Leigh Matthews promotes abolishing the interchange bench

Talk on the national game

Leigh Matthews promotes abolishing the interchange bench

Postby Hondo » Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:49 pm

I heard on 5AA that Leigh Matthews wants the interchange bench scrapped .....

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21508020-11088,00.html

It's an interesting concept ... I have never really looked at the interchange bench like that but Matthews is right that if a team loses 2 players to injury it effectively becomes 22 on 20 which is a huge advantage to the other team. Not sure it will go anywhere but it's a good debate because it's arguable that the 4 man interchange bench has had a greater impact on the evolution of the game than any other rule change over the last 10 years.
User avatar
Hondo
Coach
 
 
Posts: 7927
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Glandore, Adelaide
Has liked: 70 times
Been liked: 32 times

Re: Leigh Matthews promotes abolishing the interchange bench

Postby Dissident » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:36 pm

hondo71 wrote:I heard on 5AA that Leigh Matthews wants the interchange bench scrapped .....

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21508020-11088,00.html

It's an interesting concept ... I have never really looked at the interchange bench like that but Matthews is right that if a team loses 2 players to injury it effectively becomes 22 on 20 which is a huge advantage to the other team. Not sure it will go anywhere but it's a good debate because it's arguable that the 4 man interchange bench has had a greater impact on the evolution of the game than any other rule change over the last 10 years.


But surely 22 vs 20 is less of an advantage than 20 vs 18 ?!
User avatar
Dissident
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 6394
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:55 am
Location: Adelaide, SA
Has liked: 110 times
Been liked: 158 times

Postby Punk Rooster » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:46 pm

22 v 20 is no great advantage, because you're still fielding 18 fit players.
18 v 16 is a huge disadvantage.
Either Lethal's been on the slops, or he's being paid good money to make ridiculous comments.
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things

Ken Farmer>John Coleman

Hindmarsh Pest Control
User avatar
Punk Rooster
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11948
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:30 am
Location: Paper Street Soap Company
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 16 times
Grassroots Team: Fitzroy

Postby Coorong » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:51 pm

I played under that rule and let me tell you if the trainer came out to ask if you wanted to come of it was always nah mate its only cramp.
User avatar
Coorong
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:48 am
Location: In the Coaches Box
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 8 times

Postby Dissident » Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:14 pm

Woops I meant to write 18 vs 16!
User avatar
Dissident
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 6394
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:55 am
Location: Adelaide, SA
Has liked: 110 times
Been liked: 158 times

Postby Hondo » Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:45 pm

Punk Rooster wrote:22 v 20 is no great advantage, because you're still fielding 18 fit players.
18 v 16 is a huge disadvantage.
Either Lethal's been on the slops, or he's being paid good money to make ridiculous comments.


Of course 18 v 16 is more of a disadvantage .... but don't underestimate the vale of 4 fresh players to rotate in to your 18 on the field v an opponent with only 2 in today's modern, possession, flooding style game. Sometimes today we see sudden reversals of form in second halves or teams running away with games and can't quite understand why. Often it's because one team has run out of interchange players.

In the old days, it was just 18 on 18 and the 19th and 20th players only came on if there was an injury. I still remember the 1987 SANFL grand final where Michael Armfield and Wayne Slattery played about 10 minutes between them in total. Today it genuinely is 22 v 22 in my opinion - 18 on the field and 4 more rotating constantly during the game.

Another alternative is to have another 2 players in reserve who could only come on if one of the original 22 is forced permanently out of the game.

Having said all that, teams having to deal with injuries during a game has been part of our game forever.
User avatar
Hondo
Coach
 
 
Posts: 7927
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Glandore, Adelaide
Has liked: 70 times
Been liked: 32 times

Postby oldfella » Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:29 pm

I some times wonder if there should be a limit to how many interchanges can be made in a quarter?
oldfella
Under 16s
 
 
Posts: 448
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:47 pm
Has liked: 39 times
Been liked: 14 times

Postby Psyber » Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:48 pm

Leigh Matthews suggestion is consistent with the way he played and they way he coaches.

The team that breaks the most opponents legs wins the game! Nobody ever takes a mark against Brisbane with getting thumped from behind - usually in the rib cage - attrition football.
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12247
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 104 times
Been liked: 405 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Postby mal » Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:38 pm

MATTHEWS is spot on
The interchange is a farce
Sydney 80 interchanges v West Coast [almost cheating]

The whole idea of extra interchange players was so teams would
in theory have 18 fit blokes on the field to cover injuries in the run.
That conceot is acceptable
Having between 30-80 interchanges is not right

I reckon limit all Interchanges per club to 10 a game
Then the taggers the flooders and the scrubbers will suffer
and the sides with the best players + most skillfull players will prosper.
We might also have more skilled footballers and less athletes playing AFL footy.

As for MATTHEWS he is a premiership player + premiership coach and should be
respected for his opinions on this matter.
mal
Coach
 
Posts: 30188
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:45 pm
Has liked: 2106 times
Been liked: 2131 times

Postby Snaggletooth Tiger » Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:46 pm

Punk Rooster wrote:Either Lethal's been on the slops, or he's being paid good money to make ridiculous comments.


Trying to compete with the Great Man Himself 'Kevin Sheedy' with eccentricity & the bizarre eh?
You've got a long way to go there Lethal Leigh!
GO THE GROWL!!!


"Shut the gate on this one Maxy... It's the Duck's Guts!"
User avatar
Snaggletooth Tiger
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: In a world of me own!
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Postby Psyber » Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:48 pm

mal wrote:As for MATTHEWS he is a premiership player + premiership coach and should be
respected for his opinions on this matter.

At various times in other contexts we could have given credence to other "players" for their success in their chosen fields until their luck and credibility ran out - Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin. They all were successful at first because of their ruthlessness.

[I guess I could have included Foster Williams and Neil Kerley - their teams won by the war of attrition technique too.]
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12247
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 104 times
Been liked: 405 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Postby spell_check » Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:24 pm

It should be a maximum of 20 changes in a match.
spell_check
Coach
 
 
Posts: 18824
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:56 pm
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 227 times

Postby PhilG » Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:24 am

..
Last edited by PhilG on Wed May 16, 2007 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PhilG
 

Postby mypaddock » Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:01 pm

mal wrote:MATTHEWS is spot on
The interchange is a farce
Sydney 80 interchanges v West Coast [almost cheating]

The whole idea of extra interchange players was so teams would
in theory have 18 fit blokes on the field to cover injuries in the run.
That conceot is acceptable
Having between 30-80 interchanges is not right

I reckon limit all Interchanges per club to 10 a game
Then the taggers the flooders and the scrubbers will suffer
and the sides with the best players + most skillfull players will prosper.
We might also have more skilled footballers and less athletes playing AFL footy.

As for MATTHEWS he is a premiership player + premiership coach and should be
respected for his opinions on this matter.


i agree with all of the above- 80 changes in a game is an absolute joke! should be limited to maybe 5 a quarter. there definitely needs to be a limit introduced to stop this stupidity.
mypaddock
League Bench Warmer
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:51 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Postby Macca19 » Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:23 pm

I dont understand why the amount of action on the interchange bench puts so many people out of place. If clubs wanna make an interchange every 30 seconds then I dont understand why it matters and why it affects the game. I dont understand why some people consider it ridiculous etc.
Macca19
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:54 pm
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 10 times
Grassroots Team: Ports

Postby blink » Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:28 pm

I think limiting the number of interchanges that a coach can make during a game would be extremely beneficial.

The short kicking & running back and flooding style of game (generally crap to watch) is extremely hard and taxing on players to pull off. You need to have 22 fit players constantly rotated to do it. It is no co-incidence that the football gets better to watch as the year progresses due to the fact that the players can no longer run back as hard as they may have in the first half of the year.
User avatar
blink
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:13 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time


Board index   Football  AFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |