This is the follow up to my recent article ‘Impromptu 2011: Trading To Win 1‘, which discussed my Overall Trading Strategy in 2011. This article provides a detailed ‘Analysis of Actual Trades’ that occured in 2011.
My disclaimer is that some of my unorthodox trading in 2011 should not be tried in 2012 as the rationale behind these trades do not apply in 2012 due to a number of changes in 2012. These changes include SuperCoach reverting back to a 2 man bench per position (from 3) and the AFL fixture now having a cluster of multi-bye rounds over a 3 week period rather than the byes being spread over the year. I will discuss the differences when we discuss SuperCoach 2012.
The feedback from my article ‘Impromptu 2011: Trading To Win 1‘ has been amazing, however a common theme of the feedback was the suggestion that I won SuperCoach in 2011 due to my great initial team rather than my trading strategy. I think most people would be surprised that my initial SuperCoach team included the likes of:
- The ‘Rugby Test’ – Karmichael Hunt (No Games for Me)
- The ‘What and Who’ DPP links – David Astbury (who?) & Jesse O’Brien (who?)
- The ‘Preseason Teaser’ – Cam Richardson (lolRicho?)
- The ‘Likely to play round 2 Hird comment’ – Michael Hibberd (No games for me)
- The ‘Cashless Cows’ – Shaun Atley (ave 46.8) & Rohan Bewick (ave 38.4)
- The ‘Premiums’ – Leigh Montagna (full price!) & Nick Riewoldt (full price!)
As you can see the above players do not paint a nice picture of my initial team.
My round 1 and round 24 teams are shown on the following left table. Players that are coloured yellow are players who were in my initial team and my final team. As you can see, 12 premiums were both in my round 1 and round 24 teams, however it should be noted that 3 rookie priced backmen (Heppell, Stanley and Lower) had decent averages of 83.4, 77.9 and 81.9 and played 22, 22 and 19 games respectively.
It is quite clear that my initial team was not that great and in hindsight it surprises me that I was ranked 2nd Overall after round 2 in 2011. The only plausible reason was that while my team collectively was quite average, the starting (ie scoring) players who played in the first 2 rounds must have scored well.
Therefore, my aggressive trading as discussed in my recent article ‘Impromptu 2011: Trading To Win 1‘ together with perhaps the actual trades themselves could be the reason why I won SuperCoach 2011, let’s have a look. The above right table shows my actual trades in 2011.
[R3] Missing Cash Cows (Ed Curnow & Tom Liberatore)
Clearly, missing Curnow and Liberatore in my initial team was a mistake, which I rectified before Curnow (118 &102) and Liberatore (73 & 127) increased in value at the end of round 3.
Rule 13: Trade in Cash Cows on the bubble
[R4] Horrible Mistakes with Astbury and O’Brien
I read another article in late March 2011: ‘Astbury a Tiger on the Rise‘, where Damien Hardwick said ‘he is looking forward to seeing how Astbury copes as a key defender ….. When he runs out against Carlton for the first match ….. how far he has progressed’. Astbury runs riot against both the Blues (66dt/138sc) and the Pies (17dt/91sc) in the mini NAB Game. Brilliant! Impromptu has just discovered a smokey mid-pricer with DPP link with O’Brien. Unfortunately, the beautiful sunshine in the preseason turned U-G-L-Y in the actual season with Astbury’s first 4 games – 49 (Blues), 40, 34, 32 (Pies)
Rule 15: If you make a Mistake, Acknowledge It and Fix It (Very Important)
The worst thing about missing Curnow (Mid) and Liberatore (Mid) and catching Astbury (Fwd/Bac) and O’Brien (Fwd/Bac) was that they were categorised in different positions. If Curnow and Liberatore were a forward and backman, then I would have simply traded Astbury to Curnow and O’Brien to Liberatore and wasted only 2 trades, however since they were in different positions I wasted 4 trades by round 4.
[Rd 6] Trading a fit and healthy Sandilands Out
My reasoning at the time was that Sandilands was going to have the bye and that I wanted to bring in Goddard, which was true. However, I didn’t mention I was going to bring Sandilands back after the bye. The round 6 trades were part of a 2 step process with the round 7 trades. The important players of this 2 step process was:
[Rd 7] Trading a fit and healthy Sandilands Back In
In 2012, I don’t think we can take much of my trading around the bye nor trading out premiums in 2011, therefore I will give you a more philosophical rule.
Rule 16: Adapt your strategy to the changes in any given year (such as 2012)!!
[R12] Sandilands to Griffin and [R14] Griffin to Kruezer
I got to a stage where I got sick of Kruezer’s low score and started rookies Mzungu/I.Smith effectively over Kruezer. I did this by moving Petrie to the Ruck and started Mzungu/I.Smith on the field, which meant I would get Mzungu/I.Smith score over Kruezer. Most people who read the Herald Sun article: ‘Jay To hangs on $50,000 Supercoach Prize‘ would know that if I started Kruezer over Mzungu in round 24, I would have lost the $50K! Also a few weeks earlier, I started I. Smith and Mzungu over N. Riewoldt and Kruezer. I guess fortune favours the Brave (or more likely Crazy)!
What made the decision a bit easier was that in round 24, it was a decision between starting Mzungu (114) v Bulldogs or Kruezer (24) v Saints. To me, starting Mzungu over Kruezer was actually an acknowledgement that I was wrong!! However, I at least followed my own rules such as Rule 15: If you make a Mistake, Acknowledge It and Fix It. I couldn’t fix the Kruezer problem as I didn’t have any spare trades left, therefore I had to create a makeshift solution, ie starting ‘rookies’ I. Smith/Mzungu over the ‘premium’ Kruezer.
Kruezer – Sliding Shaw
Now if I didn’t create some makeshift stategies, such as starting Mzungu over Kruezer in round 24, Kruezer would have haunted my SuperCoach career for the rest of my life. However, the twist is the Kruezer trade could possibly have won me SuperCoach 2011.
I traded Griffen to Kruezer in round 14, which was my 22nd trade and saved the last 2 trades for long-term injuries. I was very annoyed in the next few weeks when Kruezer was scoring less than Griffen and that I could have traded in H. Shaw and finalised my team with a 7th final premium backman. You may recall my 7th backman was either Lower, Stanley and Heppell. If it was not for the Kruezer trade, I would have got rid of Lower, Stanley or Heppell for H. Shaw. It would of meant I would be playing 1 short in the backline due to H. Shaw’s 8 week holiday, which would of meant I would have lost the $50,000. While it was annoying to have Kruezer’s weekly low score, I eventually used I.Smith/Mzungu’s score to mitigate my losses.
I haven’t done the exact calculations, but let’s just say I don’t think I could have won with trading Heppell/Lower/Stanley to Shaw. The SuperCoach Gods work in mysterious ways as I was cursing the SuperCoach Gods for Kruezer’s entrapment scores of 67 and 150, when in fact that decision may have saved me. The only reason why the Kruezer trade looked horrible was Griffen was scoring more than Kruezer in the next few weeks.
[R5] Trading In and Out Jack Riewoldt: The Cash Cow Premium
The Best [Non]Trade: Joel Selwood
As you may be aware, Selwood had an early low score of 24 when he was stretched off during the round 1 game against St Kilda. Based on my calculations, I traded in Joel Selwood at price of average 104 compared to his start price of average 117. What a perfect trade it had seemed, unfortunately for me (and other Selwood owners) in round 12, Selwood was suspended for 3 weeks, which he tried to reduce it to 2 weeks, but instead the suspension was increased to 4 weeks.
This is when it gets a bit strategic and I had to roll the dice.
I had Selwood out for 4 weeks then 5 games then the Geelong bye and 2 games, therefore I had Selwood playing for me 7 out of the final 12 games. Therefore, the logical decision for me and everyone else was to trade out Selwood. If you have read most of my articles, you will know I don’t base my Supercoach decision on rational logic, but rather instinct and a bit of ‘out in left field’ thinking. I decided to keep Selwood as I noticed that after the 4 week suspension, Selwood had games against Lions, Richmond, Melbourne, Gold Coast and Adelaide. I was hoping Selwood would average 150 in the next 5 games, but unfortunately it was 118. In the last 7 games, Selwood did average a serviceable but not great average of 116, which appears to be a harsh assessment, however when you get to utilise Selwood’s score for only 7 of the last 12 games, you expect a higher return. I suspected many people would have traded out Selwood, but from what I’ve read there was no material advantage as the games that Selwood did not play, I.Smith and/or Mzungu were my replacments and they averaged about 90+ in those 4 weeks, which was just as good as the players who others traded Selwood out for.
People wondered whether my decision not to trade out Selwood was by design or because of my lack of trades. I didn’t trade out Selwood as I looked at Selwood’s next 5 games after he returned from his 4 week vacation and was expecting (and hoping) Selwood would average 150. Furthemore, I wanted to create a ‘positive POD’ by not trading out Selwood as I knew everyone had to trade out Selwood due to my scoreboard pressure. However, you may be wondering ‘why would I want to create a POD when I was the ranked 4th overall? I actually didn’t want to create a POD, but rather a positive POD. I believed Selwood would absolutely smash out monster scores in his first 5 games back., which didn’t occur. However, at least, the beauty of creating this POD was I didn’t actually do anything, as other teams were trading out Selwood, that in itself created the POD for me. The key here is not a POD, but that Selwood was a positive POD.
Rule 16: POD is good, if it’s a positive POD, it’s bad otherwise (Very Important)
I think it was widely assumed that the underlying reason why I did not trade out Selwood was due to my limited amount of remaining trades, namely 6 trades. That was far from the truth as in round 13, I actually still used 2 trades for optional upgrades (and not necessary trades), which I think was the turning point:
A Team of Dual Position Players (including I.Mzungu, I. Smith, I. Callinan)
I knew by trading hard and leaving 2 trades left for the last 10 rounds, I needed some form of insurance. Supported by the 3 man bench in each position, I decide to have a team full of DPPs. My round 15 team was:
B: 2 premiums, Goddard*, Gibbs*, Deledio*, Scotland*, Stanley (Heppell*, Lower, Hunt)
M: 6 premiums (B. Jacobs*, Callinan*, I. Smith*)
R: 2 premiums (J. Tippett*, B. McCauley)
F: 2 premiums, Goodes*, O’Keefe*, Pavlich*, Chapman*, Harvey* (Mzungu*, Petrie*, lol)
I only had 2 trades left and was a premium short in the backline, therefore I need to ensure my team was full of DPPs to cover me everywhere. Of importance was I had Petrie as an extra premium who was on the bench. It may appear that Petrie was wasted on my bench as my 8th forward, who occassionally would be used as backup. In fact, Petrie played every game!!
Every round had a bye and so long as the bye was from a player in the midfield, forward or ruck, Petrie’s services would be utilised every game. Therefore, that extra premium meant I was up a premium every week on others. It could be argued that Petrie as the 8th forward with DPP attributes of Fwd/Ruc could only cover the forward and rucks, which was in fact incorrect.
Petrie was also covering my premium midfielder. For example, Boyd had the bye in round 20, therefore I would switch Callinan from the midfield for Goodes, and Goodes would start on the ground in the midfield and Boyd would move to the midfield bench. Petrie would take Goodes’ forward position. Therefore, the wasted premium on the bench of Petrie was actually used every game. I could have tried to bring in another premium in my backline, but I was effectively rotating Stanley, Heppell and Lower as my 7th defender and they were producing respectable SuperCoach scores.
Most will know the NBA Sixth Man Award, which is awarded to the NBA’s most valuable player for his team coming off the bench as a substitute. Using the basketball term, but slightly adapted, Petrie was the winner of the SuperCoach Eighth Man Award in 2011.
On a side issue, you also notice that I have 3 bench midfielders with DPPs attributes, but more importantly, one of them was connected with the backline, which gave me some flexibility.
Summary of Trading
I believe the important thing about Trading in 2011 was:
The question then becomes based on Impromptu’s last two articles, he have indicated that he had an average team, his trading was poor, he wasted trades, so then the question is
‘Did Impromptu win SuperCoach 2011 purely by good luck?‘
My finale article of 2011 will be on ‘How I Won SuperCoach 2011?’, where I discuss everything including luck.
I know there is a major risk with my next article, but as most people will know I don’t hide behind anything (and am open about discussions on luck) because I stand by my decison making process (rightly or wrongly). It will be the ‘Grand Finale of SuperCoach 2011!‘ and a hello to SuperCoach 2012!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article has been migrated from SuperCoach Scores Blog to SuperCoach Scores Forum.
My disclaimer is that some of my unorthodox trading in 2011 should not be tried in 2012 as the rationale behind these trades do not apply in 2012 due to a number of changes in 2012. These changes include SuperCoach reverting back to a 2 man bench per position (from 3) and the AFL fixture now having a cluster of multi-bye rounds over a 3 week period rather than the byes being spread over the year. I will discuss the differences when we discuss SuperCoach 2012.
The feedback from my article ‘Impromptu 2011: Trading To Win 1‘ has been amazing, however a common theme of the feedback was the suggestion that I won SuperCoach in 2011 due to my great initial team rather than my trading strategy. I think most people would be surprised that my initial SuperCoach team included the likes of:
- The ‘Rugby Test’ – Karmichael Hunt (No Games for Me)
- The ‘What and Who’ DPP links – David Astbury (who?) & Jesse O’Brien (who?)
- The ‘Preseason Teaser’ – Cam Richardson (lolRicho?)
- The ‘Likely to play round 2 Hird comment’ – Michael Hibberd (No games for me)
- The ‘Cashless Cows’ – Shaun Atley (ave 46.8) & Rohan Bewick (ave 38.4)
- The ‘Premiums’ – Leigh Montagna (full price!) & Nick Riewoldt (full price!)
As you can see the above players do not paint a nice picture of my initial team.
My round 1 and round 24 teams are shown on the following left table. Players that are coloured yellow are players who were in my initial team and my final team. As you can see, 12 premiums were both in my round 1 and round 24 teams, however it should be noted that 3 rookie priced backmen (Heppell, Stanley and Lower) had decent averages of 83.4, 77.9 and 81.9 and played 22, 22 and 19 games respectively.
It is quite clear that my initial team was not that great and in hindsight it surprises me that I was ranked 2nd Overall after round 2 in 2011. The only plausible reason was that while my team collectively was quite average, the starting (ie scoring) players who played in the first 2 rounds must have scored well.
Therefore, my aggressive trading as discussed in my recent article ‘Impromptu 2011: Trading To Win 1‘ together with perhaps the actual trades themselves could be the reason why I won SuperCoach 2011, let’s have a look. The above right table shows my actual trades in 2011.
[R3] Missing Cash Cows (Ed Curnow & Tom Liberatore)
Clearly, missing Curnow and Liberatore in my initial team was a mistake, which I rectified before Curnow (118 &102) and Liberatore (73 & 127) increased in value at the end of round 3.
- M. Hibberd > T. Liberatore
- S. Atley > E. Curnow
Rule 13: Trade in Cash Cows on the bubble
[R4] Horrible Mistakes with Astbury and O’Brien
I read another article in late March 2011: ‘Astbury a Tiger on the Rise‘, where Damien Hardwick said ‘he is looking forward to seeing how Astbury copes as a key defender ….. When he runs out against Carlton for the first match ….. how far he has progressed’. Astbury runs riot against both the Blues (66dt/138sc) and the Pies (17dt/91sc) in the mini NAB Game. Brilliant! Impromptu has just discovered a smokey mid-pricer with DPP link with O’Brien. Unfortunately, the beautiful sunshine in the preseason turned U-G-L-Y in the actual season with Astbury’s first 4 games – 49 (Blues), 40, 34, 32 (Pies)
- J. O’Brien > B. Smith (Crows)
- D. Astbury > J. Tippett – Tippett for DPP link with Petrie
Rule 15: If you make a Mistake, Acknowledge It and Fix It (Very Important)
The worst thing about missing Curnow (Mid) and Liberatore (Mid) and catching Astbury (Fwd/Bac) and O’Brien (Fwd/Bac) was that they were categorised in different positions. If Curnow and Liberatore were a forward and backman, then I would have simply traded Astbury to Curnow and O’Brien to Liberatore and wasted only 2 trades, however since they were in different positions I wasted 4 trades by round 4.
[Rd 6] Trading a fit and healthy Sandilands Out
- N. Duigan > B. Goddard
- A. Sandilands > B. McCauley
My reasoning at the time was that Sandilands was going to have the bye and that I wanted to bring in Goddard, which was true. However, I didn’t mention I was going to bring Sandilands back after the bye. The round 6 trades were part of a 2 step process with the round 7 trades. The important players of this 2 step process was:
- B. Goddard In – Good price with St Kilda first bye gone
- A. Sandilands Out – R6 bye (with aim to bring back R7)
- B. McCauley In – on the bubble (28, 82) with J.Brown out for 10 weeks
- Z. Smith Out – wanted to use Z. Smith as a cash cow
- D. Petrie – with Tippett to cover the ruck byes (not Z. Smith)
[Rd 7] Trading a fit and healthy Sandilands Back In
- Z. Smith > A. Sandilands
- T. Liberatore > S. Iles
In 2012, I don’t think we can take much of my trading around the bye nor trading out premiums in 2011, therefore I will give you a more philosophical rule.
Rule 16: Adapt your strategy to the changes in any given year (such as 2012)!!
[R12] Sandilands to Griffin and [R14] Griffin to Kruezer
- A. Sandilands > J. Griffen
- J. Montagna > G. Ablett
- J. Griffin > M. Kruezer
- A. Siposs > I. Callinan
I got to a stage where I got sick of Kruezer’s low score and started rookies Mzungu/I.Smith effectively over Kruezer. I did this by moving Petrie to the Ruck and started Mzungu/I.Smith on the field, which meant I would get Mzungu/I.Smith score over Kruezer. Most people who read the Herald Sun article: ‘Jay To hangs on $50,000 Supercoach Prize‘ would know that if I started Kruezer over Mzungu in round 24, I would have lost the $50K! Also a few weeks earlier, I started I. Smith and Mzungu over N. Riewoldt and Kruezer. I guess fortune favours the Brave (or more likely Crazy)!
What made the decision a bit easier was that in round 24, it was a decision between starting Mzungu (114) v Bulldogs or Kruezer (24) v Saints. To me, starting Mzungu over Kruezer was actually an acknowledgement that I was wrong!! However, I at least followed my own rules such as Rule 15: If you make a Mistake, Acknowledge It and Fix It. I couldn’t fix the Kruezer problem as I didn’t have any spare trades left, therefore I had to create a makeshift solution, ie starting ‘rookies’ I. Smith/Mzungu over the ‘premium’ Kruezer.
Kruezer – Sliding Shaw
Now if I didn’t create some makeshift stategies, such as starting Mzungu over Kruezer in round 24, Kruezer would have haunted my SuperCoach career for the rest of my life. However, the twist is the Kruezer trade could possibly have won me SuperCoach 2011.
I traded Griffen to Kruezer in round 14, which was my 22nd trade and saved the last 2 trades for long-term injuries. I was very annoyed in the next few weeks when Kruezer was scoring less than Griffen and that I could have traded in H. Shaw and finalised my team with a 7th final premium backman. You may recall my 7th backman was either Lower, Stanley and Heppell. If it was not for the Kruezer trade, I would have got rid of Lower, Stanley or Heppell for H. Shaw. It would of meant I would be playing 1 short in the backline due to H. Shaw’s 8 week holiday, which would of meant I would have lost the $50,000. While it was annoying to have Kruezer’s weekly low score, I eventually used I.Smith/Mzungu’s score to mitigate my losses.
I haven’t done the exact calculations, but let’s just say I don’t think I could have won with trading Heppell/Lower/Stanley to Shaw. The SuperCoach Gods work in mysterious ways as I was cursing the SuperCoach Gods for Kruezer’s entrapment scores of 67 and 150, when in fact that decision may have saved me. The only reason why the Kruezer trade looked horrible was Griffen was scoring more than Kruezer in the next few weeks.
[R5] Trading In and Out Jack Riewoldt: The Cash Cow Premium
- [R5] L. Tapscott >J. Riewoldt ($343,900) (Trade In)
- who then scored 136, 109, 94, 75, 104, 63 (ave 97) - [R11] J. Riewoldt ($392,900) > T. Mzungu (Trade Out)
- who then scored [bye], 57, 87, 73, 72, 59, 88, 68, 94, 97,107, 97, 60 (ave 80)
The Best [Non]Trade: Joel Selwood
As you may be aware, Selwood had an early low score of 24 when he was stretched off during the round 1 game against St Kilda. Based on my calculations, I traded in Joel Selwood at price of average 104 compared to his start price of average 117. What a perfect trade it had seemed, unfortunately for me (and other Selwood owners) in round 12, Selwood was suspended for 3 weeks, which he tried to reduce it to 2 weeks, but instead the suspension was increased to 4 weeks.
This is when it gets a bit strategic and I had to roll the dice.
I had Selwood out for 4 weeks then 5 games then the Geelong bye and 2 games, therefore I had Selwood playing for me 7 out of the final 12 games. Therefore, the logical decision for me and everyone else was to trade out Selwood. If you have read most of my articles, you will know I don’t base my Supercoach decision on rational logic, but rather instinct and a bit of ‘out in left field’ thinking. I decided to keep Selwood as I noticed that after the 4 week suspension, Selwood had games against Lions, Richmond, Melbourne, Gold Coast and Adelaide. I was hoping Selwood would average 150 in the next 5 games, but unfortunately it was 118. In the last 7 games, Selwood did average a serviceable but not great average of 116, which appears to be a harsh assessment, however when you get to utilise Selwood’s score for only 7 of the last 12 games, you expect a higher return. I suspected many people would have traded out Selwood, but from what I’ve read there was no material advantage as the games that Selwood did not play, I.Smith and/or Mzungu were my replacments and they averaged about 90+ in those 4 weeks, which was just as good as the players who others traded Selwood out for.
People wondered whether my decision not to trade out Selwood was by design or because of my lack of trades. I didn’t trade out Selwood as I looked at Selwood’s next 5 games after he returned from his 4 week vacation and was expecting (and hoping) Selwood would average 150. Furthemore, I wanted to create a ‘positive POD’ by not trading out Selwood as I knew everyone had to trade out Selwood due to my scoreboard pressure. However, you may be wondering ‘why would I want to create a POD when I was the ranked 4th overall? I actually didn’t want to create a POD, but rather a positive POD. I believed Selwood would absolutely smash out monster scores in his first 5 games back., which didn’t occur. However, at least, the beauty of creating this POD was I didn’t actually do anything, as other teams were trading out Selwood, that in itself created the POD for me. The key here is not a POD, but that Selwood was a positive POD.
Rule 16: POD is good, if it’s a positive POD, it’s bad otherwise (Very Important)
I think it was widely assumed that the underlying reason why I did not trade out Selwood was due to my limited amount of remaining trades, namely 6 trades. That was far from the truth as in round 13, I actually still used 2 trades for optional upgrades (and not necessary trades), which I think was the turning point:
- S. Iles > P. Chapman
- J. Darling > B. Harvey
A Team of Dual Position Players (including I.Mzungu, I. Smith, I. Callinan)
I knew by trading hard and leaving 2 trades left for the last 10 rounds, I needed some form of insurance. Supported by the 3 man bench in each position, I decide to have a team full of DPPs. My round 15 team was:
B: 2 premiums, Goddard*, Gibbs*, Deledio*, Scotland*, Stanley (Heppell*, Lower, Hunt)
M: 6 premiums (B. Jacobs*, Callinan*, I. Smith*)
R: 2 premiums (J. Tippett*, B. McCauley)
F: 2 premiums, Goodes*, O’Keefe*, Pavlich*, Chapman*, Harvey* (Mzungu*, Petrie*, lol)
I only had 2 trades left and was a premium short in the backline, therefore I need to ensure my team was full of DPPs to cover me everywhere. Of importance was I had Petrie as an extra premium who was on the bench. It may appear that Petrie was wasted on my bench as my 8th forward, who occassionally would be used as backup. In fact, Petrie played every game!!
Every round had a bye and so long as the bye was from a player in the midfield, forward or ruck, Petrie’s services would be utilised every game. Therefore, that extra premium meant I was up a premium every week on others. It could be argued that Petrie as the 8th forward with DPP attributes of Fwd/Ruc could only cover the forward and rucks, which was in fact incorrect.
Petrie was also covering my premium midfielder. For example, Boyd had the bye in round 20, therefore I would switch Callinan from the midfield for Goodes, and Goodes would start on the ground in the midfield and Boyd would move to the midfield bench. Petrie would take Goodes’ forward position. Therefore, the wasted premium on the bench of Petrie was actually used every game. I could have tried to bring in another premium in my backline, but I was effectively rotating Stanley, Heppell and Lower as my 7th defender and they were producing respectable SuperCoach scores.
Most will know the NBA Sixth Man Award, which is awarded to the NBA’s most valuable player for his team coming off the bench as a substitute. Using the basketball term, but slightly adapted, Petrie was the winner of the SuperCoach Eighth Man Award in 2011.
On a side issue, you also notice that I have 3 bench midfielders with DPPs attributes, but more importantly, one of them was connected with the backline, which gave me some flexibility.
Summary of Trading
I believe the important thing about Trading in 2011 was:
- Aggressive Trading
- Using the Byes to your advantage (ie trading around the byes)
- Using the Bench to your advantage (ie having 3 DPPs in the midfield bench)
The question then becomes based on Impromptu’s last two articles, he have indicated that he had an average team, his trading was poor, he wasted trades, so then the question is
‘Did Impromptu win SuperCoach 2011 purely by good luck?‘
My finale article of 2011 will be on ‘How I Won SuperCoach 2011?’, where I discuss everything including luck.
I know there is a major risk with my next article, but as most people will know I don’t hide behind anything (and am open about discussions on luck) because I stand by my decison making process (rightly or wrongly). It will be the ‘Grand Finale of SuperCoach 2011!‘ and a hello to SuperCoach 2012!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article has been migrated from SuperCoach Scores Blog to SuperCoach Scores Forum.