Hate the sub thing. Doubt that it's made any difference to injury rate. It stands as a monument to Vlads intransigence.

Not saying I love it but the sub was never about injury rate. It was to remove the disadvantage a team had if they lost a player early in a game.

Not saying I love it but the sub was never about injury rate. It was to remove the disadvantage a team had if they lost a player early in a game.

If that was the only reason then why can it be used at any time during the game? The AFL put forward a dubious argument that it was to help mitigate injuries to players however it was disputed by many at the time that it was more about reducing congestion at stoppages.

Edited July 19, 201411 yr by McQueen

Not saying I love it but the sub was never about injury rate. It was to remove the disadvantage a team had if they lost a player early in a game.

Pretty obvious really. Surprised that some still don't get it.

Having said that I don't like the interchange system and blame it for a lot of modern day woes. Remove some of the rubbish rules that sped the game up for 10 years. Go back to two interchange players. That will sort out a few issues!

If that was the only reason then why can it be used at any time during the game? The AFL put forward a dubious argument that it was to help mitigate injuries to players however it was disputed by many at the time that it was more about reducing congestion at stoppages.

The stats are compelling. With 4 i/changes - you lose a player early you are 81% likely to lose the game. hence the 3subs and substitute

The stats are compelling. With 4 i/changes - you lose a player early you are 81% likely to lose the game. hence the 3subs and substitute

When will you learn? Facts and logic are not considered relevant when arguing on Demonland.

When will you learn? Facts and logic are not considered relevant when arguing on Demonland.

Just ask Stuie!

Not saying I love it but the sub was never about injury rate. It was to remove the disadvantage a team had if they lost a player early in a game.

The idea came in response to the perceived increase in soft tissue injuries as a result of burst football coming from rotations. The advantage thing was after the fact. I am not aware of any evidence to say that things have changed since it's introduction. Vlad liked the idea so it stuck. Coaches and players hate it. It needs evaluation.

Coaches and players hate the idea because players have been training to play burst footy for 5 years. The original idea was to slow the game down and reduce injuries, with the added bonus of making an injury have less impact on the result.

Imo they should either:

Drop it to a 60 interchange cap and allow 4 interchange players, which would allow the interchange to be used for tactical and match up reasons.

OR

Change it to 2 subs.

Make it 20 rotations...

Could we continue the upsets, carlton, st.kilda, GWS pushing the cats... Oh wait we're Melbourne we never upset anyone

Could we continue the upsets, carlton, st.kilda, GWS pushing the cats... Oh wait we're Melbourne we never upset anyone

Like we have seen this round if you pressure the opposition relentlessly and take your chances you can turn the best teams into hacks.

I unfortunately don't see us doing it to port...

I like the changes. Not sure Blease is going to make it, but at least we're trying to inject some pace and skill and we're taking out a player who's been giving us absolutely zilch and one who probably just needs to focus on a few discrete things (e.g. tackling).

Could we continue the upsets, carlton, st.kilda, GWS pushing the cats... Oh wait we're Melbourne we never upset anyone

Yeah, never. Like, we never win in Adelaide. Or beat Essendon. Or beat Essendon when we're 0-9 and they're 8-1. Never.

Not saying I love it but the sub was never about injury rate. It was to remove the disadvantage a team had if they lost a player early in a game.

Pretty obvious really. Surprised that some still don't get it.

Having said that I don't like the interchange system and blame it for a lot of modern day woes. Remove some of the rubbish rules that sped the game up for 10 years. Go back to two interchange players. That will sort out a few issues!

The stats are compelling. With 4 i/changes - you lose a player early you are 81% likely to lose the game. hence the 3subs and substitute

Trouble is it hasn't changed. If you lose a player early you're still at a disadvantage as the opposition has a fresh player they can bring into the game any time they like. I know there have been results going the other way the last 2 weeks but it is not the norm.

The argument for the sub just doesn't hold water, I think it's a dumb rule and agree with Roos on this.

I believe restricted interchange to say 10 a Q with 4 on the bench is the way to go. It would take the ability to have 36 players on the ball for 4 Q's and it would be easier to cover one man down with fewer rotations.