N.B - I stole this discussion from Australia as did Phil Clarke Commentators and fans are increasingly arguing that the interchange rule needs changing. Two suggestions being put forward are reduce the number of interchanges allowed or only allow an individual player to be interchanged once or if you allow him two interchanges he can then no longer take part in the game.
The argument is that fatigue has no longer become a factor. The small players do not get the opportunity to run at the big guys when they start to tire. So teams now opt for big is best and many play a back rower at stand off because you cannot afford to have 2 small players in defence. Teams run their big guys at the opposition scrum half then they go off and their replacement do exactly the same. So a scrum half ends up making tackle after tackle.
The thought of having to stick with Millard because Higham has had his substitution quota used up fills me with dread.
That said I think there is something in the idea of restricting the interchange in some way.
I think the interchange as it stands has resulted in a trend for sides to favour big players in many positions. Mind you Rob Burrow seems to survive OK.
I also think playing off 10m instead of the old 5m de-skilled the half backs and hookers.
Not every change we have seen has been for the good and the interchange may be one of those.
The counter argument will surely be that given the professional nature of the game now and how hard hitting it is you put the players at greater risk of serious injury as they are forced to stay on.
I e-mailed Phil yesterday when I saw the article. Didn't bother keeping a copy, but it made many of the points above. Maybe it'll get published on next week's column?
One thing I also said is that fans love the sight of a fresh prop rampaging through the defence - look at all the comments about Feca for example, but the same applies to, say, Maiava, Fa'asavalu or Lautiti. Rather that than tired props slowly slugging it out up the middle.
As well as looking at the interchange, why not drop back to a 15 man squad? IMO this would do as much as anything to level the playing field - by reining in Saints, perhaps?
jinkin jimmy posted:
As well as looking at the interchange, why not drop back to a 15 man squad? IMO this would do as much as anything to level the playing field - by reining in Saints, perhaps?
I think that increases the effect of injuries too much.
I like the increased tactical input that the present system allows, although I don't always agree with the way Noble exploits it.
Phil (in his article) timed Feca's game time at 46 minutes against Hull, which is 10 minutes more than usual (but still not enough, IMO). He certainly didn't lose any effectiveness then, so why not try him for at least that amount, preferably more, every game? I believe he could do 4x15 minute spells (start & end of each half) quite easily, with 3x10 minute breaks (including half-time) in between.
If players were limited as to how many interchanges they were allowed it would force coaches to be more astute. As an example, you might have to not start with Feka and use the half time period to give him a break. The consensus in Australia is that fans like to see the small men taking on the big guys and that league around the late 80s and early 90s was far more exciting and end to end in the last quarter when players were out on their feet.
Commentators and fans are increasingly arguing that the interchange rule needs changing. Two suggestions being put forward are reduce the number of interchanges allowed or only allow an individual player to be interchanged once or if you allow him two interchanges he can then no longer take part in the game.
