Vested Interest: Mid-Season Review

So Vlad and co have produced a half year review of the sub rule and pronounced it a big success.  Big deal … they completely ignored the catastrophic impact on DT coaches.  Here is a half year review on the sub rule from a DT perspective.

After 12 rounds it is obvious subs’ DT scores are much lower than other players, and low enough to significantly alter the cash value of that player.  In short, vests are bad.

Although we don’t know the answer, we know the most important question.  Is my player going to be the sub?  If one of your players is going to be a sub, it is much better to have him as a pine jockey, and not in your 22+3 emergencies.   Some patterns are emerging to help us avoid relying on players who are more likely to be subs.

Where is the sub likely to be named on Thursday night?

Well of the 186 subs so far:

• 30 (16%) were named on the field,
• 138 (74%) were named on the interchange bench (the bench of 4, after removing extended list players), and
• 18 (10%) were not named in the listed 22, but came into the side as a late inclusion.

That’s not really a surprise.  What is more useful is to know which coaches have the nasty habit of naming their subs on the field.

• Collingwood has done it 5 times (out of 11 games),
• Carlton and North 4 times,
• Fremantle 3 times,
• Hawthorn, Port, Richmond and St.Kilda twice,
• Adelaide, Essendon, Geelong, Gold Coast, West Coast and Bulldogs only once, and
• Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne never.

The Andrew Gaff Trophy

This award goes to the player with the most vests for the year – named after the first player to get 3 vests.  Lately a few spoilers are challenging young Andrew for his own trophy.  This award counts both red and green vests – a vest is a vest.

The standings also show which teams share the vests around and which coaches keep going back to the same few players.

Hope this helps some of you,

Nix