I agree Luke - the spare player debate

[saintbrat]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx
No need for substitutes-Luke Ball says North Melbourne were unlucky with injuries last weekend
Tue, Jun 09, 09 By Luke Ball 9:39 AM Wed 10 June, 2009


OVER the last week there has been an increased call for the AFL to bring in a substitute player for teams that have had a couple of injuries.

Coaches and players have pushed the idea, arguing that with an increased reliance on rotations, an injury or two can severely affect the team and give an unfair advantage to the opposition.

I’m not a big fan of the idea and would much rather the interchange rule stays as it is. I’ve thought about this quite a bit from both sides of the argument and I think the onus is on the club to put 22 fit players out there and decide whether or not to take a gamble on a player who might have a niggle.

It relies on a bit of good fortune as well. You back your management to get the players to the start of the game and then there is an element of luck that is required in most sports.

Our game on the weekend brought it to light with the Kangaroos losing a couple of players and limiting their rotations but I don’t think it happens that often where a club is too disadvantaged by it.

I know I say this as part of a team that is having a good run with injuries this year. But I’d like to think that while it is a result of good management by the training staff, there is also a tiny bit of luck as well, which the Saints haven’t had over the last few years.

Attrition and bad luck has been part of our game since it started and I’d hope the rule-makers would leave the interchange rule as it is unless injuries become a really big issue.

It is true that rotations are a bigger part of our game these days. A quick peek at the stats shows that in my first year with the Saints in 2003, we averaged 25 interchanges per game. Now that number is 93.

A lot of these rotations happen through the midfield, so I have noticed a big change.

It’s no secret that I’ve had a fair bit of wear and tear in the legs over the years and I’ve got to say I’m pulling up much better now that the trend is towards playing midfielders in bursts.

But when you come off, it’s not so much about having a rest as it is about having a pitstop.

You run off, have a drink, walk a bit of the lactic acid out of the legs, maybe have a quick rub down and then you can be back on within minutes. It’s like we’re in Formula One and are pulling over for a quick tyre change. You don’t even have time to lose focus on the game.

I can still picture watching Robert Harvey out at Waverley in the 1990s playing 100 per cent of the game in a war of attrition with his opponent. But those days are gone and in 2009 it is all about the higher speed running and seeing if your opponent can keep up with you.

And if they get injured while chasing you, well that’s just plain bad luck.

[B W and R all over]

Agree 100 per cent. Players get injured. It affects teams.
That's the way it's always been. You win some, you lose some.

[Ghost Like]

Yep, leave it as it is. The coaches will try to take advantage of extra players and not use them for the intial intent. They need to work smarter and cop that occassional unlucky day that a player or two go down early. Swings and roundabouts.

[bungiton]

Yeah for god's sake it is about time they leave the game alone.

Malthouse and others have whined about this for years, its just a matter of keeping up the rotations not keeping fit players on field. Simply having two spare mids to rotate on later in the game.

Just leave the game alone!!

[SainterK]

Yep leave it as is....will only be used unfairly anyway.

[bergsone]

Leave it as is,sick of rule changes and knee jerk reactions