View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Presti35
Dick Lee for Legend Status
Joined: 05 Oct 2001 Location: London, England
|
Post subject: | |
|
4 and a sub is fine.
But imagine this in 2010 or even 1990. We'd have a few more premiership players. Or even in 2011, we could have subbed off Reid. _________________ A Goal Saved Is 2 Goals Earned!
Last edited by Presti35 on Tue Oct 25, 2022 1:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
dalyc
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
I hate the sub. It means there’s a player sitting on the sideline neither playing in the firsts or seconds for a week (depending on injuries and when the game is played).
I’d prefer 5 on the bench and that’s it. Never to be changed again. _________________ Four legged animals good, two legged animals better |
|
|
|
|
Born to Pie
Born to Pie
Joined: 20 Sep 2011 Location: Tolga FNQ
|
Post subject: | |
|
Agree totally _________________ In the end, it's not going to matter how many breaths you took, but how many moments took your breath away |
|
|
|
|
robevpau1
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
|
Post subject: | |
|
5 on the bench offers the most flexibility with all players allowed to return to the field of play if able to do so. |
|
|
|
|
Charlie Oneeye
charlie oneeye
Joined: 22 Apr 2004
|
Post subject: | |
|
Put 5. Even more.
The speed of the game is very influenced by recruiting and training, not so much by bench size or rotation restrictions anymore.
And if other clubs don't have the depth to compete, let's not aspire to the lowest denominator.
Great to have options on the bench.
Start fast and put the talls on at the end. Opens up all sorts of interesting scenarios.
The game will evolve to its highest standard.
As it is now, the process is corrupted. We need to get rid of the sub, not make it even more convoluted. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
yep
5 straight will do! _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
think positive wrote: | yep
5 straight will do! |
Agree totally. 5 interchange, if there's an injury or 2, 3 easily suffices for a match. The red jacket is ridiculous. _________________ Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
BazBoy
Joined: 11 Sep 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
In some shape or form with regulations applied they have had 5 on the bench
So free up regulations and just have a rotating bench of five _________________ I'm not arguing--just explaining why i am right |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003 Location: Port Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
If it goes to 5 on the bench, rotation numbers have to increase. |
|
|
|
|
Boot
Joined: 22 Feb 2013
|
Post subject: | |
|
Culprit wrote: | If it goes to 5 on the bench, rotation numbers have to increase. |
Not necessarily, I don't expect that they will increase the number of rotations allowed, but what it does do is limit the impact of game ending injuries. If there was a couple of injuries with the current set up a team can be handicapped by only having 3 instead of 4 players to rotate. The extra player available reduces the impact of getting 2 or 3 injuries during a game. I think this is a good thing for the AFL to introduce. It should allow for playing an extra tall in the mix as well, but will be fascinating to see how clubs utilize the extra flexibility. _________________ Collingwood Domination. Envy of the Nation! |
|
|
|
|
BazBoy
Joined: 11 Sep 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
With five on the bench it gives the opportunity to use certain players a little fresher with less time when on the field
Have some fresher than normal for close finish games _________________ I'm not arguing--just explaining why i am right |
|
|
|
|
barrackers
Joined: 20 Apr 2017
|
Post subject: | |
|
After an early adjustment we ran out games well in ‘22. On face value we can run harder for longer with an extra interchange player, however there’s also the chance other sides will try and increase their late game running capacity against us by keeping a bloke fresh (minimal early game time) or by playing an extra mid. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
Skids wrote: | think positive wrote: | yep
5 straight will do! |
Agree totally. 5 interchange, if there's an injury or 2, 3 easily suffices for a match. The red jacket is ridiculous. |
yep, the likes of the bullflogs cheated with it anyway! _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Location: The 18
|
Post subject: | |
|
Surely the easiest solution would be that as soon as one team activates a substitute the other team can do so whether or not any player of theirs is injured.
This would stop any team being able to gain the system and use it as a tactical advantage.
Moving to a 5 man interchange would eventually only lead to the same reasons the medical substitute was first implemented and we'll have a situation whereby one side gets an injury early in the game and be a man down. Get 2 injuries and they'll be 2 men down instead of just 1 like the current system allows.
It's a stupid idea. _________________ He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Location: The 18
|
Post subject: | |
|
dalyc wrote: | I hate the sub. It means there’s a player sitting on the sideline neither playing in the firsts or seconds for a week (depending on injuries and when the game is played).
I’d prefer 5 on the bench and that’s it. Never to be changed again. |
When it was 21 + 1 sub I hated it because it was effectively robbing us fans of seeing a player taking to the field at any given point each match.
With 22 + 1 however I see it as an added bonus and a good way of easing our young players in to senior level football or someone returning from a long lay off. _________________ He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
|