The Sub - 2024 version

[LaurieHolden]

In light of Crispy's injection on Thursday night, while it's one match, do we need to present a more strategic sub?
Might it be one of our 30 y/o's? e.g. Crisp (I still think he's too good for a Sub role), Sidebottom, Mitchell or is it the role of Richards, Harrison, Sullivan.
A Sub needs to hit the ground running, fill role and impact.

I pose the question for discussion if it's better suited to an experienced player that can adjust quicker to the tempo of the game.
While Macrae didn't adjust to the tempo the week prior or starting on Thursday, Crisp came in and went whack straight away.
Maybe not an ideal example, and not potting Macrae, but who might be our Super-Sub? What traits are needed?

[RudeBoy]

Good points Laurie. Ideally a sub is a mid-fielder, who can (as you say) "hit the ground running" and have an immediate impact. On that basis, we could see some of our veterans, like Mitchell, Sidey and Crisp, rotated through that role. I guess there's so many factors which come into play, including form, fitness and the need to introduce new talent. One thing's for sure, Crisp's introduction off the bench was instrumental in us beating the Lions.

[Pies2016]

It’s a good topic of conversation ( for the purists at least )
There’s a number of factors coaches will discuss at every team selection that supporters don’t necessarily see or are made privy to when the tactical sub is chosen.
There are numerous occasions when an A grader mightnt be 100 % but still ok to contribute for a percentage of the game. In that case, the coaches might opt for a like for like tactical sub. Conversely, it’s hard to imagine a best 22 without Crisp but he was in such poor form ( ball handling, not effort ) they relegated him to the sub and just rolled the dice on him coming good at some point, which he did. I’d be shocked if he was sub again this week.
Coaches also need to consider if a player who is a regular candidate for the sub role, is getting enough game time at either level ( although the new rules potentially improve that situation ) This is why we won’t see “ specialist “ tactical subs only. They just wouldn’t be getting enough footy into them.
We also had a situation under McRae when the coaches chose an underdone Cameron as the sub simply because they felt the side was already too short to lose a tall at any stage through the game.
There will always be a horses for courses conversation when it comes to choosing the sub but in the event of an all things equal situation, you would likely play your next best two way runner as the sub. The other thing to remember, is that at the end of the day, hes the 23rd player who is selected. He’s not likely to be any superstar who can turn the game on it’s head but more a reliable role player who understands the structures of a process driven system.

[qldmagpie67]

I think tactically it’s vital now
I watched live Thursday night and McRae was done early in the 3rd
Crisp come on and his impact around the contest was immediate and vital
I like the idea
The heat was out the game at this stage and crisp with fresh legs was able to use his speed in a positive manner
Mitchell wouldn’t have the same impact neither would Sidey they don’t have that leg speed but younger players or a Crisp or even a Elliott could do it
Honestly I felt like Thursday night that sub made a huge difference and was pivotal to the final result