The AFL’s new interchange rule is set to change how the game is played. With benches to now consist of three interchange players and one substitute, the rule will be one of the major on-field storylines of the 2011 season.
In fact, even though teams had larger benches in the pre-season, already the opposition has begun. North Melbourne coach Brad Scott over the weekend labelled the rule a “disaster” and claimed changes will be made again at the end of the year.
This follows a similar message from Rodney Eade last year. The Western Bulldogs coach told The Australian: “I’ve got no doubt it (the new rule) will change the game and I can see them changing something in two years’ time because it won’t work out the way they think.”
The AFL would have a bit to say about all this, of course.
The league have declared war on congestion and see cutting the number of interchange options as a viable way to stop huge numbers around the ball reducing the appeal of the game. The league have also argued, somewhat dubiously, the change will address the rising prevalence of injuries.
In all honesty, without having seen the new rule in action, it’s hard to judge the AFL too harshly or, for that matter, be too dismissive of the comments from Scott and Eade.
What is for certain, though, is that the rule will have an impact on the game. Clubs and coaches will have to adapt. The effect of a seemingly simple rule change will be felt in a number of areas.
The tactics used by coaches
The obvious place the new rule will be felt is in the coaches box. Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse has in the past been an advocate of having a substitute rule so that players who pick up an injury in a game and are unable to return to the field can be replaced.
The new rule does not require the substituted player to have an injury, however. This means coaches on game day will face some tough decisions – like whether to use the substitution for tactical purposes if there are no injuries, and when is the right time to make that call.
“We’ve had doctors say, ‘Give us a quarter to test him out and he might come good’,” Eade told the AFL Record over summer. “You’ve got to work out then and there, do you make a decision (to wait) and be a player short for the quarter or (use your sub and) take him off straight away? If you make the sub tactically, and then you get an injury, that is also going to put a strain on the team.”
Players that will be used as substitutes
Answering the question of what players will be used in this new role is real tricky. Obviously versatility will be a huge factor – if the sub is a small forward, he won’t be of much help if the team’s 200cm-plus ruckman goes down with an injury.
Likewise, a key position player will have a hard time covering for a speedy midfielder.
Players who can “play tall and small” will suit the role. Players who are capable of playing more than one position will hold and obvious advantage over those that don’t. Chances are, at least initially, we’ll see different approaches at different clubs.
The second ruckman
The new rule puts much doubt on the future of the second ruckman that has no other strings to their bow. Players like Collingwood premiership player Leigh Brown, who are capable of playing both in the ruck and up forward, were already becoming more fashionable than the traditional ruckman in the back-up role.
Now, with one less interchange spot, the trend should be accelerated. There would be a lot of nervous big men around the league right now.
Paul Roos put it bluntly speaking to the AFL Record: “The second ruckman has got to be able to play forward … clearly, if you’ve only got three on the bench you are unlikely to have a second (traditional) ruckman, so I think most people will say the second ruckman is a thing of the past.”
Midfield rotations
In footy, the alternative to resting a player on the bench, particularly for midfielders, has always been to rest them in another area of the ground. Think Gary Ablett going forward for Geelong last year.
Clubs that have a wide range of players that can be rotated in and out of the middle will benefit from having options at their disposal. Collingwood and Geelong are two clubs that come to mind that have great midfield depth and may benefit because of this.
Interstate sides and travel demands
Fremantle coach Mark Harvey, ever the crusader for interstate club rights, reckons teams that travel often have become used to rotating heavily on the road and thus will be disadvantaged by the new rule.
“The interesting thing about travelling on the road is the limit on the rotations and whether that adds to the difficulty of winning on the road,” Harvey told AFL.com.au. “That’s an important point, because we’re about to find out about that. I see it as another restriction of travel.”
For what it’s worth, though, Freo averaged 130 rotations at home last season, compared to 123 on the road.
So who benefits the most out of the rule change?
The big unknown about the rule is what players will be best suited to being used as a substitute. We don’t even know if it’ll be wise to use the same player in that role each week, given they mightn’t be getting enough game time.
So until the 17 clubs settle on that, we don’t yet know which clubs hold “secret weapons” or “X-factors” on their list.
That said, as scary as this sounds, Collingwood appear the most prepared team for the new rule. The combination of a versatile back-up ruck and midfield depth puts them in good stead.
Clubs like Essendon and West Coast, with the likes of Patrick Ryder and Nic Naitanui, respectively, combined with a young list, would also appear to be at an advantage.
But there’s still a lot to be figured out about the sub rule. Until two weeks from now, the best anyone can do is take an educated guess – and that includes the AFL.
Eddie McGuire's latest bold idea has dropped - for North Melbourne to take over the outskirts of Melbourne and use it to rejuvenate the…
Pendles wasn't expecting that!
Diplomatically answered, Darcy!
For all the pomp and circumstance that surrounds the now-traditional Anzac Day clash at the MCG, there has been one thing conspicuously lacking over…
