Tactical Substitutions - a blight on the game?

[goodNumber10]

What's peoples thoughts on tactical substitutions?

Watching the Bath vs Exeter game from the weekend i was struck how one of the best games of rugby I've seen this season descended into the worst last 20 minutes I've seen, due to constant interchanges and the new front row trying to out scrum each other.

I always felt tact subs were to keep the pace of the game up or improve your defence in the close out but they seldom have that effect normally having a quite negative impact on the game.

I guess my question is do you agree with that analysis, or do you think they are good for the game? Would you change them, or manage them in a different way?

Rolling subs?

 

[Tony Manx]

What's peoples thoughts on tactical substitutions?

Watching the Bath vs Exeter game from the weekend i was struck how one of the best games of rugby I've seen this season descended into the worst last 20 minutes I've seen, due to constant interchanges and the new front row trying to out scrum each other.

I always felt tact subs were to keep the pace of the game up or improve your defence in the close out but they seldom have that effect normally having a quite negative impact on the game.

I guess my question is do you agree with that analysis, or do you think they are good for the game? Would you change them, or manage them in a different way?

Rolling subs?

I hate tactical subs full stop! Nowhere is their use more unworthy than in Internationals where they are used with minutes to go so as to ensure caps are given debasing the whole concept of caps!!

 

[lynam1104]

Haven't seen the game that you're referring to but I have seen the same thing a number of times. I don't think that the use tactical substitutions is the issue, its often players not being ready to be used as a tactical sub. Personally I think its down to the coach and how he prepares his subs for the game, I'll take the example of Joe Schmidt and Leinster in the 2010-11 HCup final. At half time leinster were being blown away and one big issue was they weren't able to get the quick ruck ball needed to play their game, so Jennings is brought off the bench a ruck specialist, made a massive (an d underrated) impact in that game. Thats evidence of where smart subs are effective and have a positive impact on the game, but I think its really all about the subs understanding their role when they come onto the pitch.

 

[BRSTLDRGN]

We get rid of tactical subs and the injury rate rises, it'll be as simple as that.. I agree with @lynam1104 if subs are prepared and are fully in tune with the game plan then they can and do make a huge change to a games outcome.

To borrow football, you see managers/coaches deep in conversation with notepad before they come on explaining what is needed. Thats something we dont see much in rugby.

 

[j'nuh]

I think there's a bit of a perception bias going on here. Games are improved and ruined by tactical substitutions, you just remember the ones that are ruined.

A side of the game that fans generally don't see is the work done by analysts. Rugby coaches have heaps of statistics and numbers available to them on the intensity that a player is playing at from the side's analysis team. For example, when your top tighthead is taken off at 65 minutes for a weaker tighthead in the set piece, it is because the top tighthead's intensity levels have dropped so far that they would be a liability to be kept on the field. If your second tighthead then gets pasted in the scrum through a lack of skill, it's quite likely that your first tighthead would have been pasted through fatigue had they stayed on.



As players get bigger and impacts are stronger, it's not good for the health of players to play full 80s in high impact positions, such as in the front row. But it does equally concern me that we're in a position where you have fresh legs running on to compete against tired legs. With only 8 players on the bench, you can't give everyone a rest. The most worrying for me are the three players in the pack that don't get a rest. I do like the thought of an interchange system, with enough interchanges available to allow coaches to rotate the entire XV.

 

[Draggs]

I think there's a bit of a perception bias going on here. Games are improved and ruined by tactical substitutions, you just remember the ones that are ruined.

A side of the game that fans generally don't see is the work done by analysts. Rugby coaches have heaps of statistics and numbers available to them on the intensity that a player is playing at from the side's analysis team. For example, when your top tighthead is taken off at 65 minutes for a weaker tighthead in the set piece, it is because the top tighthead's intensity levels have dropped so far that they would be a liability to be kept on the field. If your second tighthead then gets pasted in the scrum through a lack of skill, it's quite likely that your first tighthead would have been pasted through fatigue had they stayed on.



As players get bigger and impacts are stronger, it's not good for the health of players to play full 80s in high impact positions, such as in the front row. But it does equally concern me that we're in a position where you have fresh legs running on to compete against tired legs. With only 8 players on the bench, you can't give everyone a rest. The most worrying for me are the three players in the pack that don't get a rest. I do like the thought of an interchange system, with enough interchanges available to allow coaches to rotate the entire XV.

Could the removal of tactical subs see a reversal of the trend for bigger player though?

 

[Peat]

Could the removal of tactical subs see a reversal of the trend for bigger player though?

No. To pick an example of a massive guy at random - Jamie Roberts hasn't been subbed in his last 11 internationals and I'll bet the further back you go the longer the trend goes on. He's a poster boy for the supersized player but he doesn't need subbing. Neither does Manu. Neither does Nonu - completed 7 of his last 10 games.

Sure, front rows will have to drop some weight, and there's some guys like Fonua and Bastareud who'll have to drop weight, but your everyday 17 stone centres and flankers will keep on trucking.

I'm with Selim and J'nuh - there's some real player welfare concerns about such an idea and I would have to see some really solid scientific data saying it would be ok before I agreed to no tactical substitutions.

 

[j'nuh]

Could the removal of tactical subs see a reversal of the trend for bigger player though?

I suspect not. Even if it does, I'm not sure it would be worth it for the number of injuries that would be picked up from players playing whilst tired.

 

[Noodle]

The other option is for players to play until they are injured. This is a very bad idea, especially in long leagues. The demand on the player's body gets too great. It would be awful for player welfare.