Horses sub selections......??

[dimelb]

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]

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]

Im comfortable with all subs so far.............most subs were picked either to cover key roles and or as development opportunities !

[Cheer_Cheer]

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]

+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]

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

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]

+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]

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]

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]

The stats below are in the Stats 2011 thread. It's a sticky in the Main RWO Chat forum

[Lucky Knickers]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.