Substitutions Whats The Point

I can understand the use of tactical substitutions if need be but what was the point of bringing Hook and Tipuric on with 15 seconds to go ffs. I remember listening to a radio interview with Chico Hopkins where he said tactical subs devalue the cap. Now while I dont fully agree with him I do agree in the case today as what was the point.

How about introducing a system that after lets say 60 minutes no subs can be made unless due to injury that would make it more a test of attrition and fitness at same time.

Other than taking the edge off a new cap I really can't see the point.

Just seems pointless to me and does de-value it.

bedfordwelsh wrote:I can understand the use of tactical substitutions if need be but what was the point of bringing Hook and Tipuric on with 15 seconds to go ffs.  I remember listening to a radio interview with Chico Hopkins where he said tactical subs devalue the cap.  Now while I dont fully agree with him I do agree in the case today as what was the point.

How about introducing a system that after lets say 60 minutes no subs can be made unless due to injury that would make it more a test of attrition and fitness at same time.

The 6N is a series of five games for each side. Do we really want to push the 'better' players through a full 80 minutes for the first two or three games only to have the competition die away to a B team special later on? Rugby players play a tough game. The more tired they become the more prone to injury they become, the more silly things they might do that would lead to serious injury - especially in close up work - mauls, scrums etc. Player safety must come before the spectacle of seeing players out-on their legs still forced to give and take hits. If a player is gone physically, then he is gone and needs to be taken off.

Fly,

As it is you can only at most make 8 changes so 7 others have to play 80 minutes if professional players cant play 80 odd minutes of rugby then for me somethings wrong.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Fly,

As it is you can only at most make 8 changes so 7 others have to play 80 minutes if professional players cant play 80 odd minutes of rugby then for me somethings wrong.

Bedford, they can play 80 minutes...but at a certain tempo.  If it's a slow game against two mediocre sides then the pace won't affect their 80 minute potential.  But if it's a high level all-out battle of running and collisions (like many top level games between big sides are increasingly becoming) then no, not all players can last 'safely' through 80 minutes - certainly forwards need to be respected for the work they might get up to in a tough, high-level, high skilled game....and be replaced if feeling the effects.... even after the 6Oth minute

Fly,

Disagree they are professional and if needs must they should be able to play full 80 if need be.

I some times think that coaches only make substitutions not because they have too but because it give all the players in the team a run out.

...Tough coach you are! ..................... so be it - we disagree.

majesticimperialman wrote:I some times think that coaches only make substitutions not because they have too but because it give all the players in the team a run out.

another important point though. Experience comes from being out there - not being on a bench. Every player who is a mainstay today, started life getting experience from the bench.... not sitting on it for 80.

I also hate the pre determined 60 - 65 minute substitutions we see so much of these days.

bedfordwelsh wrote:I also hate the pre determined 60 - 65 minute substitutions we see so much of these days.

Sorry, sorry for my intrusion again...it seems I'm trying to be a nuisance but really, no, it's just that the topic interests me.

My point on what you say this time: Is that not though how teams are coached though in the modern game?  They're virtually told (I feel and some of them, not all of them) when they'll be roughly subbed (unless they're off earlier through injury).  And they're then told to go all out for that period of 60 minutes.  It's a plan to maximise effort.  Play you're heart out - you'll be taken off on the 60 mark.  80 minute players have to pace themselves a tad more.

SecretFly wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:I also hate the pre determined 60 - 65 minute substitutions we see so much of these days.

Sorry, sorry for my intrusion again...it seems I'm trying to be a nuisance but really, no, it's just that the topic interests me.

My point on what you say this time: Is that not though how teams are coached though in the modern game?  They're virtually told (I feel and some of them, not all of them) when they'll be roughly subbed (unless they're off earlier through injury).  And they're then told to go all out for that period of 60 minutes.  It's a plan to maximise effort.  Play you're heart out - you'll be taken off on the 60 mark.  80 minute players have to pace themselves a tad more.

Fly,

I agree but some dont put 60 minutes in and why like England did last week with Care take one your best players off .

I notice Lancaster kept Danny on 10 mins longer this week...

ChequeredJersey wrote:I notice Lancaster kept Danny on 10 mins longer this week...

Just incase Scotland were going to break out........?...!

They did look threatening all game...








(Btw this was sarcastic)

I dont have any problem with substitutions regardless of when they occur, what I do like to see though is the smart coaches that make the players learn to play when tired, its often been an overlooked ability.

But back to the OP, what is the point of bringing on Justin Tipuric for 15 seconds? He's got a load of caps already, so doesn't need the experience or exposure to the environment. So 15 seconds??? WTF?!

Was someone slightly injured? Often these substitutions are because someone had a slight knock.

Griff wrote:But back to the OP, what is the point of bringing on Justin Tipuric for 15 seconds? He's got a load of caps already, so doesn't need the experience or exposure to the environment. So 15 seconds??? WTF?!

Griff is the concern that he was on for the last 15 seconds or the fact that he wasnt on for the previous 79 mins 45 seconds?

The 15 seconds Laurie. The game was over, we were 20 odd points down. What does 15 seconds of action do for the player or the team?

Then again you could say that the game also wasnt lost in that 15 seconds.
I should also make it clear that I didnt see all the game only a "highlights package" and the concern I had for Wales was the lack of intensity in the forwards, (that Irish rolling mall for that lead to a try was somewhat by default) and from the little I saw maybe Gatty saw the game as lost quite early and if he did then taht was the point he should have been ringing changes.Gatty would have been very pizzed off with what I saw of the Welsh forwards.

But it is dangerous to draw too many conclusions from an abridged broadcast.

But 15 seconds Laurie!! 5 mins fine. 10 mins great. 15 seconds??? He player probably didn't even manage to run in that last 15 seconds.

I agree it appears somewhat pointless, but then again by that time it didnt matter.

I know nothing about the money angle. do the players get less if they just sit on the bench all game ? if that is the case, was tipurics run on a way of him getting
more.

Paddy Jackson came on very late and scored the match winning try and conversion!