LINK
IBELIEVE the interchange replacement system has had a detrimental effect on other important parts of our game and I'm proposing a new interchange rule be considered and perhaps trialled by the NRL towards the end of the season in games that have no bearing on the top eight.
My rule is twofold. Starting players should be interchanged only once during the regular 80 minutes. They can come off and go back on, once. If they are replaced a second time, they are finished for the day. Bench players should not be interchanged once they take the field. If they are replaced, they are finished for the day.
My mathematical adviser tells me the maximum number of changes that can take place under this system is 16 but to reach this number you would have to replace 12 of the starting team players during the contest. Obviously, this wouldn't happen, but it does provide a sufficient buffer for an abnormally extended injury list. If my maths man is wrong, he's sacked forever.
Most teams interchange the same four to six players each game, so on average the number of interchanges under my proposal would be roughly eight to 10 changes a game. Not counting the half-time break (which should be sufficient break for any player), nobody gets more than one rest during the 80 minutes.
My opinion on interchange replacements has changed several times over the years.
At first I saw it as a necessity. This opinion was rammed home to me in a game I coached in 1996 when Great Britain international Phil Clarke went down injured after a head knock. He got to his feet complaining only of a headache and wanted to continue. But because it was unlimited interchange in those days, our trainer coaxed him from the field for a spell, knowing it wouldn't affect any replacement quota. A doctor examined Clarke on the sideline and realised he had broken his neck. He was immediately taken to hospital. Had he been allowed to continue playing, the result would have been catastrophic. I was shaken by the experience and never again wanted to be part of such a risky situation.
In time, though, coaches so badly abused the unlimited interchange rule that I, with others, agreed to a proposal for a limit of 12 interchanges a game. I'm now convinced we need more restrictions. First, many interchanges made by coaches these days are tactically motivated and unrelated to the number of injuries. Second, interchange has led to the increasing prominence of big, strong ball-running forwards at the expense of smaller, skilful players.
Most teams have four forwards on their bench and rotate them in short bursts to ensure no one becomes a mistake factor or defensive weakness because of fatigue. This has had a huge effect on the way coaches approach the recruitment, development and selection of their teams.
You go to any first-grade coach and tell him you have a good young half or five-eighth he should look at and the first questions he'll ask are: How big is he? Can he tackle? In the NRL, smaller men in the defensive line are constantly targeted by big ball-running forwards. A little bloke like Brett Kimmorley stands his ground in defence while two big forwards take turns running at him, intent only on wearing him out. After 15 minutes, these forwards start to tire, so the coach replaces them with fresh players who continue the assault. Not only is Kimmorley always contending with fresh players running at him, he never gets the chance to return serve and attack these forwards when they're tired because they are replaced before fatigue takes over.
Replacing big men before they get tired means defences are better, tries are harder to score and coaches are reluctant to have too many smaller defenders in their line-up. This has contributed to the death of the five-eighth position as we knew it. Coaches have moved away from having two small, creative halves. They tolerate one small halfback, but unless they have a five-eighth in the mould of a Wally Lewis, Brad Fittler, Laurie Daley or Trent Barrett, they sacrifice skill for size and prefer a No.6 built more like a forward to handle defence pressures.
The really small, skilful and instinctive attacking players such as Matt Bowen, Preston Campbell, Brett Hodgson, Kurt Gidley or Brett Kearney, who started as halves in their junior days, now have to play fullback or they don't survive in first grade. This is one of the real negatives of interchange. I want to see big men have to tough it out and play through tiredness and fatigue. I would like to see little men such as Scott Prince (pictured) come into their own towards the end of each half when these monsters are gasping for air.
I have my doubts when some forwards today are given the tag of being one of the "best ever" in their position, when they play only between 40 and 50 minutes each week. These days, no forward has to push in scrums (which have become a disgrace but that's an argument for another day). Years ago, when scrums were fair dinkum, forwards pushed and shoved in these human mangles 20 to 30 times a game, and it really took its toll. These days they don't push and they don't even have to pack into scrums. Anyone can pack in.
Let's make the game harder for the big men and bring the little men back into their own. Let me know what you think and if you agree, we'll put some pressure on the NRL to give it a try. It's worth a shot.
IBELIEVE the interchange replacement system has had a detrimental effect on other important parts of our game and I'm proposing a new interchange rule be considered and perhaps trialled by the NRL towards the end of the season in games that have no bearing on the top eight.
My rule is twofold. Starting players should be interchanged only once during the regular 80 minutes. They can come off and go back on, once. If they are replaced a second time, they are finished for the day. Bench players should not be interchanged once they take the field. If they are replaced, they are finished for the day.
My mathematical adviser tells me the maximum number of changes that can take place under this system is 16 but to reach this number you would have to replace 12 of the starting team players during the contest. Obviously, this wouldn't happen, but it does provide a sufficient buffer for an abnormally extended injury list. If my maths man is wrong, he's sacked forever.
Most teams interchange the same four to six players each game, so on average the number of interchanges under my proposal would be roughly eight to 10 changes a game. Not counting the half-time break (which should be sufficient break for any player), nobody gets more than one rest during the 80 minutes.
My opinion on interchange replacements has changed several times over the years.
At first I saw it as a necessity. This opinion was rammed home to me in a game I coached in 1996 when Great Britain international Phil Clarke went down injured after a head knock. He got to his feet complaining only of a headache and wanted to continue. But because it was unlimited interchange in those days, our trainer coaxed him from the field for a spell, knowing it wouldn't affect any replacement quota. A doctor examined Clarke on the sideline and realised he had broken his neck. He was immediately taken to hospital. Had he been allowed to continue playing, the result would have been catastrophic. I was shaken by the experience and never again wanted to be part of such a risky situation.
In time, though, coaches so badly abused the unlimited interchange rule that I, with others, agreed to a proposal for a limit of 12 interchanges a game. I'm now convinced we need more restrictions. First, many interchanges made by coaches these days are tactically motivated and unrelated to the number of injuries. Second, interchange has led to the increasing prominence of big, strong ball-running forwards at the expense of smaller, skilful players.
Most teams have four forwards on their bench and rotate them in short bursts to ensure no one becomes a mistake factor or defensive weakness because of fatigue. This has had a huge effect on the way coaches approach the recruitment, development and selection of their teams.
You go to any first-grade coach and tell him you have a good young half or five-eighth he should look at and the first questions he'll ask are: How big is he? Can he tackle? In the NRL, smaller men in the defensive line are constantly targeted by big ball-running forwards. A little bloke like Brett Kimmorley stands his ground in defence while two big forwards take turns running at him, intent only on wearing him out. After 15 minutes, these forwards start to tire, so the coach replaces them with fresh players who continue the assault. Not only is Kimmorley always contending with fresh players running at him, he never gets the chance to return serve and attack these forwards when they're tired because they are replaced before fatigue takes over.
Replacing big men before they get tired means defences are better, tries are harder to score and coaches are reluctant to have too many smaller defenders in their line-up. This has contributed to the death of the five-eighth position as we knew it. Coaches have moved away from having two small, creative halves. They tolerate one small halfback, but unless they have a five-eighth in the mould of a Wally Lewis, Brad Fittler, Laurie Daley or Trent Barrett, they sacrifice skill for size and prefer a No.6 built more like a forward to handle defence pressures.
The really small, skilful and instinctive attacking players such as Matt Bowen, Preston Campbell, Brett Hodgson, Kurt Gidley or Brett Kearney, who started as halves in their junior days, now have to play fullback or they don't survive in first grade. This is one of the real negatives of interchange. I want to see big men have to tough it out and play through tiredness and fatigue. I would like to see little men such as Scott Prince (pictured) come into their own towards the end of each half when these monsters are gasping for air.
I have my doubts when some forwards today are given the tag of being one of the "best ever" in their position, when they play only between 40 and 50 minutes each week. These days, no forward has to push in scrums (which have become a disgrace but that's an argument for another day). Years ago, when scrums were fair dinkum, forwards pushed and shoved in these human mangles 20 to 30 times a game, and it really took its toll. These days they don't push and they don't even have to pack into scrums. Anyone can pack in.
Let's make the game harder for the big men and bring the little men back into their own. Let me know what you think and if you agree, we'll put some pressure on the NRL to give it a try. It's worth a shot.
