76 percent

[Spinner]

Looking at the player stats today, the lowest game time for all St Kilda players (excluding the sub and subee) was 76%.

And there were only 5 players in the 70's.


Is this a product of the game, ie a slogging. Or a coaching style.

I remember in previous years, it wasn't so even.

[perfectionist]

Only three interchange? (A really dumb rule.)

[plugger66]

Only three interchange? (A really dumb rule.)

Great rule. Footy has clearly been better in the last 2 years than the previous few and that is because the players get tired and there is less flooding and packs. 2 and 2 may just be to much but could also work.

[Eastern]

Looking at the player stats today, the lowest game time for all St Kilda players (excluding the sub and subee) was 76%.

And there were only 5 players in the 70's.


Is this a product of the game, ie a slogging. Or a coaching style.

I remember in previous years, it wasn't so even.

I think it would be a bit of Coaching (constant rotations), a bit of sports science and A LOT OF our club being smarter !!

[SaintPav]

Only three interchange? (A really dumb rule.)

Great rule. Footy has clearly been better in the last 2 years than the previous few and that is because the players get tired and there is less flooding and packs. 2 and 2 may just be to much but could also work.

That wasn't the original intention of the rule and people like Mick Malthouse would disagree with you.

[plugger66]

Only three interchange? (A really dumb rule.)

Great rule. Footy has clearly been better in the last 2 years than the previous few and that is because the players get tired and there is less flooding and packs. 2 and 2 may just be to much but could also work.

That wasn't the original intention of the rule and people like Mick Malthouse would disagree with you.

Pretty sure it was. They wanted continuous play and the game would slow down because the players would be off the ground less time. And I am sure every coach would disagree but they dont want what is best for the game, they want what is best for their team.

[joffaboy]

I know it is a different game but Rugby league originally had an unlimited interchange that slowed the game down for the attacking team (defence was constantly formed and attack was stifled).

They changed it to 12 interchanges for the game and it has opened it up.

I'm with Plugger, the game opens up in the last quarter when the players become fatigued and the defensive structures break down a bit.

2 and 2 may be even better. Instead of athletes, we may get more footballers on the ground and more exciting attacking games.

[Quixote]

2 and 2 will blandise the game.

[bergholt]

2 and 2 may be even better. Instead of athletes, we may get more footballers on the ground and more exciting attacking games.

i'd love to see 2 and 2. maybe just call it an experiment, do it for a couple of years and if it "fails" (by whatever criteria) then change back to 3 and 1. what's wrong with giving it a go?

[karnak]

I'd like to see 3 and 2

[dragit]

I think it's interesting that we shifted from having a 19th/20th man to interchanging purely because Kevin Sheedy (& others) requested it, not sure how much science and testing went into that original change?

What is wrong with players getting tired?

I would prefer to see the better players out there longer (albeit tired) than 12 role-playing midfielders rotating every 3.5 minutes.

Be interesting to watch 2 good sides play without rotations.

[desertsaint]

Two man bench - stuff the subs as well. Players play positions. One on one battles return.

[Austinnn]

Great rule. Footy has clearly been better in the last 2 years than the previous few and that is because the players get tired and there is less flooding and packs. 2 and 2 may just be to much but could also work.

That wasn't the original intention of the rule and people like Mick Malthouse would disagree with you.

Pretty sure it was. They wanted continuous play and the game would slow down because the players would be off the ground less time. And I am sure every coach would disagree but they dont want what is best for the game, they want what is best for their team.

Absolutely right. It was tabled at the time very clearly as a reaction to various complaints that the original idea of the interchange was being abused to advantage by Malthouse among others and people at the time pined for the days of the "last man standing" style of game, a game which the AFL had previously decided was too boring and slow to attract a modern crowd. Other reasons might have been to alleviate confusion about who was on the ground, but de-robot-ising the game was the key reason, and I'm confident that any research will back that up; not that I'll be bothered to do any myself...

I like it more now, because it does return the bench to the benched in some small way and requires a bit more of a gamble by the coaching staff. You drag someone, you have to be sure it's the right move.

I think the game could stand getting a bit slower and less technical; I'm sure the players wouldn't mind. But these 21st century spectators with their 'twittering' and their 'steroids' and.... (shaddupgrandad)