Position Midfielder Discussion
- Thread starter IDIG
- Start date
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 3,912
- Likes
- 12,177
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Cripps might be one to suffer a bit from the reduced game time given his time on ground has been so large (and his minutes look set to go down), but at the same time he would be one to benefit from scaling as his impact as Carlton's best player is astronomical.
Ultimately I think these rules hurt him to a small extent but I don't want to start changing premium midfielders I was set on just because of them, as thats dangerous and could cloud my judgement.
It does make a few guys like Merrett and Matt Crouch a bit more valuable given their low tog.
Ultimately I think these rules hurt him to a small extent but I don't want to start changing premium midfielders I was set on just because of them, as thats dangerous and could cloud my judgement.
It does make a few guys like Merrett and Matt Crouch a bit more valuable given their low tog.
A lot of theories on the shortened game time going around. Rightly or wrongly, after some thought, I think I'm leaning towards the view that the more "impact" and high CP% players (rather than the accumulators) will benefit from shorter games.
This has led to Bont over Macrae for me. Leaning towards Fyfe over Jelly and also slotting in Oliver. Danger/Cripps I think both have high CP% so will be fine.
Neale had high TOG but also high CP%. Not sure where it leaves him so I've taken him out.
Dunkley had a high CP% last season, so I think I'm less against starting him. But there was some analysis that suggested only one of Bont/Dunkley go big together so probably not a good move to start both.
So after having Macrae/JKelly all preseason (and Neale for a lot of it too), I'm considering the more "impact" combination of:
Fyfe, Cripps, Danger, Bont, Oliver
It could all just be the last minute craziness kicking in. But it's where I'm at currently!
This has led to Bont over Macrae for me. Leaning towards Fyfe over Jelly and also slotting in Oliver. Danger/Cripps I think both have high CP% so will be fine.
Neale had high TOG but also high CP%. Not sure where it leaves him so I've taken him out.
Dunkley had a high CP% last season, so I think I'm less against starting him. But there was some analysis that suggested only one of Bont/Dunkley go big together so probably not a good move to start both.
So after having Macrae/JKelly all preseason (and Neale for a lot of it too), I'm considering the more "impact" combination of:
Fyfe, Cripps, Danger, Bont, Oliver
It could all just be the last minute craziness kicking in. But it's where I'm at currently!
Not directly...just scanning through comments re effects of shorten games. Apology if you took that personally.
My take is that it reduces the number of 'acts' during a game, disposal, tackles, HOs, goals, etc. This will be more evident in Fantasy/DT formats, however, in SC the total points awarded for each game will be calibrated to approx. 3,300/game through a scaling factor. This scaling factor is the big unknown as it's very dynamic depending on the act and situation of the game.
Players who've exhibit a good ratio (SC v DT) over the years have more often than not benefited from this scaling adjustment, think Fyfe, Danger & Bont to name a few. That's what I mean by looking at players with good historical ratio.
My take is that it reduces the number of 'acts' during a game, disposal, tackles, HOs, goals, etc. This will be more evident in Fantasy/DT formats, however, in SC the total points awarded for each game will be calibrated to approx. 3,300/game through a scaling factor. This scaling factor is the big unknown as it's very dynamic depending on the act and situation of the game.
Players who've exhibit a good ratio (SC v DT) over the years have more often than not benefited from this scaling adjustment, think Fyfe, Danger & Bont to name a few. That's what I mean by looking at players with good historical ratio.
