Discussion Structure, Strategy and Sacrifice

[Bomber18]

@Babylove brought up a great discussion point on strategy and structure which I think a few of us had started to debate in the Ruck thread. I have moved that discussion into this thread. Babylove's original post appears here in this thread and also quoted as follows. Discuss away!

Okay so this year more than any other year seems like strategy of structure is going to play a big part in the success or failure of teams this year.

In the past you could bank on a set and forget ruck combination, a 5 premium midfield and 2-3 premiums in the forward and back lines. Why? For starters there were always one or two mid premiums who were set to go super premium so you could afford to have 1-2 $600k and 3-4 $500k-$600k premiums. You could also bank on one or two premiums who were mid-rookie priced because of injury that you had to be on, and then there were the cheap rookies that you could rely on to have about 9 on the bench, including a couple at bargain basement rate like Tim Kelly. In fact some general rules were to not look at rookies over $150k unless they were an out of the box type like Walsh or Rowell, never put someone over $124k on your bench because it was wasted money and don't look at mid-pricers unless they were a premium at a mid-priced price because they let you down more often than they don't.

This year it's different. There $500-$600k premiums aren't there like they've been in the past, the rookies look risky, they either look like poor scorers or look like having poor job security (or both) and so you need to go for the more expensive rookies and mid-pricers to ensure your onfield team is reliable and you need to spend more on your bench. Which means sacrifices need to be made. Do you sacrifice your rucks or go with one less premium midfield (or both) to strengthen other lines? Do you go weak on your forward line or back line to strengthen the other and/or allow you to go fully loaded on your mid and ruck lines. Chances are you are going to have to go in with less premiums than in previous years, which means you need more trades to get your final team, unless you can pick your mid-pricers right.

Sorry for the essay, but I thought it'd be a good discussion to have (and maybe find if others like me are struggling to figure out where to cut?)

 

[stephen]

Gawn looked good and the prospect of betting against him is not as appealing to me as it was a day ago, but I don't think it's possible to close your mind to Naismith with the rookies looking as they are.

Like many I have been thinking a structure of 4 MID premos + Gawn or 5 MID premos + Naismith would be the way to go but as it stands I think the teams with 4 MID premos look extremely vulnerable, and could come crashing down quickly if Green was to be dropped early.

There are a few ways around it but if we started tomorrow I would be preferring the Naismith option.

 

[Bomber18]

I’m not saying it will compromise your team because I can’t say that until we are clearer on the rookies. I think how Steven looks may influence structures. And what Naismith scores next game of course.

I’m 60/40 on Naismith right this second.

For mine the cash cows are priority one. I’m not going to force dud rookie scores on field just to fit Gawn in because I think then you negate the Gawn benefit. But if we have options in the rooks then fine.

This is a great point. My current team has me taking Neale and Whitfield to kind of balance out the no Gawn risk given they are pretty safe picks to finish in their respective top brackets. But I was wondering whether if by doing so I am in fact "negating" the NO Gawn benefit by taking fully priced picks elsewhere.

I think it's the Neale/Naismith v Gawn/Bonar type XY that has me wondering whether the upside is there. Neale is ultra durable and should go 115 at 22 games. Bonar maybe is a 70 avg rookie but not sure on his JS as yet. If Bonar is selected in R1 after another 75-80 type Marsh game, I could see myself doing a big backflip on Naismith.

 

[Bomber18]

Gawn looked good and the prospect of betting against him is not as appealing to me as it was a day ago, but I don't think it's possible to close your mind to Naismith with the rookies looking as they are.

Like many I have been thinking a structure of 4 MID premos + Gawn or 5 MID premos + Naismith would be the way to go but as it stands I think the teams with 4 MID premos look extremely vulnerable, and could come crashing down quickly if Green was to be dropped early.

There are a few ways around it but if we started tomorrow I would be preferring the Naismith option.

Yes, this is exactly what makes me worried about the 4 MID premo side. I will need another good JS rookie to get me comfortable on that side. I raised Bonar as a potential option in my XY, let's see how it plays out.

 

[aps1]

Gawn looked good and the prospect of betting against him is not as appealing to me as it was a day ago, but I don't think it's possible to close your mind to Naismith with the rookies looking as they are.

Like many I have been thinking a structure of 4 MID premos + Gawn or 5 MID premos + Naismith would be the way to go but as it stands I think the teams with 4 MID premos look extremely vulnerable, and could come crashing down quickly if Green was to be dropped early.

There are a few ways around it but if we started tomorrow I would be preferring the Naismith option.

If a Bonar/Sier put their hand up then I could play 4 premium mids, but relying on 4 first year players for any amount of time feels risky.

I can also see some rookies being picked who may struggle to average 50. If you have 2 or 3 of these on field, then that will be fun.

 

[Bomber18]

If a Bonar/Sier put their hand up then I could play 4 premium mids, but relying on 4 first year players for any amount of time feels risky.

I can also see some rookies being picked who may struggle to average 50. If you have 2 or 3 of these on field, then that will be fun.

Completely agree. Seems like we are seeing it the same way this season @aps1 ! At least with Naismith, you have a high JS rookie. If Sier/Bonar got up in the mids as a 75 avg type with strong JS, I think I would take Gawn.

 

[aps1]

Completely agree. Seems like we are seeing it the same way this season @aps1 ! At least with Naismith, you have a high JS rookie. If Sier/Bonar got up in the mids as a 75 avg type with strong JS, I think I would take Gawn.

Yes, it has never been about not liking Gawn, just mitigating the rookie risk. I would love to have a side with Gawn in it.
Hopefully that a good thing we are in agreement!

 

[Hondo]

Yes, it has never been about not liking Gawn, just mitigating the rookie risk. I would love to have a side with Gawn in it.
Hopefully that a good thing we are in agreement!

Yes it’s about the bigger picture not just the merits of Naismith v Gawn. Of course Gawn wins the straight head to head.

 

[Hondo]

Has anybody constructed a side with Gawndy, 5 premium mids with no compromise (like Oliver over Macrae) and Whitfield/Dusty that they think will work?

 

[Herbie66]

Has anybody constructed a side with Gawndy, 5 premium mids with no compromise (like Oliver over Macrae) and Whitfield/Dusty that they think will work?

all rookie backline gets you 6 in the mids + Rowell & Pickett , Grundy & Gawn , Whitfield , Dusty , Heeney easily enough

using $ 117 k bench players can also get close to the same team

 

[stephen]

Has anybody constructed a side with Gawndy, 5 premium mids with no compromise (like Oliver over Macrae) and Whitfield/Dusty that they think will work?

would rely on going very thin in DEF, which I think is one of the viable options. Something like this I think would meet your criteria?


Personally if I went that route I would skip Whitfield and upgrade in DEF.

 

[Herbie66]

would rely on going very thin in DEF, which I think is one of the viable options. Something like this I think would meet your criteria?
View attachment 16188

Personally if I went that route I would skip Whitfield and upgrade in DEF.

I took out Sicily and Roberton to get a 6th premium mid & fitted in Heeney at F3.

 

[Bomber18]

Has anybody constructed a side with Gawndy, 5 premium mids with no compromise (like Oliver over Macrae) and Whitfield/Dusty that they think will work?

Just tried it with Erich's SC selector and this is what I got. It is possible but you end up taking 3 fwd rookies on field. It might work if we have some basement def rookies and maybe you could turn Noble/BZT/Crocker into JSteven.

 

[AngryAnt]

Has anybody constructed a side with Gawndy, 5 premium mids with no compromise (like Oliver over Macrae) and Whitfield/Dusty that they think will work?

Current side has Gawndy, 5 premo mids, Whitfield and Dusty in the forwards with D.Smith at F4, only made possible with a 2-1-5 backline (Docherty I consider a premo) and tentative with Hill at F5 and a rookie at F6 that might not work if the rookies aren't named accordingly, so not 100% sure it will work unless the rookies get up.

 

[Bomber18]

would rely on going very thin in DEF, which I think is one of the viable options. Something like this I think would meet your criteria?
View attachment 16188

Personally if I went that route I would skip Whitfield and upgrade in DEF.

Nice one. I probably am still worried about JS of TWatson and Gould but if they are named in R1 this one doesn't look too bad.

 

[jobeywatto]

You can get Gawndy + 5 premo mids + Whitfield with a 2-2-2 backline and a 3-1-2 forward line.

Something like:

Sicily, Docherty, Roberton, Noble, Williamson, Gould (Brander, 123k)
Macrae, Cripps, Dangerfield, Bontempelli, Oliver, Rowell, Green, Picket (Budarick, 117k, 117k)
Grundy, Gawn (117k)
Whitfield, Dusty, Dawson, Smith, Hill, Crocker (123k, 123k).

 

[lipsunited]

You can get Gawndy + 5 premo mids + Whitfield with a 2-2-2 backline and a 3-1-2 forward line.

Something like:

Sicily, Docherty, Roberton, Noble, Williamson, Gould (Brander, 123k)
Macrae, Cripps, Dangerfield, Bontempelli, Oliver, Rowell, Green, Picket (Budarick, 117k, 117k)
Grundy, Gawn (117k)
Whitfield, Dusty, Dawson, Smith, Hill, Crocker (123k, 123k).

Played with a similar structure. Can u name who those 117k and 123k mids and forwards would be? I can’t see many being named tbh.

 

[jobeywatto]

Played with a similar structure. Can u name who those 117k and 123k mids and forwards would be? I can’t see many being named tbh.

Midfield: Robertson, Mahoney, Close
Forward: Davis, Sturt, Cameron, Xerri, Curtis Taylor

Everyone will have to deal with these issues of 123k rookies no matter what structure. You can't have a bench filled with 150k+ guys.

 

[Bomber18]

You can get Gawndy + 5 premo mids + Whitfield with a 2-2-2 backline and a 3-1-2 forward line.

Something like:

Sicily, Docherty, Roberton, Noble, Williamson, Gould (Brander, 123k)
Macrae, Cripps, Dangerfield, Bontempelli, Oliver, Rowell, Green, Picket (Budarick, 117k, 117k)
Grundy, Gawn (117k)
Whitfield, Dusty, Dawson, Smith, Hill, Crocker (123k, 123k).

It does work but you have 3.4k left....

Cash will need to come from somewhere if Gould, 123k def rookie, Budarick, etc don't get named in R1.

 

[jobeywatto]

It does work but you have 3.4k left....

Cash will need to come from somewhere if Gould, 123k def rookie, Budarick, etc don't get named in R1.

You could probably downgrade Crocker if some 123k rookies pop up. I'm not sure he has the scoring potential or even the JS to pay a premium for.