Interchange Rotations: What direction are we heading?

[geoffryprettyboy]

TW came out in the media and suggested a six-man interchange bench and said, "If you want to watch dynamic football you need to have fresh players to play dynamic football." He added that “if the extended bench was not introduced then the game runs the risk of player burnout with taller players becoming increasingly rare as smaller, pacy types will be preferred by clubs to keep up with the run”.

Where is the game heading?
Will we see more rotations via the interchange ever before?
Has the game already taken a twist and AFL players are spending less time on the ground?

“In 2000, 66% of all midfielders spent the entire game on the ground – our most recent data from 2004-05 shows that this figure is now less than 20%”. This information, courtesy from Champion Data suggests the trend has already shifted, and that coaches are using this information to structure their teams for the future.

“In 2001, prime mid fielders covered an average of 17km per game – In 2005 the average was closer to 13km”. Champion data again has crunched their numbers to give coaches a statistic that reflects a shift of 17% reduction of ground coverage by AFL players.

“The additional rest players are getting when taken off the ground allows them to work harder (run faster and longer) once they return to the field.” This leads to: More ability to get to contests, harder collisions, more congestion Game played at higher intensity when ball is in play.

So will there be a trend according to the information provided by Champion Data?
Are the coaches prepared for a shift in greater intensity in play?

Lets look at the other side of the coin. Carlton President Ian Collins called for a limit on interchange rotations, saying, “the game was constantly being played at maximum intensity, increasing the risk of injuries”. Then who is right or who is wrong?

Lets look at the last 2 years of interchange rotations;
2005
Club Inter
Sydney 1115
Fremantle 1098
Kangaroos 1093
West Coast 1034
Geelong 916
Hawthorn 910
St. Kilda 884
Port Adelaide 864
Adelaide 830
Melbourne 829
Western Bulldogs 824
Richmond 818
Brisbane 773
Carlton 740
Essendon 739
Collingwood 736

2004
Club Inter
Fremantle 1086
Sydney 951
Kangaroos 865
West Coast 861
St. Kilda 845
Hawthorn 834
Geelong 782
Richmond 736
Port Adelaide 720
Western Bulldogs 712
Brisbane 652
Carlton 649
Melbourne 638
Adelaide 619
Collingwood 600
Essendon 591

What are your views? Has the RFC already started to recruit players of the calibre as per what the trends suggest, or is there just hype by TW and is he wasting his time? Blunty, I don't think he is wasting his efforts.

What's your views?

(Special thanks to Champion Data

References: http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=250613

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/18/1053196477107.html

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:4stumTae5aQJ:www.aflauskick.com.au/files/grabdoc.php%3Ftype%3Ddoc%26id%3D1%26cid%3D294+interchange+bench+rotations&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=7

 

[Tubytiger]

The way Demetriousssss wants the game to go it is only a matter of time before we increase the interchange benches.

 

[Disco08]

If we keep introducing more and more players onto the bench it won't be long until the game we love resembles gridiron more than footy. Endurance is a key skill in AFL, and should continue to be IMO.

 

[Tubytiger]

If we keep introducing more and more players onto the bench it won't be long until the game we love resembles gridiron more than footy. Endurance is a key skill in AFL, and should continue to be IMO.

Agree fully Disco - but what we want and what the so called lord of the rings want (ala dimitriotos and co) are two different things as far as i can see where they are taking the game - especially with some of the rule changes lately.

 

[nitrotiger]

get it back to 25 minutes per quarter....... then time on.....thatll sort out the endurance issues.......

 

[pahoffm]

Well presented GPB.

I'm not quite sure what to make on interchange rotations.
1. Sydney with generally older players use rotations more often.

Teams with older styled coaches, Sheedy/Ess, Malthouse/Coll & Matthews/Brissie tend to use them less often.

Younger, newer styled coaches, Connolly/Freo, Laidley/Nth & Worsfold/WC use them more often.

Neil Craig made over 200 more rotations than his predecessor, Ayres, did.

Will be interesting to read the thoughts of others.

 

[Skills]

TW came out in the media and suggested a six-man interchange bench and said, "If you want to watch dynamic football you need to have fresh players to play dynamic football."  He added that “if the extended bench was not introduced then the game runs the risk of player burnout with taller players becoming increasingly rare as smaller, pacy types will be preferred by clubs to keep up with the run”.

Where is the game heading? 
Will we see more rotations via the interchange ever before? 
Has the game already taken a twist and AFL players are spending less time on the ground?

“In 2000, 66% of all midfielders spent the entire game on the ground – our most recent data from 2004-05 shows that this figure is now less than 20%”.  This information, courtesy from Champion Data suggests the trend has already shifted, and that coaches are using this information to structure their teams for the future.

“In 2001, prime mid fielders covered an average of 17km per game – In 2005 the average was closer to 13km”.  Champion data again has crunched their numbers to give coaches a statistic that reflects a shift of 17% reduction of ground coverage by AFL players.

“The additional rest players are getting when taken off the ground allows them to work harder (run faster and longer) once they return to the field.” This leads to: More ability to get to contests, harder collisions, more congestion Game played at higher intensity when ball is in play. 

So will there be a trend according to the information provided by Champion Data? 
Are the coaches prepared for a shift in greater intensity in play?

Lets look at the other side of the coin.  Carlton President Ian Collins called for a limit on interchange rotations, saying, “the game was constantly being played at maximum intensity, increasing the risk of injuries”. Then who is right or who is wrong?

Lets look at the last 2 years of interchange rotations;
2005
Club                Inter
Sydney              1115
Fremantle           1098
Kangaroos           1093
West Coast          1034
Geelong             916
Hawthorn            910
St. Kilda           884
Port Adelaide       864
Adelaide            830
Melbourne           829
Western Bulldogs    824
Richmond            818
Brisbane            773
Carlton             740
Essendon            739
Collingwood         736

2004
Club                Inter
Fremantle           1086
Sydney              951
Kangaroos           865
West Coast          861
St. Kilda           845
Hawthorn            834
Geelong             782
Richmond            736
Port Adelaide       720
Western Bulldogs    712
Brisbane            652
Carlton             649
Melbourne           638
Adelaide            619
Collingwood         600
Essendon            591

What are your views?  Has the RFC already started to recruit players of the calibre as per what the trends suggest, or is there just hype by TW and is he wasting his time?  Blunty, I don't think he is wasting his efforts.

What's your views?

(Special thanks to Champion Data 

References: http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=250613

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/18/1053196477107.html

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:4stumTae5aQJ:www.aflauskick.com.au/files/grabdoc.php%3Ftype%3Ddoc%26id%3D1%26cid%3D294+interchange+bench+rotations&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=7

gpb...that's Phd material you have presented tonight;
Love the Bibliography presented in the finish - PRE should be used as an online resource;
Detailed answers should only be available to lecturers.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Lets look at the other side of the coin. Carlton President Ian Collins called for a limit on interchange rotations, saying, “the game was constantly being played at maximum intensity, increasing the risk of injuries”.

Fine work GPB :clap.

I actually agree with Collins. I really like the idea of limiting rotations and there's no way known the number should be increased from four to six on the bench.

The potential increase in injuries and shortening of players careers is only one part of the argument.

Some games can only speed up so far before they start losing their character and therefor their appeal.
A few of the most loved parts of Australian rules football are in real danger of disappearing from our great game with the current emphasis on speed and free flowing football.

I'm all for progression but it's a fine balance IMO.

Tennis(men's particularly) is an example of this. Many shots have simple disappeared from the game as surfaces have changed and racket technology has "improved" leading to faster serves and groundstrokes. It's left the game colourless and textureless even though initially they were seen as natural improvements to the spectacle.

The AFL has to be very careful in it's desire to make the game more globally appealing that it doesn't dismantle what we love about the sport. My point is speed isn't always an improvement.

 

[Scoop]

I think that we will see a extended bench and a limit of the number of interchange movements per quarter. Say 7 on the bench and you get 7 changes per quarter.
We are heading to a completely different game to the 1980.
I think we are killing our great game with over zealous administration too worried about making the game attractive for non football people.

 

[Rod]

I'd prefer to see it go the other way.........no interchange bench!
Go back to having a reserve bench instead. Soccer still does it and players aren't dropping dead.
The added benefit is that it would be a hell of a lot more difficult to flood without fresh legs constantly coming off the bench.
It'd be nice to see champion onballers remain on the ground and resting in forward pockets instead of the bench.
If the game slowed down a little we would also be more likely to see more contests on the ground and more importantly in the air.

If the AFL did this however it would hurt Richmond.
Wallace has foreseen the future Gaelic style of AFL footy and has recruited appropriately with lots of mids.
Hence his eagerness to expand the bench and embrace the keepings off game that is now AFL........

 

[poppa x]

I'm all for progression but it's a fine balance IMO.

Tennis(men's particularly) is an example of this. Many shots have simple disappeared from the game as surfaces have changed and racket technology has "improved" leading to faster serves and groundstrokes. It's left the game colourless and textureless even though initially they were seen as natural improvements to the spectacle.

The AFL has to be very careful in it's desire to make the game more globally appealing that it doesn't dismantle what we love about the sport. My point is speed isn't always an improvement.

Well said.
We all love contests but the faster pace of the game is eliminating contested footy.  If we go the other way and limit the interchange we will get back to more man on man contests; which is one of the reasons why our game was popular for over 100 years.

 

[purepoweryouth]

Lets look at the other side of the coin.  Carlton President Ian Collins called for a limit on interchange rotations, saying, “the game was constantly being played at maximum intensity, increasing the risk of injuries”.

Fine work GPB :clap.

I actually agree with Collins. I really like the idea of limiting rotations and there's no way known the number should be increased from four to six on the bench.

The potential increase in injuries and shortening of players careers is only one part of the argument.

Some games can only speed up so far before they start losing their character and therefor their appeal.
A few of the most loved parts of Australian rules football are in real danger of disappearing from our great game with the current emphasis on speed and free flowing football.

I'm all for progression but it's a fine balance IMO.

Tennis(men's particularly) is an example of this. Many shots have simple disappeared from the game as surfaces have changed and racket technology has "improved" leading to faster serves and groundstrokes. It's left the game colourless and textureless even though initially they were seen as natural improvements to the spectacle.

The AFL has to be very careful in it's desire to make the game more globally appealing that it doesn't dismantle what we love about the sport. My point is speed isn't always an improvement.

Totally agree ToO. I must admit I preferred the game much better in the nineties when there were more one on one contests, the game had more character and integrity. The same with tennis, i prefer to watch womens tennis as their is more strokeplay, although, unfortunately, it is heading down the same path as the men's.

 

[Dyer'ere]

Lets look at the other side of the coin. Carlton President Ian Collins called for a limit on interchange rotations, saying, “the game was constantly being played at maximum intensity, increasing the risk of injuries”.

Fine work GPB :clap.

I actually agree with Collins. I really like the idea of limiting rotations and there's no way known the number should be increased from four to six on the bench.

The potential increase in injuries and shortening of players careers is only one part of the argument.

Some games can only speed up so far before they start losing their character and therefor their appeal.
A few of the most loved parts of Australian rules football are in real danger of disappearing from our great game with the current emphasis on speed and free flowing football.

I'm all for progression but it's a fine balance IMO.

Tennis(men's particularly) is an example of this. Many shots have simple disappeared from the game as surfaces have changed and racket technology has "improved" leading to faster serves and groundstrokes. It's left the game colourless and textureless even though initially they were seen as natural improvements to the spectacle.

The AFL has to be very careful in it's desire to make the game more globally appealing that it doesn't dismantle what we love about the sport. My point is speed isn't always an improvement.

Can't argue with that. Can't put it better, either.

TW came out in the media and suggested a six-man interchange bench and said, "If you want to watch dynamic football you need to have fresh players to play dynamic football." He added that “if the extended bench was not introduced then the game runs the risk of player burnout with taller players becoming increasingly rare as smaller, pacy types will be preferred by clubs to keep up with the run”.

I was really worried that the AFL had bought the *smile* from the coaches about the advantages of an expanded interchange bench.

My own view is that the risk of serious injury to players is greatly increased through an extended bench as it enables a team to reserve much heavier players (not tall- massive) who may not have the stamina to run out a game if they bulked to that level under current rules. Such players can be deployed in shock or assault roles. If you think AFL players are bulked up take a look at the size of rugger players who play a shorter game.

Of course the advantages of the tall player have been well documented through history. An increased bench will see the elimination of the tall- exactly the opposite of Wallace says. When the games get on, the talls don't get any shorter. Add fresh legs and you reduce the tall's advantage. Must not happen.

With so many geniuses thinking of brilliant changes to the traditional rules to combat the dreaded flood the solution is staring them in the face.

The four man bench is a relatavely new rule. Reduce it to three. OR TWO. Watch the talls come back into the game. And watch the flooders get tired. MAybe the flooders get lighter to combat this. Watch the talls get taller and the flooders get belted.

If anybody shares my concern about the likely negative impact on the game of an increased bench, take a tip- the AFL is committed, through excellent medical advice, to maintaining at most, the four man bench. A medical report to that effect was ublished in the off-season. Sorry I can't quote the source.

It's only a matter of time before they reduce the number on the bench. Such a move would not harm the traditions of the game, would decrease the impact of flooding and reduce serious contact injury.

Star players would suffer from the reduced bench as they age. But will be rested during the season by all clubs in the coming years. It has already started to happen. The smaller bench will not harm their longevity (in terms of years and BIG matches). The coaches are learning to manage this through rotation. Slow learners.

BTW many armchair critics wanted to rest Johnson, (the injured Coughlan), Richardson et al either side of the break last year. Wallace didn't do it. How many of those games did our aged cripples win? Slow learners.

Egomaniac coaches will not hold sway. Oppose the extended bench. Praise the gods.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

My own feeling is that if the AFL continue with this their obsession of speeding the game up then an extended interchange bench is an inevitability.

 

[Leysy Days]

Lets look at the other side of the coin.  Carlton President Ian Collins called for a limit on interchange rotations, saying, “the game was constantly being played at maximum intensity, increasing the risk of injuries”.

Fine work GPB :clap.

I actually agree with Collins. I really like the idea of limiting rotations and there's no way known the number should be increased from four to six on the bench.

The potential increase in injuries and shortening of players careers is only one part of the argument.

Some games can only speed up so far before they start losing their character and therefor their appeal.
A few of the most loved parts of Australian rules football are in real danger of disappearing from our great game with the current emphasis on speed and free flowing football.

I'm all for progression but it's a fine balance IMO.

Tennis(men's particularly) is an example of this. Many shots have simple disappeared from the game as surfaces have changed and racket technology has "improved" leading to faster serves and groundstrokes. It's left the game colourless and textureless even though initially they were seen as natural improvements to the spectacle.

The AFL has to be very careful in it's desire to make the game more globally appealing that it doesn't dismantle what we love about the sport. My point is speed isn't always an improvement.

Can't argue with that. Can't put it better, either.

TW came out in the media and suggested a six-man interchange bench and said, "If you want to watch dynamic football you need to have fresh players to play dynamic football." He added that “if the extended bench was not introduced then the game runs the risk of player burnout with taller players becoming increasingly rare as smaller, pacy types will be preferred by clubs to keep up with the run”.

I was really worried that the AFL had bought the *smile* from the coaches about the advantages of an expanded interchange bench.

My own view is that the risk of serious injury to players is greatly increased through an extended bench as it enables a team to reserve much heavier players (not tall- massive) who may not have the stamina to run out a game if they bulked to that level under current rules. Such players can be deployed in shock or assault roles. If you think AFL players are bulked up take a look at the size of rugger players who play a shorter game.

Of course the advantages of the tall player have been well documented through history. An increased bench will see the elimination of the tall- exactly the opposite of Wallace says. When the games get on, the talls don't get any shorter. Add fresh legs and you reduce the tall's advantage. Must not happen.

With so many geniuses thinking of brilliant changes to the traditional rules to combat the dreaded flood the solution is staring them in the face.

The four man bench is a relatavely new rule. Reduce it to three. OR TWO. Watch the talls come back into the game. And watch the flooders get tired. MAybe the flooders get lighter to combat this. Watch the talls get taller and the flooders get belted.

If anybody shares my concern about the likely negative impact on the game of an increased bench, take a tip- the AFL is committed, through excellent medical advice, to maintaining at most, the four man bench. A medical report to that effect was ublished in the off-season. Sorry I can't quote the source.

It's only a matter of time before they reduce the number on the bench. Such a move would not harm the traditions of the game, would decrease the impact of flooding and reduce serious contact injury.

Star players would suffer from the reduced bench as they age. But will be rested during the season by all clubs in the coming years. It has already started to happen. The smaller bench will not harm their longevity (in terms of years and BIG matches). The coaches are learning to manage this through rotation. Slow learners.

BTW many armchair critics wanted to rest Johnson, (the injured Coughlan), Richardson et al either side of the break last year. Wallace didn't do it. How many of those games did our aged cripples win? Slow learners.

Egomaniac coaches will not hold sway. Oppose the extended bench. Praise the gods.

A joy as always JD, agree with all you have to say............

my only point is...........what would the now very powerful AFLPA have to say about the reduction of interchange players ie less of their members getting a guernsey every week!
un fortunately a fair bit I would reckon.

 

[tigersnake]

I'm all for progression but it's a fine balance IMO.

Tennis(men's particularly) is an example of this. Many shots have simple disappeared from the game as surfaces have changed and racket technology has "improved" leading to faster serves and groundstrokes. It's left the game colourless and textureless even though initially they were seen as natural improvements to the spectacle.

The AFL has to be very careful in it's desire to make the game more globally appealing that it doesn't dismantle what we love about the sport. My point is speed isn't always an improvement.

Well said.
We all love contests but the faster pace of the game is eliminating contested footy.  If we go the other way and limit the interchange we will get back to more man on man contests; which is one of the reasons why our game was popular for over 100 years.

bloody oath.

and to answer the question in the thread title, we're heading up *smile* creek with these bozos in charge. The direction footy is going is crap. I can't understand the obsession with speed, speed and more speed. I like speed as much as the next person, but its only one of many great facets of the game. Footy is becoming more and more like basketball, I know it gets said a lot but its true, up one end for a shot at goal, defending team rebounds and keeps possession for a shot at their own goal. Demtrious and boofhead, lacking credetials Anderson seem to be the only ones who want to foist this *smile* on us.