By Michael DiFabrizio
May 6th 2009 @ 12:45am
Related coverage
Bench the current system, bring in the substitutes
Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse has been campaigning for the introduction of some form of increase to the number of players on the bench for some time. He got his wish in the NAB Cup, if only in the form of a trial.
The pre-season rule allowed for an additional two players, known as substitutes, on the bench. These players were only to be brought on in the event of a game-ending injury – once the substitution occurs, the player they replaced cannot take to the field again.
Now, the push for a permanent rule change is gaining momentum.
“I just don’t know how we are going to get across to people that we really do need to seriously consider some of the things that took place in the NAB Cup,” a frustrated Malthouse said on the weekend.
His comments came after Collingwood’s Paul Medhurst and North Melbourne’s Daniel Pratt were both sidelined in Friday night’s match. A four-plus-two bench system would have benefitted both teams on the night.
A day later, warm conditions made player fatigue an issue in the West Coast-Fremantle clash.
Daniel Kerr was reportedly badly vomiting and cramping at half-time, and he wasn’t the only player affected. The game prompted Freo coach Mark Harvey to back Malthouse’s push in yesterday’s media.
“When I look at the game now and particularly after half-time right across the board, because the intensity has gone up you see a lot of players who are just off their feet,” said Harvey.
He added: “When I walked onto the ground after the game one of the players, and I won’t tell you who it was, was hyperventilating because he was run off his feet from the game and what it does to you these days.”
He tipped six players on the bench (either a full six interchange players or the four-plus-two option, NAB Cup style) would be necessary before too long.
Put simply, the idea has merit and the continued campaigning is warranted.
Harvey’s right, the game has changed. The AFL has made no secret of their desire to speed up the game, and usage of the interchange bench has risen significantly in correlation with this in recent years.
The changes have heightened the importance of having four interchange spots available throughout the game, and they highlight the burden that’s created when playing without those spots available.
It certainly is frustrating for all parties – clubs, fans, media, et al – when star players who tend to have a significant influence on a game are sidelined, or when a number of precious bench spots are taken up by a spade of unexpected injuries.
At best, it causes the side affected to make a few adjustments.
At worst, it can create an almost-farcical environment and lead to a one-sided contest.
It’s not as if there’s a problem with sourcing the players to fill the role, either. It’s not rare to see a couple of emergencies sitting in the stands just watching the game – at times they are there instead of suiting for the reserves.
Substitution would give these guys a useful game-time role.
Although having a full six-player interchange may be too much, too soon, the four-plus-two system trialled in the NAB Cup is worthy of an introduction to the home-and-away season. It’d ensure a fairer contest for both teams on the park.
And maybe – just maybe – it’d put Mick Malthouse at ease, too.
Get Australia's best AFL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(17)
Kurt said | May 6th 2009 @ 7:43am | Report comment
Michael – the underlying premise of your argument is flawed – namely that it is possible for Mick Malthouse to be happy. The AFL could expand the bench to 30 players and give the teams the right to bring on any particularly athletic looking members of the cheer squad and he’d still be telling us all that the AFL never listen, we need to expand the bench, it’s not fair on the clubs, players etc.
Tom said | May 6th 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Yeah I agree.
Now that clubs have almost perfected the art of using a rotating interchange bench to freshen up players, a couple of injuries at the start of a game is a bigger handicap than ever.
Substitutes would even it up somewhat. Might also generate a bit more excitement near the end of some games as a couple of fresh running players come on.
Brett McKay said | May 6th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
I don’t mind the 4+2 idea for injured players who can’t return, but how much quicker does the game need to be?? Wouldn’t a better idea be to limit the number of interchanges allowed per quarter, which would then bring the fatigue factor back in toward the end of each half??
If players are vomiting and hyperventilating now, won’t that become worse if a 6-man bench is bought in?? Having extra fresh players isn’t going to slow the game down..
Redb said | May 6th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
I’m against increasing the interchange as I think contributes to a ‘herd’ of players following the ball around the ground as midfiedlers create even more stoppages and even less flow on attacking footy. The game should remain a test of endurance and survival of the fittest.
Redb
Kazama said | May 6th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
I can see merit in both keeping the rules as they are and changing them. I think Redb and Brett are correct that extending the interchange would only make things worse, so for me it is either leave it as is or have the two subs like in the NAB Cup.
To stop teams exploiting the rule by having experienced guys (e.g. Port may have had Josh Carr as a sub last week) waiting to come on fresh in the last quarter for a spent player, perhaps teams should only allowed to have rookie-listed players as their subs. That way teams would only substitiute if desperate or winning comfortably.
Tom said | May 6th 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Redb.
A test of endurance and survival of the fittest is often pretty boring to watch.
Searly said | May 6th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
I definitely agree that extending the number of interchange players is not the way to go. After all, who wants to see star midfielders spending even more time ‘rotating’ on the bench while fresh players play keepings off rather than kicking to contests.
That said, I don’t mind the idea of the emergencies being available throughout the game. I mean, if they can come in for a player who is injured 5 minutes before the first bounce, why shouldn’t they be able to come in for someone who’s injured 5 minutes after the bounce?
The problem here of course is that an injury could inadvertently lead to an advantage by being able to bring in a fresh player, thereby actually disadvantaging the opposition. Perhaps the best way to avoid this would be that if a team does have to replace a player due to injury, the opposition automatically then gains the right to fully replace a player at any time for the rest of the match regardless of injury.
Thoughts?
Redb said | May 6th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Tom,
Clogged up herds of players around the ball and flooding defensive games can also be pretty boring to watch.
Redb
Michael DiFabrizio said | May 6th 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Kurt, you’re absolutely right.
Redb, agree that a full six players isn’t the way to go. It’s more than we need, and even then, if injuries occur there would still be inbalance between the two teams! The 4+2, however, is designed more for the purpose of limiting the impact of injuries.
Kazama, like the idea about the rookies. I think fringe players should also get a chance, but I agree that attempts to exploit such a system should be stamped out.
Pippinu said | May 6th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
The 4+2 idea appears to have a bit of merit to it.
Assuming that four on the interchange is here to stay (there’s no way coaches will want to go backwards on that one), then the additional two emergencies available as permanent subs has a lot of appeal to it (much better than allowing an inujured player to remain on the ground to maintain numbers).
Tom said | May 6th 2009 @ 11:43am | Report comment
Redb
Why is the game less likely to get clogged without substitutes? Surely fresher players will mean quicker ball movement?
Art Sapphire said | May 6th 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
A truer test of football would be if we got rid of interchange altogether.
It cheapens the game when you have 100 interchanges by one team in a game if football.
I would have six substitutes on the bench. If you go off be it for injury or tactics you stay off.
This would be a truer test for player and coach alike.
The result of this will be more man on man footy which is what made AFL great to begin with.
Redb said | May 6th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
Tom,
Art has alluded to is his post, footy is best played at full attack speed not in congested ball ups because 20 players are in old fashioned speak “on the ball”. interchange facilties fresh running midfielders and defensive flooding. Watch how St kilda are playing, the entire team is running around the ground chasing or correlling the ball.
Whereas we at Essendon go straight down the middle, no guts no glory.
Redb
Redb said | May 6th 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
that should have read:
“. interchange facilitates fresh running midfielders and defensive flooding”
Art Sapphire said | May 6th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
I would love to see these elite AFL players on the ground for whole game.
In the old days the rover or ruckman would go down forward to have a rest.
These days, the modern AFL coach hides behind too much sports science, players are pre-programmed to come on and off during the game. They might as well be robots.
Michael C said | May 6th 2009 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
I’ve been advocating a 2+3 or 3+2 system for a while. Every time the AFL asked for suggestions over the last 5 years via their website I’ve put it forward. I was happy last year when I heard people speak of it (obviously someone with cred and influence ELSE has suggested it!!! But, I can feel like I’ve contributed!!).
AT any rate, I reckon 2 + 3 subs would get us back to on field rotations.
3 + 2 wouold be more the compromise of the existing system. You get the extra injury cover, but, the cost is one less free interchange.
Personally, I don’t much like what I regard as over use of interchange at present. I still reckon for every goal scored the coaches can claim credit, that they concede one the other way when making so many changes and being at time 2 or 3 short out in the field of play. 2 weeks ago, Brent Harvey was coming off injured (play not stopped and not able to be replaced until over the boundary). At the same time North pulled a I/C move with a player coming from the far side of the ground. Effectively for a reasonable period of time, we were 2 down. Surely they have the sense to hold off until the injured man has been replaced?? Surely they can be flexible and use common sense………..nah!!!, ‘course not.
Searly said | May 6th 2009 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
I reckon you’re on the money Michael C. The AFL has the perfect opportunity to scale back the interchange use (which they’ve kind of made a few clumsy attempts at trying to do in recent years – remember the little pieces of paper blokes were handing back and forth for a while there??) while overcoming the issue of unreplaceable injured players by going with the 3+2 option. It’s a perfect compromise in my book.
I also agree that the immediate on-field impact of interchanges is one of the great unstudied phenomena of the game. Not sure how you could possibly measure whether a bloke might have impacted the play had he not been blindly heading towards the interchange area, but it must be pretty significant.