Bring in interchange to change face of the game

[travelling_gerry]

Bring in interchange to change face of the game






Mark Ella | June 21, 2008


THERE was only one disappointment from last week's win by the Wallabies against Ireland: why didn't coach Robbie Deans use all of his bench players, including Ryan Cross?

And, from all reports, it would appear Deans is going to run with much the same side for the first Test against France next Saturday in Sydney.

I am not criticising Deans; as a new coach he is trying to form combinations as quickly as possible, but it is obvious he requires his key players on the field at the end of the game.
Against Ireland in Melbourne, one could have imagined changes to the line-up early in the second half, especially when the Wallabies were struggling with the conditions and many were almost at the point of exhaustion.
But true to his word, Deans kept faith with his players.
Since professionalism came to rugby in the mid-1990s the code has often looked at rugby league in terms of training techniques, fitness levels and, more importantly, defensive patterns.
One area of the game I feel needs consideration is the interchange rule: to allow tactical replacements as league has done to improve the speed and excitement of the game. Australia's biggest sport, Australian football, also allows interchanges.
I remember when I was coaching in Milan in the early '90s and what surprised me most was that in rugby, as in soccer, the coaches were allowed to make tactical changes.
This simple difference put more pressure on me as a coach to know when and who to replace. It took me time to come to this adjustment, but once I had I realised just how important it was to replace my players and how those coming off the bench could have an impact.
In the modern game it doesn't take a genius to know that after the first 10 minutes of the second half there is an 80 per cent chance of a change to either a prop or lock and then 10 minutes later perhaps a hooker et cetera.
During the final 15 minutes of a match, predictably half of the starting line-up is off the field and breathing deeply on the bench.
As a coach, doesn't it make sense to have your starting XV, which in normal circumstances is your best team, finish the game as it started?
In rugby, we need an interchange system that allows the game to be played at a frenetic pace, with fresh players on the field.
I am not suggesting we have 12 or even 10 tactical interchanges each game, but possibly five or six strategic decisions by coaches would bring a new dimension to the game. It would ensure our stars are on the field when it matters most - at the end of the game.
As in Italy all those years ago, the emphasis would be on coaches making the right changes at the right time.
It would redefine the role of an impact player coming off the bench. A player may only have a short time on the field to make a difference and, depending on his performance, he could be taken off at any time.
Cross could have easily upped the tempo of the Australian backs who struggled to contain the energetic Irish backline, which chanced its arm against a weakening Wallabies defence.
The same could have been said of Adam Ashley-Cooper, who also didn't make it on to the field. Fullback Cameron Shepherd didn't have a bad game, but the backline lacked punch.
Given 20 minutes on the field, perhaps, Ashley-Cooper may have been the right player along with Cross to change the game's flow.
As it was, Deans didn't make these changes because he didn't want to lose his captain, Stirling Mortlock, in what was a tight situation. Also, he obviously wanted to give Shepherd as much game time as he could.
Many will say tactical interchange is heading down the same path as rugby league, but rugby isn't in a position to reject innovations that will make it a better spectacle.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...015651,00.html

[pieter blackie]

I agree it will give a coach so many more options and bench players will get more game time

[AndyS]

But once it starts, how long before it ends up as unlimited interchange? I've always thought the current situation more tactically interesting.

[.X.]

You have to consider that as Ryan Cross really can only be considered a specialist Outside Centre the only chance he has of getting on the field is for an injury to Mortlock. Cross has shown he during the second(?) game for the Force of 2008 he is lost on the wing and his defence was suspect to say the least.

As much as it pains me to say it. Perhaps we would be better off with a Utility Back being picked for the Bench rather then Ryan Cross. The best that comes to mind is a fit and healthy Scott Stanniforth. Is there any word on when he is available again?

Please don't get me wrong, I think that Ryan Cross had an amazing Super 14 Season and deserves his selection in the Wallabies Squad based on that. I just cannot see him getting a run.

[JediKnight]

Many will say tactical interchange is heading down the same path as rugby league, but rugby isn't in a position to reject innovations that will make it a better spectacle.

This is what concerns me.....there's a lot of "improvements" or "enhancements" coming out of the Australian rugby family that I don't think are for the benefit of the game globally. This is just another step closer to mungo-ball & GayFL. Much as it pains me to admit it, some of the comments from the England camp regarding the ELVs are the same as mine.....if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Rugby is booming in Europe, clubs are profitable, crowds are on the increase & this is against the huge competition that is soccer.

[gustafsl]

The problem only seems to be in slow/dull games that are close. Obviously if we had been up by 20 points there may have been more changes. But I don't think it is that much of a problem to change the rules.

I think you'd actually see a decrease in the quality of players. There would be much more emphasis on utility players. And as a result you would end up with a bunch of guys who know a couple positions good but no positions great.

The only area I could see this being of benefit is in the front row. They already do it anyway. How many times this year did the first prop go off at 50 minutes and then at 65 minutes the other prop got an injury and had to come off, only to be replaced by the prop that had just had a rest.

[shasta]

But once it starts, how long before it ends up as unlimited interchange? I've always thought the current situation more tactically interesting.

That is unlikely. The mungos lost many fans (myself included) during the farcical unlimited interchange period. They learned quickly and gradually trimmed the interchange mix to the point where they now have it about right IMO. It's back to being a test of stamina.

Rugby can learn from other games including League but, more importantly, learn from their mistakes. I don't subscribe to the "ain't broke don't fix it" theory. Continuous improvement is more like it. I reckon there are still a lot of old heads who don't follow League as closely these days because they have removed just about all contests for possession in the name of making the game "faster". It's at the point now where there was a short arm penalty awarded on Saturday, after a scrum, because "You can't push like that". Gimme strength!

The only area I could see this being of benefit is in the front row. They already do it anyway.

So why not legitimise things and leave it to the coaches to suss out their own mix of players?

[KenyaQuin]

Ah, I reminisce the good old days when we had to fake injuries to get sub'd. Gone are the days of the Hardmen, when the 14 you started with were the 14 you finished with and the beer was worth the blood and sweat (and if you had the misfortune of being on the subs bench, you silently prayed and hoped for an injury). It was a true players game then, now its a spectator's sport.

Truth of the matter is that things had to change then as it was a farcical situation and as the game has progressed so to the need for adequate substitution coverage on the bench.

That being said, I firmly believe we have now the right balance, tough luck if you use up all your subs and another player gets injured. Tough luck if you don't use up all your subs on the bench because you've used up your quota. This is the nature of the beast, it makes the game interesting and gives the scribes something to write about.

Once precedent has been set, there will always be a coach who needs one more interchange player "because the game is faster/harder" (look at the AFL). I don't think we need to go down that path and in agreement with Jedi, I don't think this is worth any consideration.

[GIGS20]

The only time I think interchange should be considered is IF the ELVs cause the game to speed up to the point that players are so exhausted by the end of 80 minutes that the game is no longer a spectacle. at which point, a simpler modification to law might be that you can sub a player off for a replacement, but the player can only return to the field to reverse that substitution, once a plyer has left and returned to the field, he may not leave the field again save for injury. the subs could be subject to the same rules. on-off-on for the game. That way, there is a significant fitness component retained, since not everyone will be able to have a breather and there will be an opportunity to make some tactical substitutions, to allow (say) your front rowers to have a breather and play a more intense game