Opinion 2024 AFL SuperCoach Planning Thread
- Thread starter MC's Mix
- Start date
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 8,232
- Likes
- 43,625
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
I didn't think there was much point in another lengthy post restating the same points when it was pretty clear that neither of us was going to be convinced by the other. However given you have asked here is my responses and reasoning.
My preference for the "free hit" is because it is a simple way to make round zero relevant without compromising the rest of the competition. My assumption is that SC would want a solution that doesn't change the comp too much, is easy to follow for the masses and could be implemented without an extensive reprogramming effort and I think that would be the case with this. Furthermore, I simply don't agree that it will cause chaos, introduces much more luck, result in more ghost ships/deleted teams. All of those things are already inherent in the comp particularly in round 1 and is a risk in whatever solution is implemented. It also meets your design requirement (which I agree with) of making the OR players no more or less relevant than other players for round 1.
I also think it would be fun and would introduce something new to the comp that has become a bit stale where all the serious players are trying to do much the same thing. I think the most interesting part of SC is building your starting team when you are basically unrestricted for options and in this scenario you will get to do that twice. I would enjoy that.
Note that in the free hit option I would go with best 20 (best 18 too few) for round 2, 3, 5 & 6. I don't love that option but it is the established mechanism to deal with bye round and I don't expect SC to move away from that.
I have played BBL fantasy/SC for as long as it has existed and NBL fantasy/SC for the last 2 years so am well aware of the strategy involved in comps with DGRs in them. However AFL is by nature a 1 round 1 game sport and I don't think it makes sense in principle to artificially overlay a DGR on it. It will create incentives on loading up on and trading out DGR players (real and perceived) depending on the specific rules and I don't want that to influence who people pick in their round 1 team in any way if possible. I do see the logic of your proposal and the give/take trade off between round zero and the relevant bye round but I think it will confuse the casual player. R0 counts is a step further along the complexity spectrum and I am against any solution that allows teams to access an existing score via a trade regardless of the restrictions.
Thanks for the debate.
My preference for the "free hit" is because it is a simple way to make round zero relevant without compromising the rest of the competition. My assumption is that SC would want a solution that doesn't change the comp too much, is easy to follow for the masses and could be implemented without an extensive reprogramming effort and I think that would be the case with this. Furthermore, I simply don't agree that it will cause chaos, introduces much more luck, result in more ghost ships/deleted teams. All of those things are already inherent in the comp particularly in round 1 and is a risk in whatever solution is implemented. It also meets your design requirement (which I agree with) of making the OR players no more or less relevant than other players for round 1.
I also think it would be fun and would introduce something new to the comp that has become a bit stale where all the serious players are trying to do much the same thing. I think the most interesting part of SC is building your starting team when you are basically unrestricted for options and in this scenario you will get to do that twice. I would enjoy that.
Note that in the free hit option I would go with best 20 (best 18 too few) for round 2, 3, 5 & 6. I don't love that option but it is the established mechanism to deal with bye round and I don't expect SC to move away from that.
I have played BBL fantasy/SC for as long as it has existed and NBL fantasy/SC for the last 2 years so am well aware of the strategy involved in comps with DGRs in them. However AFL is by nature a 1 round 1 game sport and I don't think it makes sense in principle to artificially overlay a DGR on it. It will create incentives on loading up on and trading out DGR players (real and perceived) depending on the specific rules and I don't want that to influence who people pick in their round 1 team in any way if possible. I do see the logic of your proposal and the give/take trade off between round zero and the relevant bye round but I think it will confuse the casual player. R0 counts is a step further along the complexity spectrum and I am against any solution that allows teams to access an existing score via a trade regardless of the restrictions.
Thanks for the debate.
Free hit option is easily my preferred, the argument of "you could be really behind if things don't go your way on the free hit" is not what I would call a convincing one 
I expect a free hit Round 0 team would be fairly similar for everyone anyway, but would mean our Round 1 "starting" teams aren't jeopardised by the Round 0 shenangians, and we also don't just ignore the Round 0 games, which is what I feel is the most important thing. AF just ignoring real AFL games is frustrating, to me at least.
Agree above that a Best 20 would be better than Best 18 for the Round 2-6 byes. I'd be happy with no "Best" anything but agree it seems unlikely SC will take that approach.
If anything, those that may not have a great Round 0 week, should be encouraged by the fact we have "unlimited" trades for a Round 1 start. Am sure those that start poorly after both rounds would be ready to quit, but that's no different to any other year with a poor start.
I expect a free hit Round 0 team would be fairly similar for everyone anyway, but would mean our Round 1 "starting" teams aren't jeopardised by the Round 0 shenangians, and we also don't just ignore the Round 0 games, which is what I feel is the most important thing. AF just ignoring real AFL games is frustrating, to me at least.
Agree above that a Best 20 would be better than Best 18 for the Round 2-6 byes. I'd be happy with no "Best" anything but agree it seems unlikely SC will take that approach.
If anything, those that may not have a great Round 0 week, should be encouraged by the fact we have "unlimited" trades for a Round 1 start. Am sure those that start poorly after both rounds would be ready to quit, but that's no different to any other year with a poor start.
Free hit option is easily my preferred, the argument of "you could be really behind if things don't go your way on the free hit" is not what I would call a convincing one
I expect a free hit Round 0 team would be fairly similar for everyone anyway, but would mean our Round 1 "starting" teams aren't jeopardised by the Round 0 shenangians, and we also don't just ignore the Round 0 games, which is what I feel is the most important thing. AF just ignoring real AFL games is frustrating, to me at least.
Agree above that a Best 20 would be better than Best 18 for the Round 2-6 byes. I'd be happy with no "Best" anything but agree it seems unlikely SC will take that approach.
If anything, those that may not have a great Round 0 week, should be encouraged by the fact we have "unlimited" trades for a Round 1 start. Am sure those that start poorly after both rounds would be ready to quit, but that's no different to any other year with a poor start.
I expect a free hit Round 0 team would be fairly similar for everyone anyway, but would mean our Round 1 "starting" teams aren't jeopardised by the Round 0 shenangians, and we also don't just ignore the Round 0 games, which is what I feel is the most important thing. AF just ignoring real AFL games is frustrating, to me at least.
Agree above that a Best 20 would be better than Best 18 for the Round 2-6 byes. I'd be happy with no "Best" anything but agree it seems unlikely SC will take that approach.
If anything, those that may not have a great Round 0 week, should be encouraged by the fact we have "unlimited" trades for a Round 1 start. Am sure those that start poorly after both rounds would be ready to quit, but that's no different to any other year with a poor start.
KFC SuperCoach 2024 prices: A sneak peek at the most expensive players, bargains and rookie picks
The SuperCoach prices for 2024 are being entered into the system – and we’ve got our hands on an early drop. See the rookies, bargains and premiums that stand out – for different reasons.
The Phantom
3 min read
December 19, 2023 - 6:10PM
our 2024 KFC SuperCoach AFL planning starts now.
After player positions for next season were revealed in late November, the bankers at SuperCoach HQ have been working frantically to finalise every player’s price.
They will be available within days to SuperCoach Plus subscribers, who will be able to start selecting a squad in the advance team picker, but we have got our hands on an early drop.
Here are 12 names that jumped off the page.
Jack Macrae (WB) $558,400 MID-FWD
Last year, for reasons only coach Luke Beveridge fully understands, Macrae averaged less than 100 KFC SuperCoach points for the first time since 2016. Despite Josh Dunkley’s departure, he was pushed forward and out onto a wing as the Bulldogs coach played around with his midfield mix. But with Bailey Smith out, and his added forward status, Macrae – priced at an average of 99 – might just be back. We hope.
Ryley Sanders (WB) $184,800 MID
Another ball magnet who might receive more opportunity in the wake of Smith’s devastating ACL injury is the Bulldogs’ top pick from the draft. Sanders has caught the eye on the track already and averaged 170 KFC SuperCoach points at last year’s under-18 carnival. Yes, 170.
Brodie Grundy (Syd) $481,900 RUCK
A player moving to another club for guaranteed opportunity in their preferred position is KFC SuperCoach gold. Especially when their name is Brodie Grundy – the same Brodie Grundy who averaged 130 points in back-to-back seasons in 2018 and 2019. In 2024, the new Swans big man will start the year priced at an average of 86.
Nick Daicos (Coll) $650,000 DEF-MID
From value to downright expensive, only six other players are priced above the Collingwood star in 2024. But is he overpriced? Daicos has kept his defender status and averaged 116 in his second season, so the question should really be, does it even matter?
Errol Gulden (Syd) $622,100 MID
As a midfielder-only, the young Swan’s price might be a little bit harder to swallow. After a breakout season, which saw him add 25 points to his KFC SuperCoach average, Gulden will be available for $150k above last year’s starting price in 2024.
Rowan Marshall (StK) $639,100 RUCK
It’s a similar story for the St Kilda ruckman, with Marshall starting 2024 with a price tag of $639k – a $133k rise on last season. But he’s $75k cheaper than Tim English and, at his best, is as good a scorer as any, finishing 2023 with KFC SuperCoach tallies of 146, 141 and 154.
Marcus Bontempelli (WB) $724,600 MID
Some of you will know not owning Marcus Bontempelli last year hurt. It’s true, there are some value options in the forward line this season, which may allow for more money to be spent in the middle, but will the $724k spend hurt the balance of your starting squad more? A question to ponder over summer.
Sam Flanders (GC) $494,200 MID-FWD
In a forward pool that is missing a host of big names this year, Flanders is one who screams value – if he can carry his late-season form into 2024. After finally getting his chance in the midfield, the 22-year-old averaged 110 from round 15 onwards.
Zac Williams (Carl) $216,100 DEF
At the other end of the ground, the Carlton defender might be the biggest KFC SuperCoach bargain of 2024. But given Williams, who ruptured his ACL in February, has only played nine games in the past two years, there’s still plenty to play out.
Harley Reid (WC) $207,300 MID-FWD
There’s always debate about whether the No. 1 draft pick is worth the top-end rookie price tag. But this guy’s different, and he’s been given dual-position status. Reid doesn’t need a lot of the ball to have an impact so pencil him in now.
Shaun Mannagh (Geel) $117,300 MID-FWD
At the other end of the rookie-price scale is mature-ager Mannagh, drafted by Geelong at pick 36. After averaging 25 disposals, 1.9 goals and 117 KFC SuperCoach points per for Werribee in the VFL last year, if Chris Scott picks him, you should too.
Marty Hore (Melb) $123,900 DEF
Yes, it is the same Marty Hore who averaged 87 KFC SuperCoach points in his first nine games as a rookie in 2019. He’s back at Melbourne for a second time after leading the VFL for intercept marks and averaging 22 disposals and 122 points for Williamstown in 2023.
The 2024 team picker will be open within days. Sign up to SuperCoach Plus to gain access once it opens. Stay tuned for more prices.
*Prices subject to late changes
The SuperCoach prices for 2024 are being entered into the system – and we’ve got our hands on an early drop. See the rookies, bargains and premiums that stand out – for different reasons.
The Phantom
3 min read
December 19, 2023 - 6:10PM
our 2024 KFC SuperCoach AFL planning starts now.
After player positions for next season were revealed in late November, the bankers at SuperCoach HQ have been working frantically to finalise every player’s price.
They will be available within days to SuperCoach Plus subscribers, who will be able to start selecting a squad in the advance team picker, but we have got our hands on an early drop.
Here are 12 names that jumped off the page.
Jack Macrae (WB) $558,400 MID-FWD
Last year, for reasons only coach Luke Beveridge fully understands, Macrae averaged less than 100 KFC SuperCoach points for the first time since 2016. Despite Josh Dunkley’s departure, he was pushed forward and out onto a wing as the Bulldogs coach played around with his midfield mix. But with Bailey Smith out, and his added forward status, Macrae – priced at an average of 99 – might just be back. We hope.
Ryley Sanders (WB) $184,800 MID
Another ball magnet who might receive more opportunity in the wake of Smith’s devastating ACL injury is the Bulldogs’ top pick from the draft. Sanders has caught the eye on the track already and averaged 170 KFC SuperCoach points at last year’s under-18 carnival. Yes, 170.
Brodie Grundy (Syd) $481,900 RUCK
A player moving to another club for guaranteed opportunity in their preferred position is KFC SuperCoach gold. Especially when their name is Brodie Grundy – the same Brodie Grundy who averaged 130 points in back-to-back seasons in 2018 and 2019. In 2024, the new Swans big man will start the year priced at an average of 86.
Nick Daicos (Coll) $650,000 DEF-MID
From value to downright expensive, only six other players are priced above the Collingwood star in 2024. But is he overpriced? Daicos has kept his defender status and averaged 116 in his second season, so the question should really be, does it even matter?
Errol Gulden (Syd) $622,100 MID
As a midfielder-only, the young Swan’s price might be a little bit harder to swallow. After a breakout season, which saw him add 25 points to his KFC SuperCoach average, Gulden will be available for $150k above last year’s starting price in 2024.
Rowan Marshall (StK) $639,100 RUCK
It’s a similar story for the St Kilda ruckman, with Marshall starting 2024 with a price tag of $639k – a $133k rise on last season. But he’s $75k cheaper than Tim English and, at his best, is as good a scorer as any, finishing 2023 with KFC SuperCoach tallies of 146, 141 and 154.
Marcus Bontempelli (WB) $724,600 MID
Some of you will know not owning Marcus Bontempelli last year hurt. It’s true, there are some value options in the forward line this season, which may allow for more money to be spent in the middle, but will the $724k spend hurt the balance of your starting squad more? A question to ponder over summer.
Sam Flanders (GC) $494,200 MID-FWD
In a forward pool that is missing a host of big names this year, Flanders is one who screams value – if he can carry his late-season form into 2024. After finally getting his chance in the midfield, the 22-year-old averaged 110 from round 15 onwards.
Zac Williams (Carl) $216,100 DEF
At the other end of the ground, the Carlton defender might be the biggest KFC SuperCoach bargain of 2024. But given Williams, who ruptured his ACL in February, has only played nine games in the past two years, there’s still plenty to play out.
Harley Reid (WC) $207,300 MID-FWD
There’s always debate about whether the No. 1 draft pick is worth the top-end rookie price tag. But this guy’s different, and he’s been given dual-position status. Reid doesn’t need a lot of the ball to have an impact so pencil him in now.
Shaun Mannagh (Geel) $117,300 MID-FWD
At the other end of the rookie-price scale is mature-ager Mannagh, drafted by Geelong at pick 36. After averaging 25 disposals, 1.9 goals and 117 KFC SuperCoach points per for Werribee in the VFL last year, if Chris Scott picks him, you should too.
Marty Hore (Melb) $123,900 DEF
Yes, it is the same Marty Hore who averaged 87 KFC SuperCoach points in his first nine games as a rookie in 2019. He’s back at Melbourne for a second time after leading the VFL for intercept marks and averaging 22 disposals and 122 points for Williamstown in 2023.
The 2024 team picker will be open within days. Sign up to SuperCoach Plus to gain access once it opens. Stay tuned for more prices.
*Prices subject to late changes
The top 10 most expensive are :
1. Marcus Bontempelli (WB) $724,600 MID
2. Tim English (WB) $715,100 RUC
3. Clayton Oliver (Melb) $674,100 MID
4. Christian Petracca (Melb) $667,700 MID
5. Rory Laird (Adel) $653,100 MID
6. Zach Merrett (Ess) $650,100 MID
7. Nick Daicos (Coll) $650,000 DEF/MID
8. Tom Liberatore (WB) $648,600 MID
9. Jordan Dawson (Adel) $647,600 MID
10. Josh Dunkley (Bris) $644,000 MID
1. Marcus Bontempelli (WB) $724,600 MID
2. Tim English (WB) $715,100 RUC
3. Clayton Oliver (Melb) $674,100 MID
4. Christian Petracca (Melb) $667,700 MID
5. Rory Laird (Adel) $653,100 MID
6. Zach Merrett (Ess) $650,100 MID
7. Nick Daicos (Coll) $650,000 DEF/MID
8. Tom Liberatore (WB) $648,600 MID
9. Jordan Dawson (Adel) $647,600 MID
10. Josh Dunkley (Bris) $644,000 MID
Disagree strongly that the AFL shouldn't be considering fantasy. Fantasy is so relevant to other sports that it's a driving force behind their popularity, heck the NFL created an entire program that is now the most popular way to watch it based purely on fantasy sports.
If they're ignoring it they're hurting themselves, there's a couple of hundred thousand fans that are at least partially invested in the fantasy aspect, not everyone is at my level where you only even watch the sport because of it but there's definitely a group that's like me.
Would be like saying the AFL doesn't care about GWS fans and nor should they, pretty strong bet there's about 5x as many fantasy players.
I hadn't thought of the benefit of picking two starting sides, that actually is the best case for it I've heard.
Disagree in that it doesn't fix any of the problems around the round zero dealing with price changes and the like or making them relevant in future rounds as the free hit would operate as a stand alone operation and then all the problems created by it would be reinstated at round 1.
I'd be shocked if it wasn't chaos, played a lot of daily fantasy and it's always chaos and that's only 9 players. Even just the GnR vs midpricer decision can be hundreds of points without even factoring in the players inside those two groups.
Honestly I'd be shocked if SC are even considering the option given how much scope it has to end up in deleted teams before the season even really starts. My gut says they'll copy AFLF as that's the laziest and least complicated option. It's also the least interesting, basically means overload rookies from round 0, underload premiums and teams ending up incredibly similar.
To be fair though, I could also see them apply the reverse logic that a free hit system would result in a LOT more entries at round 0 because the only way to do daily fantasy properly is to flood with entries. They may as well throw the TOS on entry limits out the window if they do go with a free hit.
If they're ignoring it they're hurting themselves, there's a couple of hundred thousand fans that are at least partially invested in the fantasy aspect, not everyone is at my level where you only even watch the sport because of it but there's definitely a group that's like me.
Would be like saying the AFL doesn't care about GWS fans and nor should they, pretty strong bet there's about 5x as many fantasy players.
I hadn't thought of the benefit of picking two starting sides, that actually is the best case for it I've heard.
Disagree in that it doesn't fix any of the problems around the round zero dealing with price changes and the like or making them relevant in future rounds as the free hit would operate as a stand alone operation and then all the problems created by it would be reinstated at round 1.
I'd be shocked if it wasn't chaos, played a lot of daily fantasy and it's always chaos and that's only 9 players. Even just the GnR vs midpricer decision can be hundreds of points without even factoring in the players inside those two groups.
Honestly I'd be shocked if SC are even considering the option given how much scope it has to end up in deleted teams before the season even really starts. My gut says they'll copy AFLF as that's the laziest and least complicated option. It's also the least interesting, basically means overload rookies from round 0, underload premiums and teams ending up incredibly similar.
To be fair though, I could also see them apply the reverse logic that a free hit system would result in a LOT more entries at round 0 because the only way to do daily fantasy properly is to flood with entries. They may as well throw the TOS on entry limits out the window if they do go with a free hit.
Bont, English and Libba aren't compromised either as there only bye is round 15 besides zero round. This is why I'm still thinking of starting Bont as a good captain option every week with a good draw as well. I like English as well but Gawn and Grundy I think are too underpriced to not start as my ruck combo.
Even he's got the how they deal with the bye question mark to be answered. Dawson and Merrett are probably the next two on the list for mine. Bont and English with surgery, Oliver with whatever it is he has, Laird I can still feel the burn torch marks from last year a little too freshly, Petracca role always produces terrible scores, Dunkley as a mid not worth it with durability issues and Libba probably is but I can't do it.
True, for some reason I had them playing round zero in my head.
True, for some reason I had them playing round zero in my head.
Looks like the prices are $10-20k above what some of the early pundits were guessing. Except for drafted rookies with Reid coming in at $207k as expected.
A few more high priced players compared to last year as well. 2023 there was 1 over 700 and this year 2. Also 2023 650k to 700k 4 while this year 5 in that bracket.
A few more high priced players compared to last year as well. 2023 there was 1 over 700 and this year 2. Also 2023 650k to 700k 4 while this year 5 in that bracket.
