Position Forward Discussion

[Herbie66]

might just swap Steven for Jack.

Need to start some players I am happy to rotate out after 2-4 games.

Ideally you still need to let your bench cows have a change to moo before trading them out.

Hello to Fyfe , J Kelly , Sloane Ranger , Tobias Greene & Nic Nat.

Might even start Brodie Smith now.

Going to be like the NBA/IPL and rotate premiums in and out.

 

[Grundogging]

Anyone taking a gamble on Ben Crocker at 150k?

Might have to depending on team selections tomorrow. As was the case at Collingwood he's probably just good enough to have a moderate impact in games and score in the 50-70ppg range.

In a team where none of the kids are really putting their hands up if Nicks sees Crocker as a solid citizen and good enough to get a game early then he might be able to stick for for a few rounds until one of them does put their hand up.

 

[Herbie66]

Might have to depending on team selections tomorrow. As was the case at Collingwood he's probably just good enough to have a moderate impact in games and score in the 50-70ppg range.

In a team where none of the kids are really putting their hands up if Nicks sees Crocker as a solid citizen and good enough to get a game early then he might be able to stick for for a few rounds until one of them does put their hand up.

How do these kids put their hand up though with no SANFL ?

If Crocker is named Round 1 it would be his spot to lose.

 

[Grundogging]

Who's everyone replacing J.Steven with? Or are you just going to pick him and hope he plays from round 2 onwards....

I ended up shuffling forwards and mids a little and ended up enough cash and space to go with Doc at D3, Oliver at M5, and Devon at F4.

 

[Grundogging]

How do these kids put their hand up though with no SANFL ?

If Crocker is named Round 1 it would be his spot to lose.

You know as well as I do that he's an fairly limited footballer - there are a few kids the just need to get some continuity on the training track and an opportunity from the potential compressed schedule over the first 4 weeks (they're talking about possibly squeezing 6 weeks into 4).

This year teams are just going to have to take a bit more of a leap of faith and give kids a shot based of training track form much more than they ever have.

p.s. It's not like every club will be locking in their round 1 team going forward and only making changes when forced to by injury.

 

[Herbie66]

You know as well as I do there he's an fairly limited footballer - there are a few kids the just need to get some continuity on the training track and an opportunity from the potential compressed schedule over the first 4 weeks (they're talking about possibly squeezing 6 weeks into 4).

This year team's are just going to have to take a bit more of a leap of faith and give kids a shot based of training track form much more than they ever have.

They haven't given much away in the news the last few days as to which way the 2 teams are shaping up.

Dixon & Lycett were still training away from the main group.

Drew recovering from foot surgery.

The Crows are still saying publically at least they don't know how the forward line will look.

If they do go with compressed games teams won't be training too much at all , be all just recovery/rehab then preparation with probably a light 30 minute ball touch session in between.

Be interesting if they try and organise some practice matches against each other each week just to get some match conditioning into all of their lists.

 

[Bomber18]

Would love to give the little master the swan song he deserves.

I’m questioning the Whitfield pick, shorter quarters really limits him of the opportunity to use his running power late.

The shortened quarters is such a ridiculously huge change to the game that I can’t quite wrap my head around it yet. I foresee a good amount of changes to my side after tomorrow nights test run.

We do potentially have 1-2 games as a test run don’t we! Interesting how the actual season games are now almost like those preseason rule change experiment games.

T.Lynch is the one I’m wanting to replace JSteven with but also have no idea if the shorter games completely limit his ceiling. Hard to commit first up so I think I’ve decided that I just can’t take him.

I’m pretty set on my players from the first two games so can use information from those games to tweak my side on Saturday morning! Also wondering how the shorter games affect Grundy...

 

[Kidult]

Wish Ziebell/Heeney didn't have an injury coming into the season. I would have backed either one of them to get some big scores being a Goal kicking mid/fwd

 

[Monya Meow Meow]

I'm having troubles replacing Steven without disrupting my entire team balance unless I drop Gawn to Goldy or something.
Is it worth looking at Darcy MacPherson to save myself the hassle?

 

[armesy]

We do potentially have 1-2 games as a test run don’t we! Interesting how the actual season games are now almost like those preseason rule change experiment games.

T.Lynch is the one I’m wanting to replace JSteven with but also have no idea if the shorter games completely limit his ceiling. Hard to commit first up so I think I’ve decided that I just can’t take him.

I’m pretty set on my players from the first two games so can use information from those games to tweak my side on Saturday morning! Also wondering how the shorter games affect Grundy...

With games shorter by 20% you can only estimate less goals kicked and therefore more supercoach points allocated to them. Possibly makes the goal kickers more valuable. Again, we are totally guessing and this year is going to be a wild ride.

 

[Zagbag]

With games shorter by 20% you can only estimate less goals kicked and therefore more supercoach points allocated to them. Possibly makes the goal kickers more valuable. Again, we are totally guessing and this year is going to be a wild ride.

No, that is not how it works. There will be exactly the same number of goals kicked, relative to time on field.

Unless we see a dramatic change in how teams are approaching the game tactically.

That's like saying there will be 20% less tackles, so more points allocated to them. Or 20% less kicks, so more points allocated to them. All the stats will be reduced in the same proportion. Nothing will stick out and have more points awarded.

 

[Bomber18]

No, that is not how it works. There will be exactly the same number of goals kicked, relative to time on field.

Unless we see a dramatic change in how teams are approaching the game tactically.

That's like saying there will be 20% less tackles, so more points allocated to them. Or 20% less kicks, so more points allocated to them. All the stats will be reduced in the same proportion. Nothing will stick out and have more points awarded.

Yeah, I think that’s what I was thinking too. But there would be about 25 mins less opportunity for a fwd to kick a goal. Could be more swing than ever for a KPF. If the fwd gets goals early in the game and ends up with say 5-6, it could be worth 150+. But if they go quiet, it could be really low.

 

[Zagbag]

Yeah, I think that’s what I was thinking too. But there would be about 25 mins less opportunity for a fwd to kick a goal. Could be more swing than ever for a KPF. If the fwd gets goals early in the game and ends up with say 5-6, it could be worth 150+. But if they go quiet, it could be really low.

Yes, there's 25 minutes less opportunity for everone to do everything. Nothing makes Forwards any differently treated.

 

[TommyGobbler]

Yes, there's 25 minutes less opportunity for everone to do everything. Nothing makes Forwards any differently treated.

Goals are more valuable in a low scoring game though.

Eg if a players kick 5 goals in two games and the final scores are:
Game 1: 140 v 120
Game 2: 60 v 70

5 goals have had a greater impact in Game 2 so no doubt would score higher in Game 2. The length of game is irrelevant to the value of goals in a scoring sense because there's still 3300 SC points allocated.

 

[Zagbag]

Goals are more valuable in a low scoring game though.

Eg if a players kick 5 goals in two games and the final scores are:
Game 1: 140 v 120
Game 2: 60 v 70

5 goals have had a greater impact in Game 2 so no doubt would score higher in Game 2. The length of game is irrelevant to the value of goals in a scoring sense because there's still 3300 SC points allocated.

You're talking about games with a lower rate of scoring. That's not what's changing - what's changing is total time on ground.

The correct comparison would be

Game 1: 120 vs 80
Game 2: 90 vs 60

That is, everything reduced by 25%

Kicking 6 goals in Game 2 is the equivalent of kicking 8 goals in the Game 1 (the full game) - same proportion of goals kicked - same share of Supercoach points.

You can't halve the numbers of the total points - and leave the goals kicked to prove a point.

 

[Professor]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1240434580714209280

 

[TommyGobbler]

You're talking about games with a lower rate of scoring. That's not what's changing - what's changing is total time on ground.

The correct comparison would be

Game 1: 120 vs 80
Game 2: 90 vs 60

That is, everything reduced by 25%

Kicking 6 goals in Game 2 is the equivalent of kicking 8 goals in the Game 1 (the full game) - same proportion of goals kicked - same share of Supercoach points.

You can't halve the numbers of the total points - and leave the goals kicked to prove a point.

Okay yeah good point makes sense now.

 

[armesy]

No, that is not how it works. There will be exactly the same number of goals kicked, relative to time on field.

Unless we see a dramatic change in how teams are approaching the game tactically.

That's like saying there will be 20% less tackles, so more points allocated to them. Or 20% less kicks, so more points allocated to them. All the stats will be reduced in the same proportion. Nothing will stick out and have more points awarded.

Good point. I wasn't thinking that way. Cheers. Although doesn't it still stand that as a higher scoring action, kicking goals will be rewarded more in actual points by the reduced time.

For arguments sake A goal in the past is worth 8 points. Multiplied by 1.2 = 9.6. Increasing in value by 1.6points. Kick 3 x 1.2 = 3.6 (increase of .6)

Case could be made for intercept marks also as high scoring actions.

 

[BigRuss]

No, that is not how it works. There will be exactly the same number of goals kicked, relative to time on field.

Unless we see a dramatic change in how teams are approaching the game tactically.

That's like saying there will be 20% less tackles, so more points allocated to them. Or 20% less kicks, so more points allocated to them. All the stats will be reduced in the same proportion. Nothing will stick out and have more points awarded.

If it’s percentage based couldn’t they just add the reduced time percentage to every stats score value? If it’s 20% then everything is worth 20 percent more to fill out the 3300. HTA worth 6 instead of 5 etc.

I’m not sure if the math checks out but would keep the scoring somewhat recognisable without scaling being relied too heavily upon. Would probably mean higher scoring actions like contested marks and goals get a slight boost but not enough to stand out.

 

[Erich1036]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1240434580714209280

Already been answered mate!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1240210152537518080