This isn't at all Supercoach related, but I need to vent to a football community about something. I read that Guy McKenna blamed the sub-rule for Coad's injury, saying that he was playing sore and would have been sat-out for the last quarter but couldn't because they'd activated the sub. Now, I'm not a massive fan of the new rule, I can see it does have upsides (Essendon where realistically only 1 player short as opposed to 2 on Saturday, but what I can't stand is a coach who subs off a healthy player and then cries poor later when somebody is hurt. If you use the sub as a tactic, understand that it can back-fire and suck it up if it does. Bottom line: Take some responsibility for your choices, you are the coach after all.
Absolutely agree, well said Midge. Also, a note to the press: move on from the substitue rule as the first topic of discussion each week. Other than knowing who was substituted and when each week, I don't need to hear about grips such as McKenna's (most recent, but he hasn't been alone).
I completely agree- no-one twisted his arm to activate his sub- and nobody forced him to continue playing the already sore Coad. With or without the sub, he would have kept Coad out there- it's what coaches do.
I think a few teams are slow to work out how to use the sub rule to their advantage. I know West Coast had been using Gaff as a sub in for a last quarter burst, and not for the sake of making a sub when it's not required. I reckon Kerr could be a perfect Super Sub when he gets fit.