Horses sub selections......??

[swansrule100]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.