Opinion 2024 AFL SuperCoach Planning Thread
- Thread starter MC's Mix
- Start date
I think the biggest decision for me atm is where to stick my 11th premium.
Currently have a 4/4/2/0 structure with some higher priced rookies and $200k players, plus Fisher at F1. I have the cash to put an 11th, but just trying to work out the ideal structure. When I look at my mids and forwards there is just so many guys that are hard to leave out in the rookie/value range, so the obvious spot is defence but running 5 deep seems crazy.
Currently have a 4/4/2/0 structure with some higher priced rookies and $200k players, plus Fisher at F1. I have the cash to put an 11th, but just trying to work out the ideal structure. When I look at my mids and forwards there is just so many guys that are hard to leave out in the rookie/value range, so the obvious spot is defence but running 5 deep seems crazy.
He played pure defense so would be picking him as a defender essentially, just showed enough that I'd think keeper is very possible.
Yep, Luke Ryan (or Sicily/Stewart) would be the name I most likely cut for him. Young also could go out for him from a common side.
Would be largely rookie dependent. If Hustwaite and Roberts look to have good roles and security, then I probably just start the defender, if those two don't then I think the defender rookies aren't noticeably worse than the other mid options so would be fine with starting Martin. I've currently got Coffield at D6 as my only non-premium type in defense though so my structure probably can afford another rookie defender more than most. I like a lot of the rookie defenders but definitely not sold on them being on the field quite as much.
Yep, Luke Ryan (or Sicily/Stewart) would be the name I most likely cut for him. Young also could go out for him from a common side.
Would be largely rookie dependent. If Hustwaite and Roberts look to have good roles and security, then I probably just start the defender, if those two don't then I think the defender rookies aren't noticeably worse than the other mid options so would be fine with starting Martin. I've currently got Coffield at D6 as my only non-premium type in defense though so my structure probably can afford another rookie defender more than most. I like a lot of the rookie defenders but definitely not sold on them being on the field quite as much.
Hawks vs Dogs - Watched 3 quarters. This is one of those weird o***easons where it really feels like not much has changed from last year, the teams are still doing the same things they did that hurt/helped them. These two perhaps the most exemplary of that yet!
Hawks - Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde has nothing on the bi-polarity of this team. They can go from getting destroyed in Q1, to dominating Q2 to getting absolutely waxed in Q3 again like it's their plan. Their forwards can look high energy and then no effort, seemingly in the same play. Sam Mitchell is a little genius as a coach but they've still got a comfortably bottom 4 list and so I remain that anything beyond bottom 4 that they manage is on him.
Newcombe - He's on my very short list of midfielders I'm considering now. I just like how he goes about it. Would be nice if he'd tackle a lot more, we know he can after his debut but it's been the one facet of his game that really holds him back as a fantasy player which is hard to believe after having games with 14 and 11 in his first season. Hasn't yet worked out how to balance the ball and the man. I'll be honest, I mostly wanted to see some intent on that front in this game and I didn't see it, probably avoiding a mistake as a result but he's definitely got potential improvement.
Amon - Role as advertised, it suits him as workrate is a bit of an issue for him upfield and it's a lot easier to get the space at HB so he should get more ball, the rest is already there. I like Martin more because he works harder and is more demanding, Amon has that cruisy 90s type to him more than Martin. He's a very reasonable selection though.
Macdonald - He's one of those weird players to me where I never really rate him but at the same time he's a good player, not sure what it is about him but he's definitely better than I perceive him to be and he had a really good game in this one.
Mackenzie - He's probably the opposite of Macdonald, he's not as good as I think he is (yet). Wing with a few midfield stints, I'd much prefer the opposite as a role but he scored very well. I expect he'll be a SC premium sometime soon and I'll be honest, I'm extremely tempted to go him this year. The Sam Mitchell comparison isn't going anywhere, just creates space where it isn't and uses it well. Ultimately I think I'll keep him as the bailout play but it's tempting!
D'Ambrosio - Reckon this game was pretty indicative of where he will be at as a scorer. Wing is not a great fantasy role and he's not a highly demanding player despite the fact he should be with his kicking. He'll have better games and those will make him cash if he stays in the 22, wouldn't be surprised if he has worse also though. The best 22 is the interesting part given his price, they've got so many guys out of this team who could change their structures. Jiath could take his spot directly, Day could take it by pushing someone else out. I like the pick, can't say I love it but he should outscore the majority of the rookies down back and that's what you pay for.
Hustwaite - He played well. Similar to D'Ambrosio, it's his spot in the 22 that is the question. I haven't seen him play anywhere but pure midfield and he's good at it but will they pick him over more senior but less talented guys like Nash/Worpel or more heralded youngsters? Day and Newcombe definitely take the first two spots when fit. It's an interesting one. I probably field him if he's picked unless there's several obvious guys missing.
Impey - At HB, decent draft option.
Nash/Worpel - Same old, they try hard but just lack polish, especially Worpel. I wouldn't have Worpel in the 22 if I was Mitchell but he's likely to keep more games competitive than some of the kids.
Reeves - I don't get what they see here. I've seen more from Meek in 15 minutes at Fremantle than Reeves has shown in 2 years.
Lewis - Lazy game from him, hopefully lifts the workrate in the real stuff.
Sicily - Amon is definitely not a positive for him, another non-patient rebound type as opposed to Hardwick who loves to wax. Not as worried about the Blanck injury as liked Phillips game but there's definitely questions. He'll be top 6 but I wouldn't be surprised if the top 6 for defenders is a lot more 105 and down this year than 110 up.
Phillips - Interesting game. I thought he played really well but at the same time he gave up a lot of goals and shots at goal. I like that he goes for his marks and I do think that JUH and Naughton are bad matchups for him (he's going to go better on bigger less agile types I think). He's a D7 type that could have some decent scores but not a reliable on field option. I think he showed more than enough to be best 22 and should play plenty.
Maginness - Played back pocket and I thought he was pretty decent at it. Going to be purely defensive which is probably not a bad thing as they've had no one really wired that way in the past and they've got plenty of rebound, plus he can't kick so there's that. Still going to be a problem when he tags.
Hardwick - Forward as advertised. Not fantasy relevant at all in that role.
Watson - He was flashy. Tough role in a bad side. I don't think he's worth the premium and I really don't like that he seemingly has Ginnivan as a mentor, they need to get Moore back yesterday to fix that, but he'll probably make 100k and be surprised if he's not playing every week. Did some nice things.
Ward - Started in the middle, made zero use of a good role. Seemed to float out of it after minimal early impact and I was genuinely surprised that he apparently played the whole game. I like his skillset but he just doesn't seem to have worked things out at AFL level still.
Dogs - They can't kick at goal, they don't seem to know that they can't kick at goal because they've obviously done nothing to address it. If they'd faced a good game, they'd have lost a game they dominated. This is why they can't have nice things. I was surprised how non-Bevo this game felt though, is he actually going to coach to get the most out of the team and be normal for once? Outside of dropping Daniel that is of course but for Bevo to only do one baffling thing is, in itself, baffling
Bont - Coasted his way to 135. No upside, no bye issues. You're paying for a strong captain option and by far the safest bet to be the highest scoring mid. He looks good to provide on "you get what you pay for".
English - I'd bet good money he's in the top 4 rucks, I'd bet your money that he's top 2, assuming he can stay on the park. I wouldn't bet that there's any real upside or value play here though. It basically comes down to whether you want to take the value on offer in the rucks from Gawn, Grundy and Xerri or the safest bet in English.
Libba - He was great. Same old for him. He's definitely an option for someone going unique. He actually looked incredibly fit, assume he's finally taking it serious based on last year's results and how he looks. Limited upside play though and has had some issues with durability obviously, I kind of want to take him because I love how he goes about it.
JUH - If I was going to go super left of field up forward, he's the guy I'd go. He just looks like a guy who has finally worked it out, he's realised he can be the best player on the field, that he can tackle anyone he wants and that working without the ball matters.
Treloar - Same old here.
Sanders - Little nugget of a player, started HF and pushed up as the extra midfielder, did it very well. I do wonder where Macrae fits in, given that's the role he played last year but Bevo has seemingly soured on him intensely so the fresh meat might get the chance. Regardless, he's the type who will find the pill and score, fieldable rookie. Don't overthink it.
Harmes - The deeper HF role, ditto to Sanders is how Macrae changes things. He's value but personally I think he's better suited as a safe bailout on some of the more explosive options in his price range. He's always been a low 70s guy in the role he looks to be playing and I just don't see the midfield minutes he needs to push seriously higher. Solid pick still and he definitely has the ceiling to make cash. Personally I think I'll go for guys with more risk here in a year where a 90 average might just be enough.
McNeill - Played well, pretty sure he started on the far wing, seemed wing wide half forward most of the game. Was very clean. At his price he's definitely a watch but surely they're just sending Daniel a message and he takes the role or Macrae does. Bevo...
Richards - Solid enough, he's not in my targets but he played well.
Coffield - Rock solid. I wonder if he fits into the best 22, they played effectively down a KPD on a normal structure as Hawks don't have two genuine KPFs, Dale obviously comes back in as well, so there's seemingly two changes I see and I can't help but feel like he's definitely capable of being one of the outs. He did absolutely nothing wrong in this game though and there's definitely a couple of other names that could go out.
Khamis - Exactly the same as Coffield, definitely wouldn't surprise me if those two rotated through one spot throughout the season...
Gallagher - Played a very decent wing role, didn't score well and I'd be surprised if he's not the first name out for Macrae (who if he plays wing is probably best for the other fantasy relevant guys). I don't think he did much wrong and if he did get picked it's in one of the best roles of any of the forward rookies but the JS is dreadful at best going into round 1.
Daniel - Came on after HT, Bevo had some cryptic words about stars you'd expect to see not being good enough, definitely feels like it's targeted at him and probably Macrae based on his treatment the last year and a bit. Bevo gonna Bevo.
Hawks - Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde has nothing on the bi-polarity of this team. They can go from getting destroyed in Q1, to dominating Q2 to getting absolutely waxed in Q3 again like it's their plan. Their forwards can look high energy and then no effort, seemingly in the same play. Sam Mitchell is a little genius as a coach but they've still got a comfortably bottom 4 list and so I remain that anything beyond bottom 4 that they manage is on him.
Newcombe - He's on my very short list of midfielders I'm considering now. I just like how he goes about it. Would be nice if he'd tackle a lot more, we know he can after his debut but it's been the one facet of his game that really holds him back as a fantasy player which is hard to believe after having games with 14 and 11 in his first season. Hasn't yet worked out how to balance the ball and the man. I'll be honest, I mostly wanted to see some intent on that front in this game and I didn't see it, probably avoiding a mistake as a result but he's definitely got potential improvement.
Amon - Role as advertised, it suits him as workrate is a bit of an issue for him upfield and it's a lot easier to get the space at HB so he should get more ball, the rest is already there. I like Martin more because he works harder and is more demanding, Amon has that cruisy 90s type to him more than Martin. He's a very reasonable selection though.
Macdonald - He's one of those weird players to me where I never really rate him but at the same time he's a good player, not sure what it is about him but he's definitely better than I perceive him to be and he had a really good game in this one.
Mackenzie - He's probably the opposite of Macdonald, he's not as good as I think he is (yet). Wing with a few midfield stints, I'd much prefer the opposite as a role but he scored very well. I expect he'll be a SC premium sometime soon and I'll be honest, I'm extremely tempted to go him this year. The Sam Mitchell comparison isn't going anywhere, just creates space where it isn't and uses it well. Ultimately I think I'll keep him as the bailout play but it's tempting!
D'Ambrosio - Reckon this game was pretty indicative of where he will be at as a scorer. Wing is not a great fantasy role and he's not a highly demanding player despite the fact he should be with his kicking. He'll have better games and those will make him cash if he stays in the 22, wouldn't be surprised if he has worse also though. The best 22 is the interesting part given his price, they've got so many guys out of this team who could change their structures. Jiath could take his spot directly, Day could take it by pushing someone else out. I like the pick, can't say I love it but he should outscore the majority of the rookies down back and that's what you pay for.
Hustwaite - He played well. Similar to D'Ambrosio, it's his spot in the 22 that is the question. I haven't seen him play anywhere but pure midfield and he's good at it but will they pick him over more senior but less talented guys like Nash/Worpel or more heralded youngsters? Day and Newcombe definitely take the first two spots when fit. It's an interesting one. I probably field him if he's picked unless there's several obvious guys missing.
Impey - At HB, decent draft option.
Nash/Worpel - Same old, they try hard but just lack polish, especially Worpel. I wouldn't have Worpel in the 22 if I was Mitchell but he's likely to keep more games competitive than some of the kids.
Reeves - I don't get what they see here. I've seen more from Meek in 15 minutes at Fremantle than Reeves has shown in 2 years.
Lewis - Lazy game from him, hopefully lifts the workrate in the real stuff.
Sicily - Amon is definitely not a positive for him, another non-patient rebound type as opposed to Hardwick who loves to wax. Not as worried about the Blanck injury as liked Phillips game but there's definitely questions. He'll be top 6 but I wouldn't be surprised if the top 6 for defenders is a lot more 105 and down this year than 110 up.
Phillips - Interesting game. I thought he played really well but at the same time he gave up a lot of goals and shots at goal. I like that he goes for his marks and I do think that JUH and Naughton are bad matchups for him (he's going to go better on bigger less agile types I think). He's a D7 type that could have some decent scores but not a reliable on field option. I think he showed more than enough to be best 22 and should play plenty.
Maginness - Played back pocket and I thought he was pretty decent at it. Going to be purely defensive which is probably not a bad thing as they've had no one really wired that way in the past and they've got plenty of rebound, plus he can't kick so there's that. Still going to be a problem when he tags.
Hardwick - Forward as advertised. Not fantasy relevant at all in that role.
Watson - He was flashy. Tough role in a bad side. I don't think he's worth the premium and I really don't like that he seemingly has Ginnivan as a mentor, they need to get Moore back yesterday to fix that, but he'll probably make 100k and be surprised if he's not playing every week. Did some nice things.
Ward - Started in the middle, made zero use of a good role. Seemed to float out of it after minimal early impact and I was genuinely surprised that he apparently played the whole game. I like his skillset but he just doesn't seem to have worked things out at AFL level still.
Dogs - They can't kick at goal, they don't seem to know that they can't kick at goal because they've obviously done nothing to address it. If they'd faced a good game, they'd have lost a game they dominated. This is why they can't have nice things. I was surprised how non-Bevo this game felt though, is he actually going to coach to get the most out of the team and be normal for once? Outside of dropping Daniel that is of course but for Bevo to only do one baffling thing is, in itself, baffling
Bont - Coasted his way to 135. No upside, no bye issues. You're paying for a strong captain option and by far the safest bet to be the highest scoring mid. He looks good to provide on "you get what you pay for".
English - I'd bet good money he's in the top 4 rucks, I'd bet your money that he's top 2, assuming he can stay on the park. I wouldn't bet that there's any real upside or value play here though. It basically comes down to whether you want to take the value on offer in the rucks from Gawn, Grundy and Xerri or the safest bet in English.
Libba - He was great. Same old for him. He's definitely an option for someone going unique. He actually looked incredibly fit, assume he's finally taking it serious based on last year's results and how he looks. Limited upside play though and has had some issues with durability obviously, I kind of want to take him because I love how he goes about it.
JUH - If I was going to go super left of field up forward, he's the guy I'd go. He just looks like a guy who has finally worked it out, he's realised he can be the best player on the field, that he can tackle anyone he wants and that working without the ball matters.
Treloar - Same old here.
Sanders - Little nugget of a player, started HF and pushed up as the extra midfielder, did it very well. I do wonder where Macrae fits in, given that's the role he played last year but Bevo has seemingly soured on him intensely so the fresh meat might get the chance. Regardless, he's the type who will find the pill and score, fieldable rookie. Don't overthink it.
Harmes - The deeper HF role, ditto to Sanders is how Macrae changes things. He's value but personally I think he's better suited as a safe bailout on some of the more explosive options in his price range. He's always been a low 70s guy in the role he looks to be playing and I just don't see the midfield minutes he needs to push seriously higher. Solid pick still and he definitely has the ceiling to make cash. Personally I think I'll go for guys with more risk here in a year where a 90 average might just be enough.
McNeill - Played well, pretty sure he started on the far wing, seemed wing wide half forward most of the game. Was very clean. At his price he's definitely a watch but surely they're just sending Daniel a message and he takes the role or Macrae does. Bevo...
Richards - Solid enough, he's not in my targets but he played well.
Coffield - Rock solid. I wonder if he fits into the best 22, they played effectively down a KPD on a normal structure as Hawks don't have two genuine KPFs, Dale obviously comes back in as well, so there's seemingly two changes I see and I can't help but feel like he's definitely capable of being one of the outs. He did absolutely nothing wrong in this game though and there's definitely a couple of other names that could go out.
Khamis - Exactly the same as Coffield, definitely wouldn't surprise me if those two rotated through one spot throughout the season...
Gallagher - Played a very decent wing role, didn't score well and I'd be surprised if he's not the first name out for Macrae (who if he plays wing is probably best for the other fantasy relevant guys). I don't think he did much wrong and if he did get picked it's in one of the best roles of any of the forward rookies but the JS is dreadful at best going into round 1.
Daniel - Came on after HT, Bevo had some cryptic words about stars you'd expect to see not being good enough, definitely feels like it's targeted at him and probably Macrae based on his treatment the last year and a bit. Bevo gonna Bevo.
That’s good to hear that your little one is bouncing back. First things first!
On your thoughts:
1. I agree. Looking at it in totality is key.
2. I think I agree with this as well. Maybe one way to think of it is how much does Fyfe outscore his price by, how many rounds does he last until traded, plus how much cash that make you and how many points does that generate via his replacement? I used to use 150 points as my hurdle to be worth using a trade, and he’s priced at 50, so if he could do 80 for 5 rounds, he’s actually paid for the trade to get him out (30 x 5 = 159 … and it’s actually better than this - his cash gen generates extra points for 17+ rounds, the 150 points would be lower today, and we don’t tax the rookies with that trade cost, so it’s not obvious why we should tax Fyfe). I agree that the risk dials up with more of them, but if the downside risk is one trade, which might now be worth <150 points, that’s not that large versus the potential upside.
3. I probably read it slightly differently, but I may need to rewatch the video. The way I was thinking about it is that if you start with a GnR team, you basically have to take c. 18 rookies whether you like them or not. You also have 0 midpricers. That’s going pretty deep in the rookies (you can’t pick 18 mid rookies either - they need to be in formation, and some people are imposing bye constraints as well), and you haven’t got even the very best midpricer at that point. If you allow yourself to cull your least favourite rookie, it is possible that you cull a Sheezel, but much more likely that it’s a Constable, which saves you a sideways trade later on for little or no value. You also get to take your favourite and second favourite midpricer, which should be pretty good picks, because it’s only 2 out of maybe hundreds in that price range. The analogy I think of is in BBL when someone goes really heavy on DGR players (which I’m actually not totally averse to sometimes, given that you get the 2x benefit … not so in AFL) … if you’re picking the 8th best Sydney Thunder player because they’re the only side on a DGR, you’re going to be picking up some low quality options. If you open up the pool to the SGR players, you can take the very best one you don’t already have … that marginal choice might be between 4 dodgy Thunder picks or c. 60 SGR options of all shapes and sizes - role, position, price point, form, opponent, etc. I am happy backing the latter. Incidentally I think some people are maybe doing themselves a disservice by ruling out too many round zero players. I think this pretty much by definition reduces the standard of their starting team excluding bye considerations, so they really need those bye benefits to be meaningful to make that sacrifice worthwhile. [PS Maybe the clearest way to put this is to look at the bolded sentence in your post above, and swap “rookie” and “midpricer”. The benefits in being able to choose are large, especially for the first choices - first rookie out, first midpricer in, and so on.]
4. It will be interesting to see how this works out. I can see benefits to protecting/improving upgrade cadence, but equally the correctional trades are the most important of the year. I think maybe 1-2 boosts for corrections (I hope not to need >5 corrections, it probably indicates very low initial conviction, and you can always correct some of your outs a bit later, it’s usually the ins that are more urgent, and I doubt I miss >5 of those with a value approach). That would allow 3-4 boosts for upgrading, slingshots etc, which I’m okay with. I think a few people held trades and boosts too late last year … I think they’re a resource to be used. So long as we have enough information that we can be confident they are being used productively, the earlier we use them, generally the better, because it gives more time for the benefits to accrue. If I have to do a premo upgrade a round later due to lack of boosts, I don’t think that costs me much in the scheme of things (perhaps 50 points?), and I think I can make that back through making the right correctional trades.
5. Agreed. I was thinking the other day - if someone totally avoids the round zero teams, it’s like picking a side with 44% of players being off limits … equivalent to trying to pick a side with no non-Victorian players, for example. It would be interesting to see how much worse those sides would look … no Grundy, Jordon, Roberts, Brayshaw, Serong, Young, Fyfe, Sharp, Laird, Reid, Touk, Flanders, Sexton, Butters, Rozee, Kiddy etc etc … it would put a massive hole in my side, certainly, and there aren’t good backup options for a lot of those picks … especially when you start trying to replace 4 or 5 guys all on one line, or a cash cow FWD playing half back. I know most people aren’t being quite so strict about excluding round 0 players, but that’s the type of disadvantage that some are electing to take on, to avoid holding those guys through a bye.
I’m obviously more comfortable with the downside risk of the cumulative impact of these sorts of picks (largely because of the trades and boosts), but I think only time will tell for sure what the right balance is. I don’t think it’s even a given that we know the true answer this time next year - the answer for 2024 may depend on specific circumstances that don’t recur next season.
One thing I would say is that with all of these extra resources, extra info from round 0, and extra AFL and fantasy content from a whole range of sources, the standard of the winning side is likely to be dramatically better than it was 3, 5 or 10 years ago. It is something I am keeping in mind … if the hurdle to win it continues to rise, and may have risen pretty sharply, then focusing too much on managing downside risk is going to further reduce my (modest) chance of ultimately being in real contention. I think if I want to have a shot at winning the whole thing, it’s important to adapt, because others will be using these extra resources more aggressively than I used to be comfortable with - and it will come off for some of them!
Edit: I had to remove some of the quoted text (#2) to get under 10,000 characters … @wogitalia would be proud!
On your thoughts:
1. I agree. Looking at it in totality is key.
2. I think I agree with this as well. Maybe one way to think of it is how much does Fyfe outscore his price by, how many rounds does he last until traded, plus how much cash that make you and how many points does that generate via his replacement? I used to use 150 points as my hurdle to be worth using a trade, and he’s priced at 50, so if he could do 80 for 5 rounds, he’s actually paid for the trade to get him out (30 x 5 = 159 … and it’s actually better than this - his cash gen generates extra points for 17+ rounds, the 150 points would be lower today, and we don’t tax the rookies with that trade cost, so it’s not obvious why we should tax Fyfe). I agree that the risk dials up with more of them, but if the downside risk is one trade, which might now be worth <150 points, that’s not that large versus the potential upside.
3. I probably read it slightly differently, but I may need to rewatch the video. The way I was thinking about it is that if you start with a GnR team, you basically have to take c. 18 rookies whether you like them or not. You also have 0 midpricers. That’s going pretty deep in the rookies (you can’t pick 18 mid rookies either - they need to be in formation, and some people are imposing bye constraints as well), and you haven’t got even the very best midpricer at that point. If you allow yourself to cull your least favourite rookie, it is possible that you cull a Sheezel, but much more likely that it’s a Constable, which saves you a sideways trade later on for little or no value. You also get to take your favourite and second favourite midpricer, which should be pretty good picks, because it’s only 2 out of maybe hundreds in that price range. The analogy I think of is in BBL when someone goes really heavy on DGR players (which I’m actually not totally averse to sometimes, given that you get the 2x benefit … not so in AFL) … if you’re picking the 8th best Sydney Thunder player because they’re the only side on a DGR, you’re going to be picking up some low quality options. If you open up the pool to the SGR players, you can take the very best one you don’t already have … that marginal choice might be between 4 dodgy Thunder picks or c. 60 SGR options of all shapes and sizes - role, position, price point, form, opponent, etc. I am happy backing the latter. Incidentally I think some people are maybe doing themselves a disservice by ruling out too many round zero players. I think this pretty much by definition reduces the standard of their starting team excluding bye considerations, so they really need those bye benefits to be meaningful to make that sacrifice worthwhile. [PS Maybe the clearest way to put this is to look at the bolded sentence in your post above, and swap “rookie” and “midpricer”. The benefits in being able to choose are large, especially for the first choices - first rookie out, first midpricer in, and so on.]
4. It will be interesting to see how this works out. I can see benefits to protecting/improving upgrade cadence, but equally the correctional trades are the most important of the year. I think maybe 1-2 boosts for corrections (I hope not to need >5 corrections, it probably indicates very low initial conviction, and you can always correct some of your outs a bit later, it’s usually the ins that are more urgent, and I doubt I miss >5 of those with a value approach). That would allow 3-4 boosts for upgrading, slingshots etc, which I’m okay with. I think a few people held trades and boosts too late last year … I think they’re a resource to be used. So long as we have enough information that we can be confident they are being used productively, the earlier we use them, generally the better, because it gives more time for the benefits to accrue. If I have to do a premo upgrade a round later due to lack of boosts, I don’t think that costs me much in the scheme of things (perhaps 50 points?), and I think I can make that back through making the right correctional trades.
5. Agreed. I was thinking the other day - if someone totally avoids the round zero teams, it’s like picking a side with 44% of players being off limits … equivalent to trying to pick a side with no non-Victorian players, for example. It would be interesting to see how much worse those sides would look … no Grundy, Jordon, Roberts, Brayshaw, Serong, Young, Fyfe, Sharp, Laird, Reid, Touk, Flanders, Sexton, Butters, Rozee, Kiddy etc etc … it would put a massive hole in my side, certainly, and there aren’t good backup options for a lot of those picks … especially when you start trying to replace 4 or 5 guys all on one line, or a cash cow FWD playing half back. I know most people aren’t being quite so strict about excluding round 0 players, but that’s the type of disadvantage that some are electing to take on, to avoid holding those guys through a bye.
I’m obviously more comfortable with the downside risk of the cumulative impact of these sorts of picks (largely because of the trades and boosts), but I think only time will tell for sure what the right balance is. I don’t think it’s even a given that we know the true answer this time next year - the answer for 2024 may depend on specific circumstances that don’t recur next season.
One thing I would say is that with all of these extra resources, extra info from round 0, and extra AFL and fantasy content from a whole range of sources, the standard of the winning side is likely to be dramatically better than it was 3, 5 or 10 years ago. It is something I am keeping in mind … if the hurdle to win it continues to rise, and may have risen pretty sharply, then focusing too much on managing downside risk is going to further reduce my (modest) chance of ultimately being in real contention. I think if I want to have a shot at winning the whole thing, it’s important to adapt, because others will be using these extra resources more aggressively than I used to be comfortable with - and it will come off for some of them!
Edit: I had to remove some of the quoted text (#2) to get under 10,000 characters … @wogitalia would be proud!
I just got around to watching this Geel v Ess game, mainly wanted to see Martin’s role. I didn’t want to pick him initially at that price in my midfield but goodness me, his role is pure SC gold as @wogitalia has pointed out/ defender status round 6. Very hard to resist after seeing that - I will be doing a restructure to see how it looks.
Also will say Parish looked unreal, certainly a good POD if you wanted to go there.
Bit worried about Stewart with Holmes getting so much ball in the back half / being used as the outlet so often.
Also will say Parish looked unreal, certainly a good POD if you wanted to go there.
Bit worried about Stewart with Holmes getting so much ball in the back half / being used as the outlet so often.
JD has just made a new video comparing a guns & rookie team with one of his mid value teams.
Because of the early byes he has some other thoughts.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQIaDlF6L0s
Because of the early byes he has some other thoughts.
I was all in on the value mindset early but I probably lean more towards the first sides setup now, especially with so many best 18 rounds early where the extra squad depth for a lower premo count wont actually give you any advantage as the scores will drop out of best 18 anyway, be interesting what way people lean.
Port vs Freo - I really wish I hadn't watched this game, it was definitely the first game that has thrown real curveballs at my team. It started alright but fell off quickly as a game and both teams have annoying players out that make reading much very hard. I watched a bit over 2.5 quarters.
Port - Clearly the better side and it wasn't all that close, about the best thing I could say for Freo is they kept it closer than it should have been. The Butters injury early in the first derails any real information. They seemed to play similar to last year though.
Burton - Strong game from him. Not relevant, imo.
Houston - Running off HB, worked hard, played well. An interesting prospect, hasn't really been on my radar but no good reason for that other than severe trust issues...
Rozee - I honestly don't know how to judge this game. I hated his role, he spent inordinate amounts of time camped as one of the deepest forwards. I don't know if losing Butters caused it as a rotational thing, if losing Butters scared Ken and he went full cotton wool or, as Roo eluded to in the commentary, it's a planned role. He played brilliantly and looks in great shape but all of a sudden I wish I had the round 0 game for him also because one of the guys I felt pretty good about has been ripped away from me. I have immense trust issues with Ken Hinkley at the best of times and I don't know if it's just preseason wittery or him embracing his inner Bevo and actively trying to make his own job harder...
Wines - He looks noticeably fitter. I didn't really want him to play well, I'd happily put the fork in him but has definitely put his hand up. If their coach wasn't Ken (or Horse or Bevo) then the idea of sacrificing Butters and Rozee for Wines wouldn't even scratch my attention but it is Ken and so that idea is the kind of self harming crap he's been doing for the best part of a decade. Wines himself looked great though.
JHF - He either scored way better than I thought he did while I was watching or he junked really hard at the end. I barely noticed him. FWIW both of those things actually are positives, he is another guy who has struggled to run out games or find non-standout points, so both are wins.
Mead - He played well, I didn't notice him before Butters injury so I assume he benefitted from that directly. He's always been a great scorer as a mid, his problem is he can't play anywhere else. Definitely one to watch though at a reasonable price. So many guys that fit that description in this price range like Lazzaro, Mead and Hustwaite, odds say that one of them will get the role, good luck choosing it!
Burgoyne - Lot of talk of him being locked in for the wing in the commentary, he started really badly, so little composure and looked like someone called up from the under 16s to debut in a final with how badly he was adapting to the pace of the game. To his credit he did settle and put on some skis as the team took total control of the game. Super awkward price point but if he gets the role, he's definitely borderline fieldable, which is big in the backs where most of the options are firm benchies. Type of pick that I think you find the 30k for Williams, probably the 50k for D'Ambrosio and gutsy to pick all 3. Probably can get similar production for 20k less with Gibcus. He kind of feels like the guy you keep in reserve for all those names just in case and he absolutely could be the best of them all.
Drew - Started on the wing, moved more central after Butters injury. Only relevant in that he takes minutes from relevant guys.
BZT/Sava/Aliir - Looked pretty good together, albeit facing two tenths of sweet FA from Freo.
Soldo - He was pretty good in low minutes. Darcy was slightly on top but not by as much as you'd expect. He's definitely a good value pick if he wins the ruck duel.
Sweet - He was also pretty good in low minutes. Neither of them really made a better case than the other. I personally like Sweet's upside more and would go him first if I was Port knowing what Soldo has if he fails but I'd bet they go Soldo as the more established option. I have no idea why Sweet went for Port instead of a team that hadn't already traded for a starting ruck. Rucks gonna do ruck things I guess.
Bergman - Hated his role, he was so good last year in defense it just seems weird to mess with it.
DBJ - He's not remotely fantasy relevant but I have to shout out the porn star 'stache into the 80s grandma hair for best look of the preseason, genuinely thought he'd stolen a wig from The Golden Girls set!
Freo - They look bad again, nicest thing I could say is Port scored about 40 points less than it felt like they'd scored. They have absolutely nothing forward of the ball, they've got about a dozen passengers and they seem to lack any kind of gameplan beyond win centre bounce go bang. I like Longmuir, he seems a genuinely decent guy, but their recruiting strategy and gameplan is a big issue. They just feel lost as a club again.
Young - He was really solid, kicked it surprisingly poorly which is actually probably the hardest adaption to make going from low pressure HB ball use to under pressure midfield. Got a ton of it, looks fit. He's probably the only player in this game that I liked before watching it that I still like just as much.
Serong - Not dissimilar to Rozee, he himself played well but his role was pretty toxic. 10% is the difference between abject failure and great pick at his price point and he spent a LOT of time on the wing, a position that does not suit him at all, I'd go as far as to say that wing may be the position that his skillset is least suited to on the entire field (outside ruck/KP at least). The move just makes no sense when you've got a guy like Brayshaw who'd actually suit the wing and might become a more valuable player out wide where he has more time to not rush his disposal. It might just be preseason stuff but it has given me a lot of doubts on a pick I didn't have many on.
Clark - Solid enough, I feel like he should be relevant but he just doesn't seem all that interested for large parts of games.
Brayshaw - Same as Serong, admittedly I'm only looking at him for DT and the wing isn't as bad for DT as it is for SC and he's also much better suited to it as a guy who struggles under physical pressure and has a tendency to rush disposal in those situations. The wing might actually be better for him as a footballer as his disposal generally isn't awful when he has time and his running patterns are much more wingman aligned than Serong's but the wing is still a bad SC position and at his price, that risk is a huge negative.
Ryan - Like Young I guess he affirmed my thoughts. I actually think he might be the 2nd best defender option as his certainty has increased if anything. They've recruited a couple of guys to try and protect his role a bit and it's a great role. Still like him to get more ball in general and rely less on ratio porn but kick-in dominance was great and everything else is already known. Trust issues aside from all the previous burns.
Fyfe - He looked physically fit, the lack of tape is a great sign. His hands were good, his movement was good, his physicality was good BUT somehow his kicking has actually gotten worse. He seems to have lost all penetration, not sure he managed to kick beyond 35m and I'm not sure any of the kicks spun. Maybe it's rust or maybe it's just age catching up with a guy who has never been even a mediocre kick of the footy but it's a concern. To be fair, always preferred when he's handballing for SC anyway as he's really good at that. Overall it was a tick and I think he can score high 80s reliably in the role and fitness level until he's injured which is more or less inevitable at this point but he's a solid starting option in this shape, definitely doesn't look to be a must have and definitely could blow up but right now he looks pickable.
McDonald - Feels like he's just holding Cox's spot, to his credit he played well. I feel like there's just much better options.
Voss - He surprised me. Really hard at it, probably going to be suspended at least a couple of times for tackling too hard but he genuinely works hard which stands out in an incredibly lazy forward line. Good 3rd tall type who can do some stuff in the air and doesn't sacrifice on the ground. Jackson being the 2nd ruck from the 2nd tall forward spot helps his case. I think there's better fantasy options but always nice to have plenty.
Sharp - Underwhelming, in such an open game you'd like more from him. He's a chance of playing and he can score well and he's probably the best of the 123k mids if they're all selected but I wanted more.
Simpson - Did a few nice things but like Sharp you really want to see a lot more. I imagine the two of them are probably playing for a spot and this was a nil all draw. Imagine he sees a fair bit of the vest if he plays.
Worner - Actually took a kick-in, was more or less all I saw of him. He actually played alright and could definitely be an interesting pick if named. His role was better than his score and we know Freo aren't afraid of some waxing down back.
Darcy - I feel like the new rule really suits him. I also wont be picking him alongside Jackson as he caps the upside on a guy who can't stay healthy and once again physically looks like he should be rucking in some country town. I'm not sure if Josh Schache's ability to look like he hasn't lifted a weight in 9 AFL preseasons or Darcy's ability to look like he's never run more than 5m to the fridge for the next beer in a preseason is more impressive.
Reidy - Looks a good sort. He's not getting a game with Darcy and Jackson there.
Taberner - Really made a strong case he should still be on an AFL list. Good god he's terrible. I mean at least Treacy occasionally busts a pack in between his casual stroll on the field. Taberner can't even muster that much impact.
Port - Clearly the better side and it wasn't all that close, about the best thing I could say for Freo is they kept it closer than it should have been. The Butters injury early in the first derails any real information. They seemed to play similar to last year though.
Burton - Strong game from him. Not relevant, imo.
Houston - Running off HB, worked hard, played well. An interesting prospect, hasn't really been on my radar but no good reason for that other than severe trust issues...
Rozee - I honestly don't know how to judge this game. I hated his role, he spent inordinate amounts of time camped as one of the deepest forwards. I don't know if losing Butters caused it as a rotational thing, if losing Butters scared Ken and he went full cotton wool or, as Roo eluded to in the commentary, it's a planned role. He played brilliantly and looks in great shape but all of a sudden I wish I had the round 0 game for him also because one of the guys I felt pretty good about has been ripped away from me. I have immense trust issues with Ken Hinkley at the best of times and I don't know if it's just preseason wittery or him embracing his inner Bevo and actively trying to make his own job harder...
Wines - He looks noticeably fitter. I didn't really want him to play well, I'd happily put the fork in him but has definitely put his hand up. If their coach wasn't Ken (or Horse or Bevo) then the idea of sacrificing Butters and Rozee for Wines wouldn't even scratch my attention but it is Ken and so that idea is the kind of self harming crap he's been doing for the best part of a decade. Wines himself looked great though.
JHF - He either scored way better than I thought he did while I was watching or he junked really hard at the end. I barely noticed him. FWIW both of those things actually are positives, he is another guy who has struggled to run out games or find non-standout points, so both are wins.
Mead - He played well, I didn't notice him before Butters injury so I assume he benefitted from that directly. He's always been a great scorer as a mid, his problem is he can't play anywhere else. Definitely one to watch though at a reasonable price. So many guys that fit that description in this price range like Lazzaro, Mead and Hustwaite, odds say that one of them will get the role, good luck choosing it!
Burgoyne - Lot of talk of him being locked in for the wing in the commentary, he started really badly, so little composure and looked like someone called up from the under 16s to debut in a final with how badly he was adapting to the pace of the game. To his credit he did settle and put on some skis as the team took total control of the game. Super awkward price point but if he gets the role, he's definitely borderline fieldable, which is big in the backs where most of the options are firm benchies. Type of pick that I think you find the 30k for Williams, probably the 50k for D'Ambrosio and gutsy to pick all 3. Probably can get similar production for 20k less with Gibcus. He kind of feels like the guy you keep in reserve for all those names just in case and he absolutely could be the best of them all.
Drew - Started on the wing, moved more central after Butters injury. Only relevant in that he takes minutes from relevant guys.
BZT/Sava/Aliir - Looked pretty good together, albeit facing two tenths of sweet FA from Freo.
Soldo - He was pretty good in low minutes. Darcy was slightly on top but not by as much as you'd expect. He's definitely a good value pick if he wins the ruck duel.
Sweet - He was also pretty good in low minutes. Neither of them really made a better case than the other. I personally like Sweet's upside more and would go him first if I was Port knowing what Soldo has if he fails but I'd bet they go Soldo as the more established option. I have no idea why Sweet went for Port instead of a team that hadn't already traded for a starting ruck. Rucks gonna do ruck things I guess.
Bergman - Hated his role, he was so good last year in defense it just seems weird to mess with it.
DBJ - He's not remotely fantasy relevant but I have to shout out the porn star 'stache into the 80s grandma hair for best look of the preseason, genuinely thought he'd stolen a wig from The Golden Girls set!
Freo - They look bad again, nicest thing I could say is Port scored about 40 points less than it felt like they'd scored. They have absolutely nothing forward of the ball, they've got about a dozen passengers and they seem to lack any kind of gameplan beyond win centre bounce go bang. I like Longmuir, he seems a genuinely decent guy, but their recruiting strategy and gameplan is a big issue. They just feel lost as a club again.
Young - He was really solid, kicked it surprisingly poorly which is actually probably the hardest adaption to make going from low pressure HB ball use to under pressure midfield. Got a ton of it, looks fit. He's probably the only player in this game that I liked before watching it that I still like just as much.
Serong - Not dissimilar to Rozee, he himself played well but his role was pretty toxic. 10% is the difference between abject failure and great pick at his price point and he spent a LOT of time on the wing, a position that does not suit him at all, I'd go as far as to say that wing may be the position that his skillset is least suited to on the entire field (outside ruck/KP at least). The move just makes no sense when you've got a guy like Brayshaw who'd actually suit the wing and might become a more valuable player out wide where he has more time to not rush his disposal. It might just be preseason stuff but it has given me a lot of doubts on a pick I didn't have many on.
Clark - Solid enough, I feel like he should be relevant but he just doesn't seem all that interested for large parts of games.
Brayshaw - Same as Serong, admittedly I'm only looking at him for DT and the wing isn't as bad for DT as it is for SC and he's also much better suited to it as a guy who struggles under physical pressure and has a tendency to rush disposal in those situations. The wing might actually be better for him as a footballer as his disposal generally isn't awful when he has time and his running patterns are much more wingman aligned than Serong's but the wing is still a bad SC position and at his price, that risk is a huge negative.
Ryan - Like Young I guess he affirmed my thoughts. I actually think he might be the 2nd best defender option as his certainty has increased if anything. They've recruited a couple of guys to try and protect his role a bit and it's a great role. Still like him to get more ball in general and rely less on ratio porn but kick-in dominance was great and everything else is already known. Trust issues aside from all the previous burns.
Fyfe - He looked physically fit, the lack of tape is a great sign. His hands were good, his movement was good, his physicality was good BUT somehow his kicking has actually gotten worse. He seems to have lost all penetration, not sure he managed to kick beyond 35m and I'm not sure any of the kicks spun. Maybe it's rust or maybe it's just age catching up with a guy who has never been even a mediocre kick of the footy but it's a concern. To be fair, always preferred when he's handballing for SC anyway as he's really good at that. Overall it was a tick and I think he can score high 80s reliably in the role and fitness level until he's injured which is more or less inevitable at this point but he's a solid starting option in this shape, definitely doesn't look to be a must have and definitely could blow up but right now he looks pickable.
McDonald - Feels like he's just holding Cox's spot, to his credit he played well. I feel like there's just much better options.
Voss - He surprised me. Really hard at it, probably going to be suspended at least a couple of times for tackling too hard but he genuinely works hard which stands out in an incredibly lazy forward line. Good 3rd tall type who can do some stuff in the air and doesn't sacrifice on the ground. Jackson being the 2nd ruck from the 2nd tall forward spot helps his case. I think there's better fantasy options but always nice to have plenty.
Sharp - Underwhelming, in such an open game you'd like more from him. He's a chance of playing and he can score well and he's probably the best of the 123k mids if they're all selected but I wanted more.
Simpson - Did a few nice things but like Sharp you really want to see a lot more. I imagine the two of them are probably playing for a spot and this was a nil all draw. Imagine he sees a fair bit of the vest if he plays.
Worner - Actually took a kick-in, was more or less all I saw of him. He actually played alright and could definitely be an interesting pick if named. His role was better than his score and we know Freo aren't afraid of some waxing down back.
Darcy - I feel like the new rule really suits him. I also wont be picking him alongside Jackson as he caps the upside on a guy who can't stay healthy and once again physically looks like he should be rucking in some country town. I'm not sure if Josh Schache's ability to look like he hasn't lifted a weight in 9 AFL preseasons or Darcy's ability to look like he's never run more than 5m to the fridge for the next beer in a preseason is more impressive.
Reidy - Looks a good sort. He's not getting a game with Darcy and Jackson there.
Taberner - Really made a strong case he should still be on an AFL list. Good god he's terrible. I mean at least Treacy occasionally busts a pack in between his casual stroll on the field. Taberner can't even muster that much impact.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a great point, I hadn't really even factored that aspect in. Definitely favours boom or bust scorers and a GnR approach in general.
Would make those KPD that score 85 or 25 more viable on the field as well. Really only matters for round 1, by round 4 you're probably sporting a donut to loop anyway and have enough info to know whether they're remotely fieldable or not.
Would be shocked if Sexton or Fisher get swung back!
Would make those KPD that score 85 or 25 more viable on the field as well. Really only matters for round 1, by round 4 you're probably sporting a donut to loop anyway and have enough info to know whether they're remotely fieldable or not.
Would be shocked if Sexton or Fisher get swung back!
