Injury Replacements

What do Alan Picken, Spase Dilevski, Jeremy Christie, Adrian Caceres (pictured) and Johnny Buonavoglia have in common? Wearing #21 or #22, they've all seen game action as replacements for long-term injured players. The contributions of Picken, Dilevski and Caceres in particular have been quite substantial, with each playing full games and putting in performances among the best on ground.

So what's going on here? In light of their small 20-man rosters, clubs have found it tough to deal with injuries. In order to put a competitive team on the park, coaches have called on specialist replacements to fill specific voids in their lineups. Non-rostered players can have an immediate impact because they fulfill a certain necessary function. But this practice might leave some rostered players scratching their heads. I wonder how Alejandro Salazar felt when Buonavoglia was selected on the bench instead of him for the New Zealand game? What does Todd Gava think about Dilevski seizing the spot on the right defensive flank? When Naum Sekulovski returns from his niggling injury will coach McMahon continue to select Caceres as the left attacking midfielder?

The issue here is whether the short-term contract replacement system is the fairest way for the FFA to allow club's to deal with injuries to full-time squad members. I don't know for sure, but I assume replacement contracts come at the bottom end of the wage scale, and thus present a desirable option for management. (I assume these contracts also lie outside the 20-player $1.5 million salary cap.) By negotiating a low wage with a desperate state leaguer or an out-of-contract returning international, clubs have been able to secure talented players for a premium, players that have slotted straight into a first-team role.

Is this fair on other clubs who have not been troubled with injuries or chosen not to employ a replacement? Perhaps fairness is not the right context for the issue. Is it unprofessional? Does it tarnish the reputation of the league? Should clubs be allowed to positively gain from an injury? To pose a hypothetical situation, what if an injury is used to enable a club to sign a superstar on a megabucks short-term contract? This may seem a bit far fetched, but would a club actually prefer to have a fringe player ruled out for several weeks so they could pick up a useful, or possibly an exceptional, short-term replacement? Would this be good for the league and simply tough luck on the injured roster player? Or would it seem a tad distasteful? Wrong?

The FFA certainly has a lot to think about concerning the future of the salary cap and the limitation on the size of the roster (a 'strict' law that the replacement system proves is already quite flexible).