I've been meaning to bring this up all week and somebody referred to it in a post buried away in a thread I can't locate among the proliferation of hand wringing, complaints and whining since our loss last Sunday (and I'm not criticising people for having their say given their emotional involvement in the club - it was just all too way over the top for me).

In a game where there were many things to be annoyed about, one of my concerns was how Mitch Clark was taken off the ground after he kicked his second goal.

After we made such an abysmal start to the game, Clark had put us back into it with his two goals. When he came off, our forward line reverted to a rabble and Port was able to clear the ball with ease. Even allowing for the time he's been out if the game, surely Clark could have stayed on the ground for another five minutes? He was at full forward after all. I don't blame this for the loss but his absence IMO put paid to the possibility of recovering back to even terms by quarter time and perhaps we might have approached the rest of the game differently.

After seeing this I'm firmly in the camp that says the AFL should limit interchanges to 80 per game.

It just shows how firmly we are in the grip of sports scientists these days. It appears that players are allocated their time on and off the ground and it seems to be set in stone.

I'm of the old school that says that if someone's "on fire" you should try to avoid taking him off as much as possible in case you upset the rhythm of the team and the individual. Not only that but when Clark kicked that second goal, the opposition coaching bench would have been placed in a position of giving some thought to how to combat him and whether to make some moves in order to achieve that aim - moves might well have had a detrimental effect on Port. By taking Clark off, we removed that possibility, they kicked the next goal and Clark's two goals soon became mere blips on the radar rather than part of a strong recovery from a poor start.

I also wonder about how coaches discipline players for making errors and departing from the game plan these days. At other times and in the more junior codes, you do it by "dragging" the players off the ground and giving it to them with both barrels. If a player drops his head like Pedersen or does a double fisted punch like Nicholson, how do you get the message across to them (yes I recognise they probably know immediately and there's nowhere to hide on the G). Perhaps the new fangled psychology goes with all this scientific methodology and demands that we shouldn't upset or traumatise the highly paid boys lest they break down in a screaming heap entirely?

Ablett tried to come off twice last week in the last quarter when on fire and as told to stay on both times, he kicked another and then took a mark deep defence.

I agree, if they at on fire, leave them on for another 2-3 mins

Ablett tried to come off twice last week in the last quarter when on fire and as told to stay on both times, he kicked another and then took a mark deep defence.

I agree, if they at on fire, leave them on for another 2-3 mins

Agree. At the very least it forces the opposition's coach to make a quick decision about what to do about the player. If he goes off, the oppo coaching team has plenty of time to think what to do by the time he next goes on.

I remember playing footy when I was younger and alI the good players would stay on the field all game. The only players on the bench where the crap player that's why they were called bench warmers.

I am starting to thing that caping the interchange at 80 is the way to go.

Not disagreeing in the least, but the theory is that going off just after a goal 'gives' them extra game time, as the amount of time between the ball going through the big sticks and the bounce of the ball in the middle after goal is around 90 secs (depending on TV ad breaks). So that's an extra 90 secs of rest where there is no ball in play.

Not disagreeing in the least, but the theory is that going off just after a goal 'gives' them extra game time, as the amount of time between the ball going through the big sticks and the bounce of the ball in the middle after goal is around 90 secs (depending on TV ad breaks). So that's an extra 90 secs of rest where there is no ball in play.

does not compute

all the players who don't leave the ground also get the 90 sec rest and without having to sprint off the ground to the interchange

I reckon he would have usually stayed out, as I'm sure Neeld and co realise how important he is for the team. But coming back with little match fitness I think they probably were being a bit cautious with his game time in case of injury. Although I agree it was terrible timing and surely another 5 minutes on wouldn't have cause much harm

He shouldn't be in the team Yet, Ideally... he has a career threatening injury which will NOT be 100%.... they are gambling with it because we are shallow for real leadership.

he really should have played about 3 easy games @ Casey to ease the match fitness on to the foot.

If he does the foot again, I have no doubt he will be out for 12 months & it could even be all over.

So if they want to rotate him when he's getting over excited, then I'm OK with it.

If the 'Rest After a Goal' strategem was in force back in those distant days against St Kilda Freddy Fanning wouldn't have kicked 18.1.

Reckon, with all that running on and off, he'd have been plumb tuckered out and lucky to bag half a dozen.

A bit of momentum versus managing our most important players recovery. Pretty simple to me.

We should leave the forward line wide open with Mitch on his own, ( he is good enough), maybe Byrnes roving at his feet,and everyone else outside 50. Puts the opposition under more pressure and congests the midfield for them.

When we get the ball run and spread and kick long to Mitch.

A bit of momentum versus managing our most important players recovery. Pretty simple to me.

If that's the case then perhaps he should have played 3 or 4 more games at Casey.

Once you nominate for the senior side, you need to be match ready otherwise you're a liability.

It's the modern game. All players have to have a spell or they blow up and can't even run in the last quarter.

Now I like the idea of the interchange cap, AFL shouldn't be ice hockey. But we need to do something to stop in becoming a game only able to be played by elite distance runners.

Cap the rotations at 80 and keep the game sped up at perpetual motion and it won't be the sport we love.

Think of all the time the rule changes have taken out of the game - Kick ins, ball ups around the ground, boundary throw ins, free kicks, kicking for goal. There used to be plenty of opportunity for blokes to grab 20 seconds rest which makes all the difference when you take them all away. They should put the natural breaks back in the game and stop pressuring it to speed up and then make the game faster at other times by not playing silly soft free kicks that just stop the game flowing.

If that's the case then perhaps he should have played 3 or 4 more games at Casey.

Once you nominate for the senior side, you need to be match ready otherwise you're a liability.

You think Clark prior to his injury scare last week was a liability? Clark proved that him half match-fit was more dangerous than any other forward that we have by a long way. Some players offer you a ton more being managed in your AFL side than at Casey. He is one of them.

Blistering, you may have been referring to my post (#25) in the 'Does this bloke inspire you' thread. It was last Monday when I made the following points and I've no reason to change any of it. I've had a number of discussions with a few people about the 'move' and apart from the "That's the way they do things these day's" explanation, everyone saw it as a poor decision.

You could maybe understand it if Clark was a midfielder.

Who is ultimately responsible for taking Clark off at the 20 minute mark of the 1st Quarter?

In the first 20 minutes we'd hardly had the ball in our forward line and we hadn't employed the flood. Had Clark even set foot past the half forward line?

The few times we did get the ball down there Clark kicked 2 goals. The 2nd of which came at the 20 minute mark of the quarter. His 1st goal came at the 18 minute mark. Then he had to sprint to the wing for a 3 or 4 minute rest. Utterly ridiculous decision to take him off. Nonsensical.

The bloke was hot, he'd kicked 2 goals in 2 minutes and then he's benched. He didn't need a rest. The score at the time was 3.2 to 2.1. As soon as he was taken off I thought, who is going to take a mark if we pump it forward.

Might seem like a small thing now, but we'd just gotten back in the game on the back of Clark's efforts and then we take him off?

The only thing I would say is that some very unfit people have run marathons by walk/running from the very start. 5 mins on and 30 secs off (twice) is more restful than 10 mins on and 1 min off.

Edited April 6, 201312 yr by Chook

I am not a big fan for full forwards running 100 meters after they kick a goal so they can sit down for 3 minutes, before running back another 100 meters to position. I would rather mitch stand in the goal square and get his breath, that approach never hurt peter hudson, or tony lockett.