There’s been plenty of talk around football circles about the new ‘sub’ rule - and not all of it has been positive.

And while I understand their arguments, I seem to be the odd one out because personally I’m a fan of it.

Even though we haven’t really been able to see it in full swing just yet, I reckon the concept is a good one.

Modern football has shifted away from the one-on-one duals - with the exception maybe of the traditional full-back versus the traditional full-forward.

I used to love watching blokes go head-to-head and the guy that would come out on top would usually be the one who worked the hardest. Players who weren’t strong endurance athletes would be found out while those who ran all day were the best in the business.

Dual St Kilda Brownlow Medallist Robert Harvey is one guys who comes to mind. He is one of the all-time greats. I’ve heard plenty of stories from team-mates who used to hate playing against him because he’d eventually run you into the ground. That’s what made him such a great player.

If he was playing today, Harvey would probably get up to six different midfielders rotating off him during a match, so wouldn’t be able to wear them down as he used to. The great man himself would probably spend more time on the bench as well.

His edge on the competition would possibly be lost.

Call me a traditionalist, but I still like the old ‘war of attrition’.

Every pre-season is spent working your guts out to get yourself fitter and stronger so that you can beat your opponent. But it doesn’t always work out that way these days because you’ve got fresh blokes rotating off you every 10 minutes.

The sub rule has been designed to minimise rotations and slow the game down. It means that players have to be fitter and spend more time on the field than they’ve probably been used to over the past few years.

As a rule, I think it has merit. That said, I haven’t experienced it first-hand just yet.

Maybe I’ll have a different opinion in a month’s time.