PDA

View Full Version : Horses sub selections......??



ernie koala
15th May 2011, 01:23 PM
Well after 8 rounds the swans sub selections are as follows:
R1 : Seaby - Should of been in the 21, played ok, no real impact.
R2 : Meredith - Underdone and one paced, no impact
R3 : Rohan - Excellent, got to heaps of contests and made a big impact.
R4 : Rohan - Back to the well, needed a full game, little impact.
R5 : BYE
R6 : Everitt - One paced, got to very few contests, no impact.
R7 : Moore - Never going to impact..too slow for a sub.
R8 : Parker - 1st game..Needed a full game to settle into his work, came on in junk
time and looked good.

So IMO, that's 1 good result...6 bad results..They have tried all different types but seem no closer to perfecting the new art of sub selection....Who's next ?

R-1
15th May 2011, 01:25 PM
We, thankfully, haven't needed anyone to cover an injury yet. The subs chosen may have been more useful in that situation.

ernie koala
15th May 2011, 01:55 PM
We, thankfully, haven't needed anyone to cover an injury yet. The subs chosen may have been more useful in that situation.

Only if that sub happened to be a similar type player. That's guessing.
IMO there are 2 main considerations:
1 - Versatility
2 - Likely hood to impact the game in approx one quarter.
So far Rohan in round 3 has been the only success.

Bloody Hell
15th May 2011, 02:28 PM
Of all the players on the list Jetta appears most suited for this role....but has never played. I don't get it.

Big Al
15th May 2011, 02:29 PM
The perfect sub has all the attributes of a bloke you'd want to start anyway. All clubs will be going through the same problems with sub selection.

It's a stupid rule and more evidence of the AFL trying to crack a walnut with a sledge hammer. If they want to limit the Interchange to slow the game down just put a limit on it otherwise just leave it alone.

Bloody Hell
15th May 2011, 02:30 PM
I think the most important attribute for the role is that they be quick. Able to get to and run away from alot of contests. Endurance shouldn't be an issue, so pace is required.

BSA5
15th May 2011, 02:43 PM
Thought Moore just had s bad game, the theory behind it was fine. He lacks endurance, and playing him as a sub actually allowed him to play some minutes in the midfield. He just played like @@@@.

What was wrong with Parker as sub? Came on, played well, who's complaining?

GongSwan
15th May 2011, 02:48 PM
No complaints from me about Parker, looked very good and seems a good way to blood youger players and give them some confidence. I think the coaches will trend toward using a midfield hard running player as a sub because they are the type of player you want on, no matter who goes off. If yr ruck goes down, well that's just plain bad luck and hopefully yv got talls who can cover it, otherwise, a running midfielder who can cover a lot of ground is the obvious choice

ABloodsMan
15th May 2011, 02:53 PM
He came on with 10 minutes to go playing against dead opposition. Very disappointed with Horse on this one.

ernie koala
15th May 2011, 03:04 PM
Thought Moore just had s bad game, the theory behind it was fine. He lacks endurance, and playing him as a sub actually allowed him to play some minutes in the midfield. He just played like @@@@.

What was wrong with Parker as sub? Came on, played well, who's complaining?

No problem with Parker as such, I just think it's asking a lot of a first gamer, to sit nervously on the pine for 3 and a bit quarters, then be expected ( or at least thinking he should) come on, pick up the pace and intensity of the game immediately, and have an immediate impact.
Given Parker came on in junk time, against a beaten and deflated Port, meant he had a nice little intro and played well. But against stiffer opposition in a close game..IMO it's too big an ask for someone who's never played at this level before..I like to see first gamers given 4 quarters to get into it.

Bas
15th May 2011, 03:10 PM
So you're saying that Horse has gone with a few donkies so far.

I think this year will be experimental for all Clubs unless there is an early injury. There's 17 Clubs all with different strategies.

I thought Parker came on far too late but the dilemma the coaching staff have is that if you bring the sub on too early and there is an injury, you're left with 2 on the bench.

Look at the Hawks game today where they were forced to use their sub after 5 minutes.

barry
15th May 2011, 03:45 PM
These sub errors have cost us at least one win (Seaby, v Melbourne), and probably another one.

barry
15th May 2011, 03:47 PM
I think its a great way to bring new players into the team. Worked well against Port.
Also a great way to bring back long term injured who may not last a whole game (eg Malceski)

Captain
15th May 2011, 05:24 PM
Thought Moore just had s bad game, the theory behind it was fine. He lacks endurance, and playing him as a sub actually allowed him to play some minutes in the midfield. He just played like @@@@.

He lacks endurance and he lacks speed. What does he have then?

Captain
15th May 2011, 05:25 PM
Kennelly might be a good sub when Eski is back.

dimelb
15th May 2011, 05:27 PM
He lacks endurance and he lacks speed. What does he have then?
He actually seems to have a good footy brain and a capacity for leadership. Perhaps we should think of him as a coach-in-training?

BSA5
15th May 2011, 05:38 PM
He lacks endurance and he lacks speed. What does he have then?

Skills, strength, smarts, leadership, experience. Endurance and speed aren't the only two attributes a footballer can excel in, you know.

Auntie.Gerald
15th May 2011, 05:40 PM
Im comfortable with all subs so far.............most subs were picked either to cover key roles and or as development opportunities !

Cheer_Cheer
15th May 2011, 06:38 PM
Im comfortable with all subs so far.............most subs were picked either to cover key roles and or as development opportunities !

+1

The sub rule is always going to be a case of hindsight is 20/20 vision. Just look at the cricket power plays.. There still isn't any successful formula. As for all our subs so far. I can see the reasoning for all of them.

R1: Seaby - Who woulda thought Mummy would keep powering all day like he has been ? He is a machine. I thought the idea of resting him in the last quarter was a good idea.. I have since changed my mind as has Horse.
R2: Meredith - Looking at what other clubs had done in round one to bring on a young impact player with fresh legs wasn't a bad idea.. It didn't pan out.. So he went for..
R3 & 4: Rohan - Perfect for the sub.. Worked a treat against the Weagles.. Not so well against the Cats.. Hey, its the Cats.. They are unbeaten. He is injured now so we look look elsewhere fore the moment...
R6: Everrit - He can play forward and back. A good allrounder.. What is wrong with that ? He is now in the 21.
R7: Moore - A gutsy little player who has stamina and pace issues.. Maybe one hard quarter of footy would be good for him to excel.. What is wrong with that thinking ? I like the idea.. It didn't work though so we moved on.
R8: Parker - A nice easy intro into the big time.. When the game is won.. I want to see more of him..

If anything, I applaud Horse for not, well.. Flogging a dead horse.. He tries something and if it doesn't provide the required result moves on.

Jewels
15th May 2011, 07:01 PM
+1

The sub rule is always going to be a case of hindsight is 20/20 vision. Just look at the cricket power plays.. There still isn't any successful formula. As for all our subs so far. I can see the reasoning for all of them.
.
.
.

If anything, I applaud Horse for not, well.. Flogging a dead horse.. He tries something and if it doesn't provide the required result moves on.

I agree with all you had to say Cheery and your reasoning behind each sub selection. I can't say as I have noticed any coach having yet perfected the choice of sub.
As for Longmire not flogging a dead horse, I think this seams to be his best attribute so far, he doesn't seem as pig headed (for want of a better word) as Roos was.

Captain
15th May 2011, 08:43 PM
Skills, strength, smarts, leadership, experience. Endurance and speed aren't the only two attributes a footballer can excel in, you know.

Skills? Yep when I think of Moore I think of silky smooth skills and a polished finisher :rolleyes:

I would have though speed and endurance are qualities a small forward would ideally have. Guess that's why he isn't in the team.

ernie koala
15th May 2011, 09:25 PM
+1

The sub rule is always going to be a case of hindsight is 20/20 vision. Just look at the cricket power plays.. There still isn't any successful formula. As for all our subs so far. I can see the reasoning for all of them.

R1: Seaby - Who woulda thought Mummy would keep powering all day like he has been ? He is a machine. I thought the idea of resting him in the last quarter was a good idea.. I have since changed my mind as has Horse.
R2: Meredith - Looking at what other clubs had done in round one to bring on a young impact player with fresh legs wasn't a bad idea.. It didn't pan out.. So he went for..
R3 & 4: Rohan - Perfect for the sub.. Worked a treat against the Weagles.. Not so well against the Cats.. Hey, its the Cats.. They are unbeaten. He is injured now so we look look elsewhere fore the moment...
R6: Everrit - He can play forward and back. A good allrounder.. What is wrong with that ? He is now in the 21.
R7: Moore - A gutsy little player who has stamina and pace issues.. Maybe one hard quarter of footy would be good for him to excel.. What is wrong with that thinking ? I like the idea.. It didn't work though so we moved on.
R8: Parker - A nice easy intro into the big time.. When the game is won.. I want to see more of him..

If anything, I applaud Horse for not, well.. Flogging a dead horse.. He tries something and if it doesn't provide the required result moves on.

I would assume there is reasoning attached to every decision made, unless they've been using the 'pin the tail on the donkey 'approach. But having reasoning doesn't necessarily make it right.
Yet even by your own summary, only Rohan in R3 has been successful. Parker is hard to judge given the circumstances but even if you regard him a good sub. That's 2 successful, 5 unsuccessful.
I agree with your sentiment that at least Horse is trying different types ( unlike his stubborn predecessor). But clearly it's been a scatter gun approach so far and generally it hasn't worked.
I'm sure other clubs are struggling with it as well( though I don't follow their various sub tactics).
I would hope that by seasons end we have a better success rate . Jetta for mine next week.

Cheer_Cheer
15th May 2011, 09:49 PM
Yet even by your own summary, only Rohan in R3 has been successful.

So what is the definition of a successful sub ? If (god forbid) Mummy went down in the 1st quarter of the 1st game with an injury and Seaby was subbed in, we would all be hailing Horse as the sub messiah. I figure it is always going to be hit and miss.. Should we have a permanent player in this spot ? Maybe teams will start having a "specialist" in this spot.. I doubt it.... I think it is the perfect way to introduce new players to the big stage and maybe bring back players from injury.. If a sub makes a game winning play then great..

Melbournehammer
15th May 2011, 10:09 PM
So what is the definition of a successful sub ? If (god forbid) Mummy went down in the 1st quarter of the 1st game with an injury and Seaby was subbed in, we would all be hailing Horse as the sub messiah. I figure it is always going to be hit and miss.. Should we have a permanent player in this spot ? Maybe teams will start having a "specialist" in this spot.. I doubt it.... I think it is the perfect way to introduce new players to the big stage and maybe bring back players from injury.. If a sub makes a game winning play then great..

Can't agree more with this. The biggest threat to getting well beaten in round one was jamar playing on white for three entire quarters because mummy got injured. As it happens their sub came on and had an impact but that has as much to do with us going completely defensive for fifteen minutes trying to protect a lead.

At the risk of sounding cliched to me it's a horses for courses approach and I am happy enough with that.

Frog
16th May 2011, 01:30 AM
The stats below are in the Stats 2011 thread. It's a sticky in the Main RWO Chat forum

Rnd|#|Name|K|H|P|Eff%|Con M|Tot M|C Pos|U Pos|I50|Clrncs|Clgrs|HO|T|FF|FA|G|B|Assists|TOG%
1| 1|Mark Seaby|1|3|4|100|1|1|4|1|0|0|1|1|3|2|1|0|0|0|16
2| 7|Brett Meredith|2|1|3|100|0|2|0|3|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|17
3|16|Gary Rohan|6|3|9|33|1|2|6|4|1|0|0|0|2|1|0|1|1|0|31
4|16|Gary Rohan|4|2| 6|33|0|0|2|3|3|0|2|0| 1|0|1|0|0|0|31
6|13|Andrejs Everitt|3|2|5|40|0|1|3|2|1|0|1|2|3|0|0|0|0|0|31
7|33|Jarred Moore|2|2|4|25|0|1|2|2|1|0|1|0|1|0|0|0|0|0|20
8|26|L.Parker|4|3|7|86|0|2|1|7|1|1|0|0|1|1|0|0|0|1 |16

Lucky Knickers
16th May 2011, 11:18 AM
These sub errors have cost us at least one win (Seaby, v Melbourne), and probably another one.
We had many many opportunities to put Melbourne away and didn't. I don't believe the substitute selection had that big a bearing on the draw.
The only time I can think of where a sub has made a significant difference to our fortunes was Rohan against WCE.

ernie koala
16th May 2011, 12:46 PM
So what is the definition of a successful sub ? If (god forbid) Mummy went down in the 1st quarter of the 1st game with an injury and Seaby was subbed in, we would all be hailing Horse as the sub messiah. I figure it is always going to be hit and miss.. Should we have a permanent player in this spot ? Maybe teams will start having a "specialist" in this spot.. I doubt it.... I think it is the perfect way to introduce new players to the big stage and maybe bring back players from injury.. If a sub makes a game winning play then great..

A successful sub is one that comes on and has a positive impact for his team. As I said originally, IMO, Seaby should of been in the 21. So using your argument "if Mummy went down in the 1st quarter" Seaby could of taken over the majority of rucking duties, and we still would of had a sub to use in other roles. IMO a one trick pony ie a ruckman is not a good sub selection.
I also completely disagree that bringing in a 1st gamer, as a sub, is a perfect intro. To the contrary, had Nipper come in as a sub in the 4th quarter against the Dogs, and produced some clangers (as he did early in the 1st quarter), with a game in the balance, it could of potentially lost us the game and set back his confidence greatly. IMO 1st gamers should be given 4 quarters, so they have time to shake any early nerves and settle into the tempo of the game, which is vastly more intense and faster the reserves games. It only worked out ok for Parker (who I think looks like an excellent pickup) because the game was effectively over when he came on, and by then the pace and intensity resembled a reserves game.. You can't bank on that being the case every time.

Frog
16th May 2011, 01:05 PM
RWO have provided substitute stats and other people within RWO are currently crunching numbers to give some more insight.
From the data I have seen, few subs in any team have the impact you seem to be expecting.

I may be proven wrong yet, but I sincerely think the sub should stay on the bench for 4 quarters and only be used for injury cover.
Whilst all other teams are using their sub, and not getting any impact, how about the team that does not use the substitute exploit the non-impact player the opposition has just presented them with?

Why does the substitute HAVE to be used at all? Is that part of the AFL rule that they have to play a certain amount of time?

ernie koala
16th May 2011, 01:19 PM
RWO have provided substitute stats and other people within RWO are currently crunching numbers to give some more insight.
From the data I have seen, few subs in any team have the impact you seem to be expecting.

I may be proven wrong yet, but I sincerely think the sub should stay on the bench for 4 quarters and only be used for injury cover.
Whilst all other teams are using their sub, and not getting any impact, how about the team that does not use the substitute exploit the non-impact player the opposition has just presented them with?


Why does the substitute HAVE to be used at all? Is that part of the AFL rule that they have to play a certain amount of time?

I assume that's a rhetorical question?
Obviously the sub doesn't have to be activated. Teams are using them late in the game(assuming no injuries) in an attempt to gain an advantage with a fresh player. Certainly worked for Melbourne against us with Pettard, and worked for us with Rohan in R3.

Frog
16th May 2011, 01:37 PM
No, not rhetorical - I want to float it as a genuine part of the discussion. If only one of our subs has worked so far out of 8 rounds (maybe 2 as I have read some say above), then why are we so hell-bent on using them? If only Petterd has been used effectively against us (1 out of 8), why not leave the subs on the bench. Now, I am no physical wellbeing expert and perhaps people more at home in this area can join the discussion, but perhaps warm muscles that have been churning over for the last two hours, tired as they may be, could provide better service than a set of fresh legs with cold muscles when all is on the line in a last quarter. Perhaps that is why so many subs seem to fail. If it is, or could be, there is a genuine case for leaving them on the bench.

swansrule100
16th May 2011, 01:51 PM
i was slightly disapointed we put a debutant as the sub. I know back in the old days it would of happened a lot and he played well when he came on. But your first game you must just want to get out into the thick of it.

I think there is an element of "the other team used their sub better use ours" in the league. I thought moore as the sub looked just as tired and flat as the guys who busted their guts out. I am still not sold on the rule at all. For injury cover could of just added a sub, though i guess would just be exploited anyway, maybe im a stick in the mud but i liked the game as it was.

Jewels
16th May 2011, 01:51 PM
I assume that's a rhetorical question?
Obviously the sub doesn't have to be activated. Teams are using them late in the game(assuming no injuries) in an attempt to gain an advantage with a fresh player. Certainly worked for Melbourne against us with Pettard, and worked for us with Rohan in R3.

If you think Melbourne drew that game simply by bringing Pettard on, I think you need to re-watch it.
We had well and truly blown it by then and you could reasonably argue (though I don't really think it) that Seaby coming on helped us draw that game instead of lose it.

ernie koala
16th May 2011, 06:35 PM
If you think Melbourne drew that game simply by bringing Pettard on, I think you need to re-watch it.
We had well and truly blown it by then and you could reasonably argue (though I don't really think it) that Seaby coming on helped us draw that game instead of lose it.

I'd answer that by saying if Seaby had been in the 21, or been subbed much earlier, Mummy wouldn't of run out of gas in the 3rd quarter, which is precisely when Melbourne got on top.

ernie koala
16th May 2011, 06:46 PM
No, not rhetorical - I want to float it as a genuine part of the discussion. If only one of our subs has worked so far out of 8 rounds (maybe 2 as I have read some say above), then why are we so hell-bent on using them? If only Petterd has been used effectively against us (1 out of 8), why not leave the subs on the bench. Now, I am no physical wellbeing expert and perhaps people more at home in this area can join the discussion, but perhaps warm muscles that have been churning over for the last two hours, tired as they may be, could provide better service than a set of fresh legs with cold muscles when all is on the line in a last quarter. Perhaps that is why so many subs seem to fail. If it is, or could be, there is a genuine case for leaving them on the bench.

This is an interesting take on it Frog. But I think, given how exhausted players are by the last quarter or so, fresh legs should be a big advantage.

BSA5
16th May 2011, 06:49 PM
No, not rhetorical - I want to float it as a genuine part of the discussion. If only one of our subs has worked so far out of 8 rounds (maybe 2 as I have read some say above), then why are we so hell-bent on using them? If only Petterd has been used effectively against us (1 out of 8), why not leave the subs on the bench. Now, I am no physical wellbeing expert and perhaps people more at home in this area can join the discussion, but perhaps warm muscles that have been churning over for the last two hours, tired as they may be, could provide better service than a set of fresh legs with cold muscles when all is on the line in a last quarter. Perhaps that is why so many subs seem to fail. If it is, or could be, there is a genuine case for leaving them on the bench.

Probably something to do with subs typically being below average players anyway.

lwoggardner
16th May 2011, 07:05 PM
I think that's Frog's point. Pick your best 21 and play them the whole game on the basis that your tired, but game aware #21 is better than their fresh #22.

Hartijon
16th May 2011, 07:40 PM
The thing that is becoming clearer to me is that there are too many mitigating factors regarding who the sub is,how and when do you use him and how many times do you keep him as sub. Throw in "lady Luck" and you have something akin to guesswork to decide on a sub. As someone rightly pointed out,if Mumford had gone down in the first 5 minutes ,choosing Seaby would have been seen as sheer brilliance! Game breakers should be on the field breaking the game! Choosing a sub could easili backfire on you no matter how smart the choice is. To me its in the "too hard basket" but as its a necessity I would roster it among players who might have trouble playing a whole game,those with niggles, youngsters like Parker,anxious to break into the team or a back up for an on field best 21 player who won't make the whole game.