I was a little surprised about the selection of Joseph as the sub last night. Let this not turn into a thread about how crap Joseph is or isn't. However, I wonder why you'd pick someone like him other than for a specific role. Had Nahas started on the ground, where would that have left us, with Joseph being the obvious match up for him? Was our intell that good last night that we knew Nahas would start as their sub before we selected ours?

I'd much rather see a real impact player as the sub, someone who can some on and swing the game, or at least cause a mismatch. It seems obvious to use the 22nd best player as sub, but I'm not convinced. When Robbo went off last night, you knew right off that our team was considerably weaker with Joseph brought on to play a role that he probably wasn't selected for. The non-use of Nahas exacerbated the problem.

Some of the players that I'd see as ideal subs, that might be on the fringe, include:

Lucas (although I thought he was good last night)
Duigan (can possibly play forward or back)
Rowe (ruck, forward or back)
Touhy
White (forward or back)

_________________
"I had to eat"

Good topic NBH.

Conservatism says pick a player with maximum flexibility to fill positional holes, and in this respect White would be a good choice. However the "Jack of all Trades Master of None" theory says that this type of player is unlikely to give you the oomph to get over the line when things are desperate or tight in a tense last quarter.

Alternatively a burst player with electrifying pace who can run a tiring opposition off their legs might give you the oomph you need late in the game.

Most subs only get one quarter max and sometimes much less, so I think it's unfair to any player to play them as a semipermanent sub fixture. This would be majorly detrimental to player development.

Lucas and Touhy come to mind as two who have reasonable flexibility and who both have a bit of X factor about them for the oomph I'm talking about. And I don't think we'd miss too much with either of them at the moment if they didn't play the whole game.

AJ no.

Agree with the post however as a general rule I wouldn't select a tall player as a sub. They limit you too much if someone goes down, you wouldn't bring a Rowe on for e.g. if a Marc Murphy went down. I think small players as sub give you a lot more flexibility.

Collins, Lucas, Touhy are good candidates.

Tom Bell would of been the perfect sub last night to be honest.

Bell should be in the side and will be soon i reckon.
Menzel will be the sub soon .... he will pay the Fasolo role...super sub
But we need more effort and harmony coming from our midfield...

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Get oomph!

_________________
It's never as good as it looks and it's never as bad as it seems.

Sub should be a running player. Someone with some speed who's able to take advantage of the speed being out of the game who can break some lines and bust a game open.

He doesn't have to be able to play multiple positions. You're allowed to move other players around.

_________________
"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent." Qui-Gon Jinn 15-05-2005

"there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party." Julia Gillard 18-05-2010

I hope most weeks it's one of our younger, fringe players, who might otherwise not get a game.

Sounds like Bootsma!

_________________
"I had to eat"

Has to be a runner who can make an impact, and probably not in the best 21

Bell for example