In the last week Malthouse, Harvey and some others have talked extending the bench to cover for injuries that occur during the game.
Richardson carried an injury into the game & made it worse. He will now miss 10-12 weeks
Personally I think the real issue is that a lot of players tend to carry an injury and then make the injury worse during the game. Richmond’s Richardson is the best current example, last year it was Croad in the Grand Final and the list goes on.
Yes some injuries happen during the game but that is bad luck and you cannot create rules for luck, so go suck eggs Malthouse you whinger. IMO the real issue is not about injury luck but more about the clubs list size.
Currently clubs can have up to 44-45 odd players on the main list including rookies (inc international & NSW scolarship rookies) & veterans (players 10+ years on club list). Back before the 90′s clubs had more players allowed on the list.
What an Increase of Players on Club Lists could mean
Lets list a few ideas and what increasing the club list size could mean. Please leave your thoughts and your own ideas in the comments below.
Can Carry Injured Players
When players do serious injuries and are in the last year of their contract, almost all are finished and or shipped around like playing cards.
Courtney-Johns for Essendon last year is a perfect example where while his career was already stop-start, he could have been carried on an Essendon list and with Lucas, Gumbleton, Fletcher & Neagle not performing or injured could be pushing for a game.
Thurgood similar build as Tuck, super skinny. Sure a more mature Thurgood in defense would be handy at the moment
Allow players to develop
Some players take a few extra years to develop before they can play AFL to a standard but with such a tight list you cannot afford to have any passengers and they get delisted. Players like Zac Dawson & Josh Thurgood for example could have stayed on the list, especially with the Hawks who could do with someone like Dawson now.
Remember that Michael Tuck played 50 games before a regular senior game and ended up playing over 400 quality games. His son also took a bit to develop before staring at Richmond.
Keep Older Players on List Longer
AFL is fast becomming a young mans game where if your over 28, your past your best and can be shipped around and surprisingly no one wants you. However if clubs can have extra players on their list, players like Bell, Hird, Buckley etc might have played an extra year or two if they could hide from certain games.
No Round 22 Essendon vs St Kilda Games
Last year we had the farciful game where Essendon had a short list of players to choose from due to various reasons (injuries, early operations etc) and Essendon played a list of injuried players and kids who should have never got a game. St Kilda won by 100+ points and sneaked into 4th spot.
The same thing happened this year when Hawthorn had to borrow several players from the VFL.
What about the Negatives Though?
The only negative I can think off is that it will cost more and at the moment a handful of clubs seriously cannot afford a bigger list. But if you increase the number of rookies/ veterans (maybe 8+ years instead) and allow a certain number of rookies play without having tobe added to the senior list you could then have an extra 3-5 players to choose from every week.
What positives/ negatives can you think of this idea?
Loading ...
May 6th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Malthouse & Harvey are whingers suggesting we do such a thing. Teams problem is the rotation policies. If a player thrashes it for 15 minutes, rests for 2 minutes & then expect him to thrash it after a stop, you’ll get your injuries.
Problem number two is players like Rocca are now “lemons” to put it in car terms.
Problem number three is players are just numbers & coaches don’t care. On the other hand, being professionals these days, you’re going to break down more easier. Damn the “game’s got faster” garbage, look how many professinal athletes suffer injuries compared to the amateur.
Left field solution: let Collingwood & Fremantle merge & they’d both be happy.
[Reply to Comment]
May 6th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
i’m becoming increasingly disinterested in our game as the season wears on. Super games like the Carlton and Hawthorn blockbuster on the weekend used to be pretty frequent but now they are a rarity. Floods, Loose men back, tagging, stoppages etc, have robbed our great game of its unpredictability and spectacularness. It will only get worse as 2 more teams will enter the comp within 5 years stretching the already dwindling talent pool even more. I think we should leave the squads at 22 but have 2 less players on the ground. This would free up general play a bit more and give players an extra rest with 6 on the bench. Squads should be cut to about 35 and 10-15 Rookies. VFL needs to be overhauled as well as I think the youngsters from Victoria would benefit from playing with reserve level players similar to the SANFL and WAFL comps.
[Reply to Comment]
May 7th, 2009 at 10:27 am
I like the idea of having four less players on a field at a time, think it will help stop the flooding but not the interchange numbers & injuries. I know the VFL or VFA (one of them) has done it before.
I also agree that the under age comps for Victoria needs to be over hauled. Its part of the reason why WA & SA kids can come straight into the AFL and star while the VIC kids usually take a year or two as they play against other kids. In the WAFL players like Rich, Nit Nat, Yarren, Hill etc have been playing against men already for the last two odd years.
imo this just compounds the problem and games like last years Essendon v St Kilda & Hawthorn in the pre season will happen more with lower numbers in the regular playing list.
[Reply to Comment]
May 7th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Do you seriously think the AFLPA will go for the idea of 4 less players on the field??
That’s 4 less players who won’t get the chance to claim their “image” money per game from websites.
[Reply to Comment]
May 7th, 2009 at 11:16 am
No the AFLPA will not go for it but it realistically is the best solution for flooding etc I have seen
[Reply to Comment]
May 7th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
in an overhaul of the VFL there could be a specification that any mature aged players not on your AFL list but representing your VFL side, eg: Hayden Skipworth at Bendigo last year could have been called up to play against the Saints, can cover any long term injured players.
[Reply to Comment]
May 7th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
So your suggesting a Mid Year Draft? We touched on this last year, I think it has merit. I am sure for example Essendon could do with Seaby as a back up ruckman with Hille & Laycock out long term.
http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/phantom-mid-season-afl-draft
[Reply to Comment]
May 11th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I’m not sure how fewer players on the field would stop flooding (and it’s probably more correctly labeled ‘zoning’ now).
The VFA played without wingmen for many years (mainly 1959–1992) and it did create a more open and flowing game compared to the 18-afield VFL. But elite football has changed considerably and I’m not sure a benefit, similar or otherwise, could be expected now.
In the end, it comes down to money. Players at the elite level are expected to make a substantial commitment, often to the virtual exclusion of alternative career opportunities, and with the ever-present possibility of career (and livelihood)-threatening injury. For all of those who make a good living from the game for between five and ten years, there are many who are delisted after perhaps a few senior appearances, so it would be churlish to deny them appropriate recompense for their efforts and opportunities foregone.
If lists are extended, then along with increased salary, there are the increased support costs that clubs would be expected to bear. The money would need to come from somewhere.
On the issue of Malthouse and Harvey’s complaints, teams losing a key player early in a game are significantly disadvantaged. Forget Essendon’s Anzac Day performance — it was a lucky aberration that Ryder was able to pinch hit against a ruckman of similar body shape after Hille went down two minutes in.
The difference between winning and losing, perhaps getting to finals or not or making fourth rather than fifth place, is pretty fine. Simply losing capacity to rotate on and off the bench during a game is a significant disadvantage.
The downside, as I see it, is that adding ‘reserves’ to the bench might be the start of NFL-type special teams. Strategically inserting one or two ‘reserve’ players would become the new advantage. Imagine you have a dominant key forward who you know can’t get through a whole game. Name him as a reserve and bring him on in the last quarter, when opposition defenders are blown out, and you (potentially) win the game.
Do we really want this? I don’t think so, but it’s the extreme strategic manipulation that’s offensive. I don’t know if a ‘reserve’ replacement for Hille on Anzac Day would have benefitted the Bombers or not. Perhaps they played better knowing that they were up against it?
I don’t think there’s a compelling case for any change
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Is "Buddy" the new "Richo"?
[Reply to Comment]
May 11th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
re:aussierulesblog
collingwood blowing a match winning lead with 2 minutes to go was the “luck” you were referring to.
[Reply to Comment]
May 11th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Craig, being within striking distance with 2 minutes to go was due to some luck. I’d agree that the ‘Woods didn’t play that last couple of minutes as well as they could have. But that’s all rather peripheral to the point I was making anyway.
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Is "Buddy" the new "Richo"?
[Reply to Comment]
May 12th, 2009 at 5:56 am
hang on there while I look up the word “peripheral” lol.
[Reply to Comment]
May 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
While four less players on the ground may not stop flooding for even Zoning, it will make it harder for them to do as there is more room to cover etc with less players…
[Reply to Comment]