Substitution not a new idea

As the 2011 season is almost upon us, the footy press is full of articles about the new bench arrangements with three interchange and one substitute player. It will be a big change for clubs to come to grips with, but it’s not all that new.

The concerns seem to be focused on coaches being forced to send injured players back onto the field. In truth, it’s not all that different to the current situation — get four injuries and you lose flexibility to rest players and the next injury means either playing a man short or playing an injured player.

The real learning curve is going to come in deciding which player to nominate as the substitute and, more importantly, when to make the substitution.

It wasn’t until 1930 that there were bench players of any description in the VFL. That year saw the first use of a “19th man”. This was a true substitution: one player off, and not able to return, one player on.

In 1946 a second ‘reserve’ player was introduced, the “20th man”. It was not uncommon for reserve players to sit out an entire game, although the two reserves generally got a run toward the end of the last quarter.

Interchanges weren’t permitted until 1978, so VFL coaches had plenty of experience in husbanding their resources up until that point. As we know, interchange developed to the point where there was virtually one change per minute in 2010.

So, is this new format for the interchange bench a disaster? Hardly. Will it tax coaches tactically? Yes. Was it the best option available for slowing the game and reducing interchange rates? In our opinion, not even close. A cap would have done the same job with much less complexity. Still, it wouldn’t be the AFL if they took the most logical option, would it?