hawthorn used it and kind of spoilt the spectacle of the Grand Final. I don't begrudge them doing it. I wouldn't care if the Saints led by 4 goals at 3/4 time of the GF, then spent 30 minutes kicking the ball backwards playing keepings off and got booed off the ground! Would you?
Also if you think that Demetriou and the powers of the AFL had nothing to do with Ablett going to the GC then...I'm glad you are not a cynical person.
One of the coaches who started the extreme rotation of the midfield was Grant Thomas. It doesn't matter that he did...he is forgotten. Malthouse has taken it to ridiculous levels and obviously the AFL is worried about injuries from things like players having to warm up and warm down constantly during a game.
So, taking away the tactic which is often the one which the Premier team has used is effectively the same as penalising the Premiership team.
Nevertheless, the rule changes had the desired effect. It doesn't matter that Richmond STARTED the clever abuse of the rushed behind. They were never going to make a Grand Final. Hawthorn used it and kind of spoilt the spectacle of the Grand Final. I don't begrudge them doing it. I wouldn't care if the Saints led by 4 goals at 3/4 time of the GF, then spent 30 minutes kicking the ball backwards playing keepings off and got booed off the ground! Would you?
Also if you think that Demetriou and the powers of the AFL had nothing to do with Ablett going to the GC then...I'm glad you are not a cynical person.
One of the coaches who started the extreme rotation of the midfield was Grant Thomas. It doesn't matter that he did...he is forgotten. Malthouse has taken it to ridiculous levels and obviously the AFL is worried about injuries from things like players having to warm up and warm down constantly during a game.
So, taking away the tactic which is often the one which the Premier team has used is effectively the same as penalising the Premiership team.
In honour of those who went before, in the dark and desperate years.
I Love Peter Kiel wrote:All true...perhaps.
Nevertheless, the rule changes had the desired effect. It doesn't matter that Richmond STARTED the clever abuse of the rushed behind. They were never going to make a Grand Final. Hawthorn used it and kind of spoilt the spectacle of the Grand Final. I don't begrudge them doing it. I wouldn't care if the Saints led by 4 goals at 3/4 time of the GF, then spent 30 minutes kicking the ball backwards playing keepings off and got booed off the ground! Would you?
Also if you think that Demetriou and the powers of the AFL had nothing to do with Ablett going to the GC then...I'm glad you are not a cynical person.
One of the coaches who started the extreme rotation of the midfield was Grant Thomas. It doesn't matter that he did...he is forgotten. Malthouse has taken it to ridiculous levels and obviously the AFL is worried about injuries from things like players having to warm up and warm down constantly during a game.
So, taking away the tactic which is often the one which the Premier team has used is effectively the same as penalising the Premiership team.
Hilarious.
- Wrote for Luck
- Club Player
- Posts: 1519
- Joined: Thu 07 Jan 2010 8:33am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Very funny. Nowhere near convincing.plugger66 wrote:I Love Peter Kiel wrote:All true...perhaps.
Nevertheless, the rule changes had the desired effect. It doesn't matter that Richmond STARTED the clever abuse of the rushed behind. They were never going to make a Grand Final. Hawthorn used it and kind of spoilt the spectacle of the Grand Final. I don't begrudge them doing it. I wouldn't care if the Saints led by 4 goals at 3/4 time of the GF, then spent 30 minutes kicking the ball backwards playing keepings off and got booed off the ground! Would you?
Also if you think that Demetriou and the powers of the AFL had nothing to do with Ablett going to the GC then...I'm glad you are not a cynical person.
One of the coaches who started the extreme rotation of the midfield was Grant Thomas. It doesn't matter that he did...he is forgotten. Malthouse has taken it to ridiculous levels and obviously the AFL is worried about injuries from things like players having to warm up and warm down constantly during a game.
So, taking away the tactic which is often the one which the Premier team has used is effectively the same as penalising the Premiership team.
Hilarious.
Pills 'n' Thrills and Heartaches
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 2:18am
- Location: Noble Park
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 2:18am
- Location: Noble Park
Back to the topic, I think we will see our young mids play there as midfield rotation will be good and teams will treat it as an extra runner that can come on after half-time.
So expect Ali Smith, Armo, Cripps, even Jack Steven to be considered.
Either that or an out and utility that is the contingency for any position- e.g. Dempster, Blake, Raph
So expect Ali Smith, Armo, Cripps, even Jack Steven to be considered.
Either that or an out and utility that is the contingency for any position- e.g. Dempster, Blake, Raph
STRENGTH THROUGH LOYALTY.
''I still get really excited, and I've got the '66 thing up on the wall in a frame … You look at it and think: one day, we want to achieve that.''- Arryn Siposs
''I still get really excited, and I've got the '66 thing up on the wall in a frame … You look at it and think: one day, we want to achieve that.''- Arryn Siposs
I'm really interested to find out where this rule is going. If a team has no injuries will the sub - he who plays in the last quarter (sometime) become the bench warmer until near the end.
If you are picked as sub regularly you could end up playing 1 full match over 1 month. Even worse it could end up being like soccer where they sub in the last 5 minutes of the game.
If you are picked as sub regularly you could end up playing 1 full match over 1 month. Even worse it could end up being like soccer where they sub in the last 5 minutes of the game.
I've never seen a bad St.Kilda player - that's just how they are.