I'M CONTINUALLY amazed at how dramatically the game has evolved in the past few decades. Although many people have reservations about the speed of that evolution, I firmly believe we have nothing to fear — the game will find a way to sort itself out, if we let it.
The most recent debate has been the increasing rotations through the interchange bench. It has been based on the attempt by clubs to maintain intensity of run and effort across the field to outplay the opposition.
It was 1930 when one reserve player was first allowed by the league to replace an injured player, and that was doubled in 1946. The interchange system was introduced in 1978. Since then, it has evolved from a place where you went when you erred or were injured to the busiest place on a football arena — bar the amenities at half-time.
Two interchange players were allowed until 1994, when it went to three and in 1998, it was raised to four. Only in recent years have clubs fully utilised the extra players.
Having played through the full evolution of the bench, I find it amazing how quickly the old stigma associated with "having a rest" has changed.
In 1995, against Geelong at then Kardinia Park, I was first "dragged", took the obligatory phone call from Leigh Matthews and received the obligatory bake.
I'd played very poorly. So bad that I was surprised the runner didn't come out earlier. Still, the whole process was as embarrassing as I can remember in my football career. It was enough for me to want to never happen again.
A couple of years later, we were playing Melbourne at the MCG in round two. Tony Shaw was the coach and, despite his limited success in the win/loss column, he always displayed a forward-thinking attitude that challenged the status quo.
I strained my ankle in the first five minutes but was able to get over it, to an extent, and have an influence on the match. Shawry tells a story about him "sprinting" away from the runner when he saw him coming for him, and I was doing much the same, avoiding him in the rooms and at the breaks for fear of getting the hook.
We were in control of the game, Sav Rocca had already kicked a bag, when five minutes into the final quarter the runner caught up with me and called me to the bench. I was filthy.
I couldn't see the sense in not playing when you could. Couldn't understand the concept of saving energy for next week or for the season ahead and spent the next 20 minutes like a cat on a hot tin roof.
Fast forward to 2007 and the handful of games I played near the end of last year. I was rested and rotated through the forward line at least once a quarter and used that time to hydrate, get a massage, take feedback from the coaches on the headset, stretch, take notice of trends on the field and prepare for my next chance to have an impact on the game.
The stigma that the bench carried has been dispelled in the past few seasons as the physical and tactical demands of the game have increased exponentially.
The use of the interchange has doubled in the past three years and the early signs are that it will rise again sharply this year, but there is no need to panic or jump at shadows. The game will always find a balance.
Discussion this week has centred on how we can address this trend, with suggestions ranging from limiting the number of interchanges to adding reserves and expanding the bench. Have we forgotten it's only round two?
Collingwood had 110 interchanges last week, a four-quarter record, and yet lost the game by two points. We need to retain some perspective.
Even the pioneers of the latest rise in the trend have only a handful of games on which to judge the merits of certain levels of rotation. The physical benefits of the tactic are indisputable but practical applications have revealed some questions that need to be answered.
If you are rotating a player every minute, do you find yourself one man short on the field? How much accountability is lost with the constant rotation? And what rotation level returns the best physical benefit?
These questions and many more need to be considered, not by the league but by each club. As they gather the information it will take years, not weeks, before they know which direction to take. Until then, it's guesswork.
One thing is certain, there is less reliance than ever on the stars of the competition because more games are won by the quality of the bench — or even the quality and/or fitness of the 22nd player, as Terry Wallace said this week.
The Lions won their flags with a great team that included a settled midfield of the Fab Four in Michael Voss, Nigel Lappin, Simon Black and Jason Akermanis. Add Luke Power to that and Shaun Hart and Chris Scott for match-ups and they were the "A" team that played the whole match and beat all-comers.
Compare that with last year's Geelong side, which proved that the way to success in today's game is an even spread of contributions from the players who are rotated on and off the field and around the ground.
Geelong's "A" team, in my opinion, is Jimmy Bartel as the centreman, Cameron Ling as the ruck rover/defensive midfielder and Gary Ablett as the rover. (By the way, how archaic does the use of traditional position names sound now in our game?)
That leaves players of the calibre of James Kelly, Joel Corey and Paul Chapman as the "B" team and Joel Selwood, Mathew Stokes and Steve Johnson as the "C" team.
I've left out Corey Enright, who after many years in the rotations has become a solid half-back flanker who picks up midfield stats, and Max Rooke, who the Cats rate as the catalyst for their aggressive, defensive mindset.
When you break a list up like that, it's easy to understand how the Cats have been so dominant and why in this age of increased rotation they will continue to be until other teams catch up in the "B" and "C" team areas, no matter how good their best onball division might stack up.
If you want to assess how your team will perform in the next few years, try that formula on your list and see what you come to. No team in this era will succeed without the depth necessary to constantly rotate without losing either offensive or defensive intensity around the contest.
Welcome to football, 2008 style. I like it and because change is inevitable, I'm going to enjoy it while I can.
