Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure what your concern is. Let's assume for a moment that Witts is the only sub $300k Ruck starting Round 1.
Your team has Witts at R3, your mates team has Strnadica at R3.
You have Ruck cover for 7 to 8 weeks, then trade him out to let's say Strnadica. Now you and your mate have the same R3, but you've had early Ruck cover, and with a bit of luck, made about $160k profit. Why is who you trade Witts to a bigger problem than who you start at R3, if you don't have Witts? Your friend who started Strnadica at R3 doesn't have a FD, unless he has Ryder in his team. Strnadica without a matching link is just a D, not an FD. So you either start with:
Strnadica R3/Ryder F4 and you have a FD set up.
Strnadica R3 as Captains loophole donut, then you have to decide if you'll benefit from a FD elsewhere.
Witts R3 who eventually becomes Strnadica anyway.
If you are starting a FD somewhere, you still have to have someone at R3, or your FD involves Ryder. So you're right, if you are starting Ryder, Witts represents a problem, and you'd probably have Strnadica R3 anyway. If you're not starting Ryder, and you want a FD, it won't involve your R3 anyway. Of course you might only be starting a D for Captains loophole, in which case, you need to weigh up the value of having an FD or not, which is a whole other discussion. I will probably be starting a FD, and certainly will if I start Witts. A FD gives so much more versatility than a plain D for Captain loopholing, but I can understand some not wanting an FD, if they have a D at R3.
I hope all that made sense.
Your team has Witts at R3, your mates team has Strnadica at R3.
You have Ruck cover for 7 to 8 weeks, then trade him out to let's say Strnadica. Now you and your mate have the same R3, but you've had early Ruck cover, and with a bit of luck, made about $160k profit. Why is who you trade Witts to a bigger problem than who you start at R3, if you don't have Witts? Your friend who started Strnadica at R3 doesn't have a FD, unless he has Ryder in his team. Strnadica without a matching link is just a D, not an FD. So you either start with:
Strnadica R3/Ryder F4 and you have a FD set up.
Strnadica R3 as Captains loophole donut, then you have to decide if you'll benefit from a FD elsewhere.
Witts R3 who eventually becomes Strnadica anyway.
If you are starting a FD somewhere, you still have to have someone at R3, or your FD involves Ryder. So you're right, if you are starting Ryder, Witts represents a problem, and you'd probably have Strnadica R3 anyway. If you're not starting Ryder, and you want a FD, it won't involve your R3 anyway. Of course you might only be starting a D for Captains loophole, in which case, you need to weigh up the value of having an FD or not, which is a whole other discussion. I will probably be starting a FD, and certainly will if I start Witts. A FD gives so much more versatility than a plain D for Captain loopholing, but I can understand some not wanting an FD, if they have a D at R3.
I hope all that made sense.
Last edited:
Hey Pro,
Rowsus rule #4, if you're not sure whether to start a player or not, then don't start them! You have enough uncertainty in your team at any given time, and you need confidence in any non-Rookie player you start, whether they be Prems or Stepping Stones. If you're umming and aahing there is no confidence, if there is no confidence, look elsewhere for someone in who you are more confident!
You seem to be making a few assumptions that I'm not sure I agree with:
I'm not on-board with this. Given his litany of problems, and only playing 6 games in 2 seasons, it would seem he is no certainty to get enough games under his belt to make $150k, let alone be a certainty to score at a level that would achieve it. As stated previously in this thread, he needs to play every game and average around 92 to make $150k by his bye. I rate him around 60-65% chance to achieve those two things. A long way from a certainty!
I know a lot of people will start both, but right now, I'm leaning to neither. Of course if one or both look amazing in the JLT, I will need to reassess.
My advice is, if you think you really need to start one, then start Swallow. There is nothing worse than a failed pick, that also loses money. Swallow is less likely to lose money than Beams, and also frees up more cash to be used elsewhere than Beams does. While I really don't think Beams will lose money, the cheaper the risky player is, the less likely the worst case scenario will strike. The flip-side is, if a cheap risky player goes down, you are usually looking at having to down grade them to a Rookie.
I'd not even really consider locking in a decision on these 2 until the JLT. Make your team without either, and if one or both really makes a statement it is easier to squeeze them into your team then. If you get your team set in your mind with one or both of these two in, it will cause more problems trying to replace them before Round 1, than the problem of who to leave out of your team to fit them in causes.
Rowsus rule #4, if you're not sure whether to start a player or not, then don't start them! You have enough uncertainty in your team at any given time, and you need confidence in any non-Rookie player you start, whether they be Prems or Stepping Stones. If you're umming and aahing there is no confidence, if there is no confidence, look elsewhere for someone in who you are more confident!
You seem to be making a few assumptions that I'm not sure I agree with:
I'm not on-board with this. Given his litany of problems, and only playing 6 games in 2 seasons, it would seem he is no certainty to get enough games under his belt to make $150k, let alone be a certainty to score at a level that would achieve it. As stated previously in this thread, he needs to play every game and average around 92 to make $150k by his bye. I rate him around 60-65% chance to achieve those two things. A long way from a certainty!
I know a lot of people will start both, but right now, I'm leaning to neither. Of course if one or both look amazing in the JLT, I will need to reassess.
My advice is, if you think you really need to start one, then start Swallow. There is nothing worse than a failed pick, that also loses money. Swallow is less likely to lose money than Beams, and also frees up more cash to be used elsewhere than Beams does. While I really don't think Beams will lose money, the cheaper the risky player is, the less likely the worst case scenario will strike. The flip-side is, if a cheap risky player goes down, you are usually looking at having to down grade them to a Rookie.
I'd not even really consider locking in a decision on these 2 until the JLT. Make your team without either, and if one or both really makes a statement it is easier to squeeze them into your team then. If you get your team set in your mind with one or both of these two in, it will cause more problems trying to replace them before Round 1, than the problem of who to leave out of your team to fit them in causes.
Rowsus, could you please remind me of the thinking behind your "start them or forget them" advice for certain players?
Very happy to reread an old post if you have detailed this previously ... and can recall where that was
Very happy to reread an old post if you have detailed this previously ... and can recall where that was
So, if buddy is going to score lower, and miss games later in the season, what would be the point in "seeing how he goes"? Chances are, going by his history, he starts ok, and you think "Ok, I'll get him in". Well, now you've really set yourself a problem! Let's use a basic, he'll play well for 15 games, then start to score lower and miss games after that. You traded him in in say Round 7. You now have 8 or 9 useful games from him, before the problematic games kick in. So in his time your team you are only expecting him to be reliable and effective a little over 50% of the time! You've missed his good points from the first 6 Rounds, that convinced you it is ok to grab him now, and you are historically looking at a problem in another 8 weeks. Those that started him got those first 6 Rounds of points, and he sits usefully in their team for 65-70% of the season, while they have him. If he becomes a "He's just gotta go!" result, then the trade in Coach got say 8 good weeks, where the starting Coach got 14 or 15.
Why buy in a player once the season has started, that you know has either a history of problems late in the season, or is a better than usual chance of breaking down? Using Hodge as an example. If you think Hodge is a chance to be managed later in the season, why open him up to cause a bigger disturbance, percentage-wise in your team, than those that started him? If he gets managed for 2 games he represents a 9% of his games cause a problem for those that started him. If you traded him in in Round 9, you are looking at not only are 14% of his games likely to cause you problems, but you've missed those good scores that convinced you to trade him in anyway. Those scores are likely to be the gravy of his season!
The older a player is, the more likely he is to "fade" later in the season. Bartel was a great example. Just off the top of my head 70-75% of his 100+ scores in his last 6 seasons came in the first half of the season. Why would you ever "see how he goes"?! Start him, or forget him!
Great question.
I have a similar conundrum. I like Grundy to increase his output by 5 points (from 95 to 102, let's say). I think Goldstein will come back from 108 to 105. I have the extra cash to upgrade, even though it would be going against logical predictions. Goldy is obviously the better scorer, but do I back the cash saving option?
I have a similar conundrum. I like Grundy to increase his output by 5 points (from 95 to 102, let's say). I think Goldstein will come back from 108 to 105. I have the extra cash to upgrade, even though it would be going against logical predictions. Goldy is obviously the better scorer, but do I back the cash saving option?
Hey Rowsus,
My first post for the year. Great to see your back to doing what you do best. You do an amazing job so keep up the great work!
My first question revolves around Jack Riewoldt. I think I have started him for the last two years and although it's a rocky ride he has been ok. He just seems to be the one that either lets me down in close league matches or gets me over the line. I was just wondering what your opinion is on him this year with the extra additions for the Tigers this year. Do you think he will get better supply this season as a player like Martin may play more on the outside and hit him up on the chest with the likes of Caddy and Prestia to assist on the inside?
Cheers
My first post for the year. Great to see your back to doing what you do best. You do an amazing job so keep up the great work!
My first question revolves around Jack Riewoldt. I think I have started him for the last two years and although it's a rocky ride he has been ok. He just seems to be the one that either lets me down in close league matches or gets me over the line. I was just wondering what your opinion is on him this year with the extra additions for the Tigers this year. Do you think he will get better supply this season as a player like Martin may play more on the outside and hit him up on the chest with the likes of Caddy and Prestia to assist on the inside?
Cheers
Darkie, it generally applies more to older players, but can be used on other players too, depending on the circumstances. The first player I used it on was Buddy a few years back. Buddy not only had a habit of missing games later in the season, but also scoring lower later in the season, as we can see from this table.
So, if buddy is going to score lower, and miss games later in the season, what would be the point in "seeing how he goes"? Chances are, going by his history, he starts ok, and you think "Ok, I'll get him in". Well, now you've really set yourself a problem! Let's use a basic, he'll play well for 15 games, then start to score lower and miss games after that. You traded him in in say Round 7. You now have 8 or 9 useful games from him, before the problematic games kick in. So in his time your team you are only expecting him to be reliable and effective a little over 50% of the time! You've missed his good points from the first 6 Rounds, that convinced you it is ok to grab him now, and you are historically looking at a problem in another 8 weeks. Those that started him got those first 6 Rounds of points, and he sits usefully in their team for 65-70% of the season, while they have him. If he becomes a "He's just gotta go!" result, then the trade in Coach got say 8 good weeks, where the starting Coach got 14 or 15.
Why buy in a player once the season has started, that you know has either a history of problems late in the season, or is a better than usual chance of breaking down? Using Hodge as an example. If you think Hodge is a chance to be managed later in the season, why open him up to cause a bigger disturbance, percentage-wise in your team, than those that started him? If he gets managed for 2 games he represents a 9% of his games cause a problem for those that started him. If you traded him in in Round 9, you are looking at not only are 14% of his games likely to cause you problems, but you've missed those good scores that convinced you to trade him in anyway. Those scores are likely to be the gravy of his season!
The older a player is, the more likely he is to "fade" later in the season. Bartel was a great example. Just off the top of my head 70-75% of his 100+ scores in his last 6 seasons came in the first half of the season. Why would you ever "see how he goes"?! Start him, or forget him!
So, if buddy is going to score lower, and miss games later in the season, what would be the point in "seeing how he goes"? Chances are, going by his history, he starts ok, and you think "Ok, I'll get him in". Well, now you've really set yourself a problem! Let's use a basic, he'll play well for 15 games, then start to score lower and miss games after that. You traded him in in say Round 7. You now have 8 or 9 useful games from him, before the problematic games kick in. So in his time your team you are only expecting him to be reliable and effective a little over 50% of the time! You've missed his good points from the first 6 Rounds, that convinced you it is ok to grab him now, and you are historically looking at a problem in another 8 weeks. Those that started him got those first 6 Rounds of points, and he sits usefully in their team for 65-70% of the season, while they have him. If he becomes a "He's just gotta go!" result, then the trade in Coach got say 8 good weeks, where the starting Coach got 14 or 15.
Why buy in a player once the season has started, that you know has either a history of problems late in the season, or is a better than usual chance of breaking down? Using Hodge as an example. If you think Hodge is a chance to be managed later in the season, why open him up to cause a bigger disturbance, percentage-wise in your team, than those that started him? If he gets managed for 2 games he represents a 9% of his games cause a problem for those that started him. If you traded him in in Round 9, you are looking at not only are 14% of his games likely to cause you problems, but you've missed those good scores that convinced you to trade him in anyway. Those scores are likely to be the gravy of his season!
The older a player is, the more likely he is to "fade" later in the season. Bartel was a great example. Just off the top of my head 70-75% of his 100+ scores in his last 6 seasons came in the first half of the season. Why would you ever "see how he goes"?! Start him, or forget him!
I'm not sure whether I am misremembering the way other people have used your phrase, or whether some people might have intentionally used it in a different way, but I feel like it has been used for players that are generally injury prone (Adams, eg, maybe Beams) rather than those that are liable to fade.
Bringing in the latter group late in the year doesn't make a lot of sense, but I was thinking about whether I can take a wait and see approach on a player like Adams.
I am dubious about him as he's very injury prone, and actually isn't even that high scoring for a mid. I don't think he's that cheap (maybe a few points discounted, although I think injury-affected scores will be par for he course for him), so I'm inclined to take a wait and see approach on him. Either (1) he will be a standout scorer and I'll bring him in and be exposed to his injury risks for a shorter period, or (2) he'll be similar to/inferior to the tiger options and I'll take a more durable option and potentially end up well ahead on a PIT basis, especially if he has a very low injury-affected score.
It doesn't sound like you would object to that approach (or, at least, he doesn't fall into your typical "start or forget" category?)?
I know i'm no Rowsus, but just by a quick look at Jack Steven's stats per stadium.
Etihad
average disposals: 23.61
goal average: 0.6
average tackles: 4.95
contested possessions: 9.4
SC average: 97.3
MCG
average disposals: 21.75
goal average: 0.9
average tackles: 4.7
contested possessions: 8.2
SC average: 87.0
Adelaide Oval
average disposals: 29.17
goal average 0.33
average tackles: 5.3
contested possessions: 10
SC average: 102.7
SCG
average disposals: 28.33
goal average: 1.0
average tackles: 2.3
contested possessions: 8
SC average: 91.3
The SC average by stadium is available with Supercoach Gold, which everyone has trial access to until the end of round 2.
Etihad
average disposals: 23.61
goal average: 0.6
average tackles: 4.95
contested possessions: 9.4
SC average: 97.3
MCG
average disposals: 21.75
goal average: 0.9
average tackles: 4.7
contested possessions: 8.2
SC average: 87.0
Adelaide Oval
average disposals: 29.17
goal average 0.33
average tackles: 5.3
contested possessions: 10
SC average: 102.7
SCG
average disposals: 28.33
goal average: 1.0
average tackles: 2.3
contested possessions: 8
SC average: 91.3
The SC average by stadium is available with Supercoach Gold, which everyone has trial access to until the end of round 2.
G
To me if a player has a substantial injury history that history doesn't just disappear mid year if they are looking fit.
You most likely are choosing this ''injury prone'' player for the upside as there are greater risks involved meaning you are banking on their higher scoring making up for that added injury risk, if this is all true it would be safer if you are dead set on having this player, to start them and get as many of these ''higher scores for risk'' as you can in case history repeats it's self, trading into them later doesn't bring any less risk in my view.
Just my opinion of course.
You most likely are choosing this ''injury prone'' player for the upside as there are greater risks involved meaning you are banking on their higher scoring making up for that added injury risk, if this is all true it would be safer if you are dead set on having this player, to start them and get as many of these ''higher scores for risk'' as you can in case history repeats it's self, trading into them later doesn't bring any less risk in my view.
Just my opinion of course.
Last edited:
Well Miles is another who has been pretty disappointing at times. Miles can't really play anywhere except inside mid but he's been dropped before.
As the previous poster said Grigg comes in for his share of criticism and might be pushed out. Was Edwards getting some midfield rotations for a while? Caddy and Dusty rotating forward. Cotch might switch back to a bit more of an outside role.
At any rate here is a video of Nick himself talking about getting "pushed out of the midfield" by the emerging talent in the backline so I'm pretty sure the move to the midfield is happening ...
http://m.richmondfc.com.au/news/2017-01-31/change-a-fillip-for-vlastuin
So I think he will play a midfield role. I'm just not sure he is going to score enough while doing it. I believe he played a couple of game in the midd last year. Can't remember which ones. Went alright from a football point of view but hardly set the world on fire from the SC perspective.
As the previous poster said Grigg comes in for his share of criticism and might be pushed out. Was Edwards getting some midfield rotations for a while? Caddy and Dusty rotating forward. Cotch might switch back to a bit more of an outside role.
At any rate here is a video of Nick himself talking about getting "pushed out of the midfield" by the emerging talent in the backline so I'm pretty sure the move to the midfield is happening ...
http://m.richmondfc.com.au/news/2017-01-31/change-a-fillip-for-vlastuin
So I think he will play a midfield role. I'm just not sure he is going to score enough while doing it. I believe he played a couple of game in the midd last year. Can't remember which ones. Went alright from a football point of view but hardly set the world on fire from the SC perspective.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rnd 7 Haw Relished midfield role and tracked Lewis. Good early, faded at the end. 96 supercoach points.
Rnd 8 Syd Used in midfield again and was handy with his willingness to do all the hard things. 82 supercoach points.
From SEN player ratings.
Edit: Don't know why it's all bolded?
Rowsus edit - I do. I have removed the < from the front of his name in your quote, and it is all good again!
Rnd 8 Syd Used in midfield again and was handy with his willingness to do all the hard things. 82 supercoach points.
From SEN player ratings.
Edit: Don't know why it's all bolded?
Rowsus edit - I do. I have removed the < from the front of his name in your quote, and it is all good again!
Last edited by a moderator:
G
I started him a few years ago when he was cheapish 450k IIRC averaged about 104 for the year i think, wasn't an awful pick but he just isn't in that elite top bracket.
He is a first tagged every time, 26 yo 130 games under his belt, looks like a spike year at 110 as Rowsus would say.
Forgive my intrusion once again.
He is a first tagged every time, 26 yo 130 games under his belt, looks like a spike year at 110 as Rowsus would say.
Forgive my intrusion once again.
- Status