I think the introduction of the new sub rule will impact our game more than we realise. I imagine a lot of players (including premiums) will be eased into games after injuries via the sub rule (either coming on late or starting the game and coming off early) This reduced TOG will mean a lower score for that particular game - and 1 low score is enough to drop $20,000 off a players salary. If a player has 2 or 3 games as a sub before becoming a starter then heaven forbid he may well be $150,000.00 underpriced! I imagine there to be a lot of 'bargains' throughout the season - Thankfully we have a few more trades up our sleeves! Will be very hard with the subs though as teams dont have to nominate the sub untill 90 minutes before bounce down - Not great news for us super coaches.
Don't agree with you, if you got a bloke who's had a long lay off you will tarde him out otherwise why else would they be eased back, if a bloke gets injured he will go off for the rest of the game just like normal
My view is anything that adds complexity and difficulty to things should be in our favour as we are tooserious enough to consider it. But yes subs will catch us out a few times this year for sure, though I can see injuries being a case for the sub in at least 30% of games, perhaps more. I don't necessarily like the use of the term Sub it's too American. Reserve was what it was called for about 50 years until it became interchange, so I think we should go back to the original name.
I think you misunderstood me fez. Im talking about picking up bargains. Say for example you choose not to start with Ablett. Round 2 he plays half a game getting subbed off scores 60, Round 3 plays 3 quarters and scores 90 all of a sudden come round 4 his price will drop a huge chunk cos of his lower scores as he wasnt playing complete games.
Works both ways Jet but I see how successful teams could use the reserve as a way of load-balancing during matches for some of their better players. Only when the game's over of course. Would be embarrassing to lose after substitution of your gun.
Agree with Lucas could work both ways get Ablett at a bargain, with that many possible rookies this season with another team and everyone looking for the next "barlow" i think there will be more to gain with value
Yeah definately goes both ways as some of your cows may be used as a sub which would limit their price increase. I anticipate most teams will use the sub in most games, which will create big discounts. (especially in light of the fact that you dont need an injury to use tghe 'sub' - which is why I thought they brought in the stupid rule)
I can see the sub being used late 3rd qtr early 4th, barrying injury, i will be staggered if it's not used every game
Players are conditioned to run out a full game. If they start pulling off player to rest them, it's a chance to damage their overall fitness as a result.
close game why not bring on the fresh bloke, also, players might lose match fitness if they end up being an unused sub couple of weeks in a row
@Jet There isn't any way to judge whether the player is injured or not though. If the AFL were to say only injured players can be subbed, then players would just fake injuries, or come off for cramp, or things that they wouldn't normally require them to miss game time.
Good point walesy. Could also be used by coaches as strategy eg losing a game in the midfield/clearances - sub out a tall and go with a small. Fresh legs could certainly help in a close game also.
Another interesting side effect of the sub rule is that there will now only 21 scoring players on each team, down form the 22 in previous years. This means that if the total points available doesnt change then there is a greater share of the points pie for our players, which would result in higher scores and greater increases in market prices to offset the decrease in value from season start. For example: Season 2010 ... 3300 ppg / 44 players = 75ppg average per player Season 2011 ... 3300 ppg / 42 players = 78.57 average per player
@Liquid, We'll still have 22 players if I count correctly: The starting 18 +3 interchange + 1 sub. I see your point if the sub isn't actually used, but i can imagine all 22 players will be on the field at one time or another.
But because there will be only 21 games played by each team, there will be more points up for offer. 22 players, but 2 of them combine for one game, meaning 21 games. So any calculations should be done as if there are only 21 players on each team, because at any one time, that's all there is.
Spud, both subbed players will equal 1 complete player as their total time played combined should equal one full game. If a substitution is made at half time, then the subbed-off player has played one half of a game and the subbed-on player will play the remaining one half of the game, totalling one full game between them.
haha dont worry, after reading back to myself what i wrote i can see where you got confused. for a further point, if they dont change the total number of points available per game, wouldnt it result in inflated scores for this season only? In the future when we look back on this season, we would see an annomily of data that would be insignificant because it doesnt follow the same data constants as previous years?
It's going to be gutting the first time my captain gets subbed off for a rest at three quarter time when they're up by 10 goals.
Surely they have to change it. The point of the system *is* so that you can compare scores across years. So taking 150 off the total (75 average for each player) should be exactly what they do.