AFL footy needs a practical substitutes system

"Most negative trends in all football codes can be traced to coaches in my oppinion" Spot on. The AFL needs to be careful not to over compensate for trends in the game. But make no mistake coaches are to blame for ruining the spectacle at times. A trend started by Eade/ Roos and the Swans. Ironic that in 2010 the Swans have become good to watch again. Anyone see Jetta's run and carry then goal against Freo?

Excellent post Bayman! Having watched the game since the 70's your observations are pretty much on mark.

Further to Black Diamonds point about coaches, the shift to four interchange players was largely driven by Kevin Sheedy, the then Essendon coach. Personally, I've always preferred the original (in my time) version of two reserves and only being used once. I could just about accept the "substitute" concept whereby a subsequently injured player could be replaced to ensure the game remained a contest of 18 vs 18. I vividly remember the SANFL introduced unlimited interchange in 1977 and a premiership was decided by it. Port Adelaide lost a player to a hammy injury and he was replaced. Shortly after two more were injured (I remember one was knocked out cold) and the poor old "hammy" player was forced to return to prop himself up in the forward pocket. The previous year the situation would have been that Port were now down to 17 men. In 1977 they at least were able to have 18 even if one was somewhat hampered in his movements. As luck would have it, this cripple kicked two goals and Port won the Grand Final by just eight points. Given I was a Tiger fan I would have preferred the SANFL to introduce this rule the following year! We didn't then, and still don't, win too many flags and I would have been quite happy to win in 1977 with an extra man - especially against Port Adelaide. On a more serious note, one of the drivers around this interchange debate is the speed of the game and the potential for injuries. By reducing the interchange, or going back to the future and limiting it to what it was, the speed will fall off and so will the injuries. Players, through tiredness, will be unable to make the contest and, as in the animal world, only the fittest will survive - as it should be. The old 18 vs 18 game is now very much a 22 vs 22 encounter and I don't necessarily believe the game has improved as a result. A bit like basketball on sterioids. The AFL seem to be of the view that a fast game is a good game (witness the fast kick-in following a behind being scored) but then they want to complain about injuries and start fiddling the rules again. They can't have it both ways. Instead of adding rules, or changing old rules, perhaps they could just leave the game alone for awhile or actually remove some of the variations they have recently introduced. I rather like the soccer concept - two rule changes in 40 odd years sounds about right and nobody is suggesting soccer is in any way less of a game than it was 40 years ago. In AFL I can hardly remember what a rule was two years ago so quickly, and so often, are the powers that be changing things. One thing is for sure, AFL footy is not what VFL footy was even if the teams are largely the same. It's a different era but it's also a completely different game. Indeed the "holding the ball" rule that I played under no longer exists - this rule has been completely rewritten and re-interpreted. To which I might add, am I the only one who is concerned that quite often the commentators have no idea why a free has been given? If the so-called experts can't explain, has it occurred to anyone at the AFL (e.g. Adrian Anderson, Jeff Gieschen etc.) that perhaps they have just gone too far and are ruining a perfectly good game and for what - television? It sure isn't for the supporters.

Black Diamonds I don't really regard the "number of subs" as a change to the Laws of the Game so, as far as I can observe, there have been only 2 changes to the Laws in the past 40 years - the Backpass to the GK Rule and the introduction of Passive Offside. In relation to subs, the "3 subs rule" only applies to official competitions organised by FIFA, the Confederations or the member associations. if the match is not part of such an "official competition" 6 subs may be used or even more if both teams agree. In fact, I recall that during the Eng v Aus friendly that was played at Upton Park in 2003, England manager Sven Goran Eriksson substituted his whole team, making 11 subs at 1/2 time!

Not a bad idea either. I suggest you email Adrian Anderson. You might think its not worth your time, but I've emailled him a number of times over a number of issues - including this one - and he usually responds fairly quickly with a decent response.

Agree, it is interesting. I could add in the extra physicality involved in Australian Football due to tackling and surely that would tie back in to workrate in some way. But really, I actually brought that up to praise Soccer for sticking to only 3 subs. The praise was probably drowned out somewhat in the rest of my post.

Definitely agree with you last point - which is why no one (media, fans, those on the committee that discuss these rules) should ever listen to the coaches. Their clear vested interest in keeping a job that relies on tactics based upon current rules means their opinions are hopelessly compromised! It annoys me no end when the media quotes coaches against particular rule changes! So what! It is not the "coaches game" - it has always been known as the "people's game" - for many reasons, including the low price of admittance. 11 game membership for $160! Bargain. Works out at about $1 per 8mins of game-time.

That's funny - because I always seem to hear that FIFA never or hardly ever changes the law - in fact many Soccer lovers have said to me that in the last 20 years the only rule change in Soccer has been the backpass! Why are so many Soccer supporters so ill-informed! I'm sorry to have taken their word as gospel - clearly you're a more knowledgable supporter Art who knows his stuff! Thanks for pointing that out (I am not being facetious, I appreciate learning new things)

It's interesting isn't it? I would like the idea of having your 25 man squad, 18 on ground 3 interchange and you can use 2 out of 4 emergencies as substitutes.

i do think. interesting.

Michael C The problem with interchange is it gives more power to the coaches and their influence always moves away from free flowing football towards something they can control. They trialled unlimited interchange in the States for a little while thinking it would mean that it would extend the life of creative players... it actually favored defensive midfielders as coaches used the interchange to keep them fresh so they could constantly pressure and stifle the opposition. Most negative trends in all football codes can be traced to coaches in my oppinion.

Black Diamonds I don't understand your comment about it being: "Really extraordinary ... that ... an 18 man sport only had as many as 2 substitute/interchanges when ... Soccer ... with just over half the number of players, had 3 substitutes". Intuitively, the power of "the collective unit" suggests that - for a given job - the more resources available, the less work is required by each individual. So, in a team sport, if there are only 2 players on each side kicking a ball, they're going to be doing a lot more work and getting a lot more fatigures than if there are 11, 18 or 22 on each side! So, to compare the work loads between Aussie Rules & Football, we have: 1. Resources: During an Aussie Rules match, 63% more resources are utilised than a football match. This figure increases to 80% more resources in an Aussie Rules match if you exclude the GK, who rarely moves outside the Penalty Box. 2. Working area * Aussie Rules players have to play on a significantly larger working an area - perhaps, some playing areas are 63% larger but I'd be surprised if even the largest AFL ground has an area 80% greater than a football pitch. So, let's say "no. of players per unit area" is equal for both sports. 3. Time at work * Aussie Rules players are officially working for only 80 minutes and many (perhaps 50-70%???) work much less since they are constantly being interchanged. In general, 70% of footballers work for 90 minutes. 4. Work Rate * this is a complex issue but, in my opinion, if the area is smaller then - generally speaking - there is more work involved, since there is very little respite since the ball is "always in play" and coming back all the time. E.g. playing futsal requires a higher work rate than outdoor football. Interesting, don't you think?? ;-)

and it looks like the AFL is a little too far to the total freedom side of things, whilst I still reckon soccer could become really intriguing with a little more freedom via limited interchange......i.e. Pim could've run Harry Kewell for 15 mins at a time as an 'impact player' mebbe in the 1st half and in the 2nd half........and in b/w run the taller Kennedy to try to stretch the defence......... ah well. It's the clear and distinct differences that make the games so different......which again I reckon is an aspect the AFL has to keep mindful of.

Black Diamonds - a history lesson. FIFA changes 1988 Law III - Number of players: ...a team shall not be permitted to use more than two substitutes from more than five players... 1995 Law III - Number of Players (three substitutes without restriction) Up to a maximum of three substitutes may be used in any match played in an official competition .. Substitutions during English league matches were first permitted in the 1965-66 season. During the first two seasons after the law was introduced, each side was permitted only one substitution during a game. Moreover the substitute could only replace an injured player. From the 1967-68 season, this rule was relaxed to allow substitutions for tactical reasons.

yeh i think thats right too. makes alot of sense and is easy to implement. i guess the issues which were raised last year confused the issue. here's a good link; http://www.sportingpulse.com/club_info.cgi?client=1-4606-80923-0-0&sID=117450&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=9215448&sectionID=117450 scroll down the page a bit to pavlich supports injury substitutes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Australian_football # 1978 - Reserve players became interchange players (i.e. replaced players could later return to the game). In 1994, the AFL turned its focus to speeding up the game. To do this, the league increased the number of interchange players for their matches from 2 to 3 and increased the number of field umpires in the AFL from 2 to 3.[3] In 1998, the number of interchange players for AFL matches was increased from 3 to 4 to further speed up the game. So, it mostly happened in the 1990s - 2 to 4 on the bench. Really extraordinary to think that for over 100 years an 18 man sport only had as many as 2 substitute/interchanges when other sports like Soccer (for instance) with just over half the number of players, had 3 substitutes. But then you've got the NFL where the whole list sits on the bench all the time. Of course that is clearly a lot different these days with 4 players rotating ceaselessly through the bench - something I for one am not a huge fan of - perhaps because I enjoyed footy in the 1990s quite a bit I don't see a problem with returning to 3 on the bench, with the fourth player becoming a substitute.

Hi Ben Very interesting article. As a kid, I recall there were no interchange players at all - simply 2 subs on the bench and once a player was removed from the field, that was it for the day. Players had to understand the limitations of their own bodies and pace themselves for a contest that lasted 4 quarters. Do you know when and, particularly, why the rule changed? My memory is vague on this issue - but it may have been around the late70s-early 80s? Surely, if Aussie Rules went back to only having substitutes - rather than interchange - no coach could complain about "running out of players" since the primary purpose of subs is to replace injured players. Obviously, as the game progresses, the coach may decide the risk of "running out of personnel" is outweighed by the reward of a fresh player, or to overcome a positional or tactical deficiency. Additionally, having no interchange would also result in a contest that predominantly pits the fitness and technique of each side's best 18 on that day.

I don't think there's a problem with regards to injury Ben. Just operate the substitutes system as they do in Soccer. You can sub the substitute on at any time - no injury requirement which will just confuse the issue. If you use your sub to bring someone new on, and sub someone off who isn't injured - well its your own bad luck if you then get an injury to a player and have an uninjured player who you can't use sitting on your bench. Its your own fault. What's the problem with that? A little management.