Leigh Matthews promotes abolishing the interchange bench

[Hondo]

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.

[Dissident]

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 ?!

[Punk Rooster]

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.

[Coorong]

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.

[Dissident]

Woops I meant to write 18 vs 16!

[Hondo]

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.

[oldfella]

I some times wonder if there should be a limit to how many interchanges can be made in a quarter?

[Psyber]

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.

[mal]

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.

[Snaggletooth Tiger]

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!

[Psyber]

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.]

[spell_check]

It should be a maximum of 20 changes in a match.

[PhilG]

..

[mypaddock]

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.

[Macca19]

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.

[blink]

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.