Opinion 2024 AFL SuperCoach Planning Thread

[OnTopBar]

Macrae and Flanders 1st picked, although, they are the best of a bad bunch and come with some risk.

Macrae - when Bailey Smith didn't play last year, Macrae didn't get the CBA's, the Bont and others gobbled them up. The positive for Macrae is he did score better without Bailey, although small sample size.

Flanders - did he benefit from Touk coming back from injury early, change of coach risk, Touk fit and no longer tagging and then last the Richmond game style plan that Hardwick will bring which doesn't benefit SC. Flanders/Touk most watched premiums for me pre season.

If OR not included which seems likely given Fantasy doing that, Grawndy will be starting line up. Gawn offers value vs English although think whilst the gap closes, English could still be 10 points better.

Rookies - prior years we have seen some flaky cheap players not perform feels the top 10 this year will dominate to be included plus any mature rookies and this may not be a differentiating factor. Not having the bombers, eagles poor quality rookies merely helped me minimise the cruel injury hits (plus failed mid pricers) I had last year.

Really depends on how SC deal with round 0, if they do it the way Fantasy has then those players with the early bye are pretty much off limits. If starting Grawndy and holding then you're effectively bringing on the 19th score as a replacement which could be a 50-70pt hit.

So holding those 2 as an example, you have to discount their scoring by 10pts/game over those first 5-6 rounds. If you trade them then that's locking in 2 trades which might be problematical if there happens to be a coinciding injury or two.

Using a boost to upgrade either or both could well be an option

 

[GrainFedBeef]

Really depends on how SC deal with round 0, if they do it the way Fantasy has then those players with the early bye are pretty much off limits. If starting Grawndy and holding then you're effectively bringing on the 19th score as a replacement which could be a 50-70pt hit.

So holding those 2 as an example, you have to discount their scoring by 10pts/game over those first 5-6 rounds. If you trade them then that's locking in 2 trades which might be problematical if there happens to be a coinciding injury or two.

Using a boost to upgrade either or both could well be an option

yeah good point, anyone playing OR will potentially cost you 50points in a bye round.

Potentially value players may still get picked (although limited on how many), just not full priced premiums.

 

[Manikato1]

Macrae and Flanders 1st picked, although, they are the best of a bad bunch and come with some risk.

Macrae - when Bailey Smith didn't play last year, Macrae didn't get the CBA's, the Bont and others gobbled them up. The positive for Macrae is he did score better without Bailey, although small sample size.

Flanders - did he benefit from Touk coming back from injury early, change of coach risk, Touk fit and no longer tagging and then last the Richmond game style plan that Hardwick will bring which doesn't benefit SC. Flanders/Touk most watched premiums for me pre season.

If OR not included which seems likely given Fantasy doing that, Grawndy will be starting line up. Gawn offers value vs English although think whilst the gap closes, English could still be 10 points better.

Rookies - prior years we have seen some flaky cheap players not perform feels the top 10 this year will dominate to be included plus any mature rookies and this may not be a differentiating factor. Not having the bombers, eagles poor quality rookies merely helped me minimise the cruel injury hits (plus failed mid pricers) I had last year.

I agree with this. When I did my very first “here are some players to consider” list I had Touk and Flanders with a watch on Anderson as well. But the Dimma factor has me reconsidering.

I don’t think Dimma will be starting from scratch with a completely new gameplan. More likely he will apply the best of the Richmond plan with tweaks for various GC players traits that he thinks he can make us of.

I think Richmond under Dimma scored most often using turnovers. Pressure the opposition ball carrier into making a mistake and then rebound. They always were in the bottom few teams for clearances even those years they won flags. I am guessing that would be more for the around the ground stoppages where they were not overly worried if they did not win the clearance. CB might be different. In any event they just wanted to put the opposition guy immediately under pressure and get him to make a mistake.

If that tactic is applied at GC less clearances could impact the scoring of players like Touk and Anderson plus perhaps Rowell. On the other side Witts is a very good ruckman having the top number of HTA in 2023 so it seems a waste not to take advantage of his hit out skills.

Last issue is that Richmond teams in Dimma’s time never produced consistent high scoring SC players. Dusty had one good season at 119 but then dropped off to 108 and below. Likewise Cotchin who went 116 once then 101 was his next best season.

Makes me wonder if Touk and co really are value selections next season

 

[wogitalia]

Will you still take Flanders if SC decides to ignore opening round?

On a positive you get a free look at them if they go the AFLF route (hope they don't).

The R0 conundrum very much going to come down to the strength of starting sides, you can probably afford one premium per bye, especially if they're underpriced, but any more than that and the leak will be on.

Real shame they've gone that path for dealing with it as going to make teams even more similar from the start, really hope that SC/RDT don't go that path. We're getting to the point where they may as well just give everyone the same default starting side and just make it about trades...

I'm hopeful that SC/RDT will go a different path though as they've got experience dealing with it in other formats and have the programming knowledge. AFLF obviously don't have any programmers working there given they haven't improved anything about the user experience in 5 years (maybe made it worse even) and haven't done it for other formats so they've taken what is by far the easiest pathway of just removing the round entirely.

I'm definitely feeling like I'm less likely than likely to actually do any fantasy this year.

 

[warewolves]

On a positive you get a free look at them if they go the AFLF route (hope they don't).

I'm hopeful that SC/RDT will go a different path though as they've got experience dealing with it in other formats and have the programming knowledge. AFLF obviously don't have any programmers working there given they haven't improved anything about the user experience in 5 years (maybe made it worse even) and haven't done it for other formats so they've taken what is by far the easiest pathway of just removing the round entirely..

I tend to agree - By just ignoring R0, AFLF have likely gone for the easiest and cheapest way out - corporate management will usually go for that over a change to the system.
Too bad if its not what the user community really want.

 

[TBG]

Any whispers of a date of when team picker is going to be available for 2024 season? I'm looking forward to picking my perfect team🤣🤣🤣

 

[Ironhawk]

Any whispers of a date of when team picker is going to be available for 2024 season? I'm looking forward to picking my perfect team🤣🤣🤣

Post 436 suggests it will be this week.

 

[TBG]

Post 436 suggests it will be this week.

Thanks. Hope so👍

 

[GrainFedBeef]

On a positive you get a free look at them if they go the AFLF route (hope they don't).

The R0 conundrum very much going to come down to the strength of starting sides, you can probably afford one premium per bye, especially if they're underpriced, but any more than that and the leak will be on.

Real shame they've gone that path for dealing with it as going to make teams even more similar from the start, really hope that SC/RDT don't go that path. We're getting to the point where they may as well just give everyone the same default starting side and just make it about trades...

I'm hopeful that SC/RDT will go a different path though as they've got experience dealing with it in other formats and have the programming knowledge. AFLF obviously don't have any programmers working there given they haven't improved anything about the user experience in 5 years (maybe made it worse even) and haven't done it for other formats so they've taken what is by far the easiest pathway of just removing the round entirely.

I'm definitely feeling like I'm less likely than likely to actually do any fantasy this year.

Irony is for league it may go the other way with overload of OR players plus anyone having a bye before league games kick off.

 

[manyproblems]

I tend to agree - By just ignoring R0, AFLF have likely gone for the easiest and cheapest way out - corporate management will usually go for that over a change to the system.
Too bad if its not what the user community really want.

AF have done it the correct way. The cost is people will avoid premiums who have early byes, aside from those that present too much value to pass (Flanders, Grundy and Daicos). Its not great, but there is a cost with every method. It is a shame for people who want to pick Green, Gulden, Dunkley or Walsh. That being said people can still pick them and hope they loop a passable rookie score with the bye player. If that happens then they will have a Pod against the comp. This is also the most overall user friendly method with the least confusion.

Double game week is a complete disaster waiting to happen. Your player stuck on field doesn't play the week after, you basically just got a donut. Happens constantly in BBL with older players pulling up sore. Early injury to captain? Come back in 2025.

Best 10/12 in R0. This method I don't mind but people who haven't done a lot of planning may suffer if they are locked into a structure. Hypothetical: The Coach picked 3 mids who played round 0, but then no forward rookies turn up in R1 and they dont know how to fill the forward line. Or even a stack of mid rookies pop up and they cant fit them in.

Free hit round 0 - this is basically DFS, luck is far too influential for this stuff.

If they can somehow put round 0 scores into the players bye round score (e.g. Green scores 120 in R1, so in R3 on his bye it comes up as 120) then I wouldn't be against that, not a perfect method but at least the scores count.

 

[Beg2Differ]

AF have done it the correct way. The cost is people will avoid premiums who have early byes, aside from those that present too much value to pass (Flanders, Grundy and Daicos). Its not great, but there is a cost with every method. It is a shame for people who want to pick Green, Gulden, Dunkley or Walsh. That being said people can still pick them and hope they loop a passable rookie score with the bye player. If that happens then they will have a Pod against the comp. This is also the most overall user friendly method with the least confusion.

Double game week is a complete disaster waiting to happen. Your player stuck on field doesn't play the week after, you basically just got a donut. Happens constantly in BBL with older players pulling up sore. Early injury to captain? Come back in 2025.

Best 10/12 in R0. This method I don't mind but people who haven't done a lot of planning may suffer if they are locked into a structure. Hypothetical: The Coach picked 3 mids who played round 0, but then no forward rookies turn up in R1 and they dont know how to fill the forward line. Or even a stack of mid rookies pop up and they cant fit them in.

Free hit round 0 - this is basically DFS, luck is far too influential for this stuff.

If they can somehow put round 0 scores into the players bye round score (e.g. Green scores 120 in R1, so in R3 on his bye it comes up as 120) then I wouldn't be against that, not a perfect method but at least the scores count.

Don‘t agree that AFL fantasy have done it the correct way. It seems a cop out to me. It will be a big let down if we have no SC for opening round.

Agree that any concept of a DGR in AFLSC is not a good solution. It is contrary to the whole principle and changes the nature of the game.

Don‘t think best x (any number) works because how do you pick a team of 30 when you don’t know who is selected for 10 of the 18 teams (rookies especially). In that scenario I assume standard trading rules apply and you might end up with a team with multiple doughnuts and no way to fix it.

I can’t see how your final suggestion of using round zero scores to replace bye scores in subsequent rounds is in any way practicable. That will just incentivise teams to trade in the round zero high scorers for their bye or will require some hideously complicated rule to prevent it.

I still think the best solution is to select a round zero team and then have unlimited trades for your your round 1 team. I am yet to hear a compelling argument against it. Sorry I don’t know what DFS means but I don’t see how doing this introduces a greater element of luck that isn’t already inherent in the comp.

 

[warewolves]

Don‘t agree that AFL fantasy have done it the correct way. It seems a cop out to me. It will be a big let down if we have no SC for opening round.

Agree that any concept of a DGR in AFLSC is not a good solution. It is contrary to the whole principle and changes the nature of the game.

Don‘t think best x (any number) works because how do you pick a team of 30 when you don’t know who is selected for 10 of the 18 teams (rookies especially). In that scenario I assume standard trading rules apply and you might end up with a team with multiple doughnuts and no way to fix it.

I can’t see how your final suggestion of using round zero scores to replace bye scores in subsequent rounds is in any way practicable. That will just incentivise teams to trade in the round zero high scorers for their bye or will require some hideously complicated rule to prevent it.

I still think the best solution is to select a round zero team and then have unlimited trades for your your round 1 team. I am yet to hear a compelling argument against it. Sorry I don’t know what DFS means but I don’t see how doing this introduces a greater element of luck that isn’t already inherent in the comp.

Perhaps SC could go for something that allows for the weird opening round, but doesn’t completely ignore the longer term.
As a bye-like round R0 is best 18.
So Our R0 squad would have to have 18 from the eight competing teams, but up to 12 from the other ten clubs
Then instead of unlimited trades going into R1; there would be a cap of something like 15-18 trades . A big enough number to swap out the overload of R0 players and to make rookie corrections

Too complicated?

 

[Bonaparte]

Think we can all agree that the AFL have made fantasy comps less appealing this year. Wouldn't want to encourage a few hundred thousand people watching neutral games so let's try and kill off fantasy with a concept nobody asked for or seems to be excited about.🙄

 

[Ironhawk]

Think we can all agree that the AFL have made fantasy comps less appealing this year. Wouldn't want to encourage a few hundred thousand people watching neutral games so let's try and kill off fantasy with a concept nobody asked for or seems to be excited about.🙄

I can see that the AFL are trying to capitalise on the NRL only having the one game in each of Sydney and Brisbane that week, but if that was the case, they should have just made it a second full "gather round" arrangement, played a full 9 game round across those two states, and introduced a second bye for each club due to starting the season a week earlier. Yes byes suck for fantasy comps, but at least it's a lesser disruption. What they have done just doesn't take advantage at all, and also mucks up the whole fixture to allow this failure of an experiment. Seems yet another poor decision from the AFL.

 

[Locky27]

How about this:

• Best 10 players for Opening Round, then any Opening Round players are locked in.
• You get unlimited trades for any non-Opening Round players.
• You can still use trades to trade in/out any Opening Round players.
• Have Best 22 for Rounds 2, 3, 5 & 6 (as you already got scores from your OR players).

Need to make sure you don't overspend on Opening Round players, or may run into cap space problems for Round 1 though.

Having said that, I believe the reason AFL Fantasy have gone they way they have (ignoring the problem - start the season Round 1) is because any other solution would probably require software changes (weeks of work), followed by testing (more weeks), at a time when employees are likely taking time off over the Christmas break, and there's no way that could get it done in time without it being a buggy mess.

 

[manyproblems]

Don‘t agree that AFL fantasy have done it the correct way. It seems a cop out to me. It will be a big let down if we have no SC for opening round.

Agree that any concept of a DGR in AFLSC is not a good solution. It is contrary to the whole principle and changes the nature of the game.

Don‘t think best x (any number) works because how do you pick a team of 30 when you don’t know who is selected for 10 of the 18 teams (rookies especially). In that scenario I assume standard trading rules apply and you might end up with a team with multiple doughnuts and no way to fix it.

I can’t see how your final suggestion of using round zero scores to replace bye scores in subsequent rounds is in any way practicable. That will just incentivise teams to trade in the round zero high scorers for their bye or will require some hideously complicated rule to prevent it.

I still think the best solution is to select a round zero team and then have unlimited trades for your your round 1 team. I am yet to hear a compelling argument against it. Sorry I don’t know what DFS means but I don’t see how doing this introduces a greater element of luck that isn’t already inherent in the comp.

This is too luck dependant because its one week of scoring, e.g. a key forward could score 150 or 20. Random players will post big scores in terrible SC friendly roles and it will make a big different to a teams overall points. Picking an entire squad for a one off round has never been what SuperCoach is, its picking and building a squad for an entire season. DFS is daily fantasy, where you pick a team for one game only through a betting website. No one plays this crap because there is too much luck involved to win it.

I also highly doubt people will pick players purely based on round 0 scores if they were added to the byes, they need to keep these players for the season if they are keepers or it will cost a trade.

 

[Beg2Differ]

How about this:

• Best 10 players for Opening Round, then any Opening Round players are locked in.
• You get unlimited trades for any non-Opening Round players.
• You can still use trades to trade in/out any Opening Round players.
• Have Best 22 for Rounds 2, 3, 5 & 6 (as you already got scores from your OR players).

Need to make sure you don't overspend on Opening Round players, or may run into cap space problems for Round 1 though.

Having said that, I believe the reason AFL Fantasy have gone they way they have (ignoring the problem - start the season Round 1) is because any other solution would probably require software changes (weeks of work), followed by testing (more weeks), at a time when employees are likely taking time off over the Christmas break, and there's no way that could get it done in time without it being a buggy mess.

I still prefer the so called “free hit” round zero option but this is the next best idea I have read.

The only problem I can see is that the complexity of implementation around using or not using a trade depending on whether you are trading out a round zero player or not. I doubt that is a capability of the current software. If the the round zero players were just locked out entirely for round 1 that would be much easier however you obviously then have the scenario of injuries, non selection, DPP movement, fielding/benching these players for round 1 that could be problematic. If that wasn’t achievable perhaps they could be locked out fully and we run with best 20 for round 1 to mitigate against those potential problems. It’s not perfect but it’s better.

Finally sticking with best 22 for rounds 2, 3, 5 & 6 is interesting. My flinch reaction is to still go with say best 20 for those rounds (best 18 too generous) however I understand the interesting dilemma it creates in selecting your round zero team and then having to “pay” for it when those players have their bye. I would worry about the trading incentives it creates and the effect on leagues but would need to think that through further.

 

[Beg2Differ]

This is too luck dependant because its one week of scoring, e.g. a key forward could score 150 or 20. Random players will post big scores in terrible SC friendly roles and it will make a big different to a teams overall points. Picking an entire squad for a one off round has never been what SuperCoach is, its picking and building a squad for an entire season. DFS is daily fantasy, where you pick a team for one game only through a betting website. No one plays this crap because there is too much luck involved to win it.

I also highly doubt people will pick players purely based on round 0 scores if they were added to the byes, they need to keep these players for the season if they are keepers or it will cost a trade.

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree on that.

I do agree that SC is about building a team for an entire season but as a one off solution to a difficult situation I don’t see picking a team for 1 week as a huge drawback. I actually see it as quite interesting. The scoring variability is something participants will have to consider when picking their team for OR and whether they pick the key forward (and how many) and take on that risk or go with the more reliable options.

Given we are picking players from just 8 teams I would expect a bunch of players to be in most teams and then the differences will be at the margins. How different will the scores actually be? Inevitably some will pick the eyes of the positive outliers and get a bit of a head start and some will be at the other end and have some ground to make up. I would think that the variability of total scores would be pretty similar to a standard round 1.

If I am considering an injury replacement, upgrade target or a rookie correction and I can trade into a guaranteed high score for a week then that is having a significant impact on my decision. Anyway it is a moot point, no way SuperCoach entertains anything like this.

Thanks for the debate.

 

[Eagling]

Opening Round + Round 1 is a split round system.

Players from clubs that play the opening round utilise a trade to trade out.

Overall squad size is increased to 36, all via bench positions (two extra defenders and forwards, an extra midfielder, an extra ruck).

Base Trades per week is increased to 3.

Maybe increase overall trades? Not too sure.

Starting $ increased to $12M.

Opening Round: Best 15
Early bye rounds: Best 20
Other Bye Rounds: Best 18

You must select 16 players from opening round clubs. You can select more, but obviously there's diminishing returns with Best 15, and any opening round players you select cost a trade to trade out in Round 1.

Either the rest of the squad is filled with Round 1 players, or left blank, depending on the software.

We need a system that isn't too swingy, that neither makes opening round irrelevant nor absolutely vital for the whole season. Diluting the impact by increasing the number of selections I think is the way to go.

 

[randomcliche]

Dogs CBA numbers from last season :-

View attachment 64927

Very clear top 4 combo - with Macrae & Smith part of the rotations. So you would expect Macrae to get the majority of Smith's CBAs

Dogs first round draft pick Ryley Sanders could be the real beneficiary/ replacement in the team for Smith :-

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1070865...ontempelli-out-of-full-training-until-january

TOP-10 pick Ryley Sanders is swiftly building an early case for a round one debut, but Western Bulldogs captain Marcus Bontempelli is not expected to return to full training until after the Christmas break.

Sanders has made a strong early impression across his first fortnight at the club since being selected at pick No.6 in the 2023 AFL Draft, after the Bulldogs moved up during the Trade Period to secure Gold Coast's first pick.

The Tasmanian finished second behind Bailey Smith in the 2km time-trial on the first day of the pre-season for the main group and has made a seamless transition to training at the next level, drawing praise from the coaching staff and senior players for his professional approach and ball use on the track.

With 102 days between now and the Bulldogs' season opener against Melbourne on March 17, there is a long way to go in terms of selection, but the Rising Star contender has ticked every box thus far.

Nearly time for a new footer. As for 2023 89>111 that's a pass mark, it can stay. And Zac was just a year late to the party so perhaps
Sam Walsh became elite in 2021 as predicted
Zac Butters became elite in 2022 2023
Tom Green became elite in 2023 as predicted
Harley Reid to become elite in social media click bait in 2024 2023

I don't buy Macrae eats up the all CBAs from Smith's ACL. I think it's a standard issue "Bevo" that Macrae got during the season - so perhaps a 20pt increase in CBA%, significant but not crazy. Expect reversions back to the circa 50% from change of position. Perhaps Caleb Daniel gets a bigger boost.