Opinion Questions For Rowsus

[Rowsus]

I am keen to load up the mids and forwards as much as possible and am willing to take a few punts in the back on cheaper players. Happy to hold 3 - 5players in the backs that can churn out 70 - 80 for the first 8 -10 weeks if it means I can have a midfield of Ablett, Pendles, Rockliff, Cotchin, Ziebell, Beams, Shuey and Rookie.

If I dont think I can find the backs that will do the job I may need to re visit this idea

I'm not sure you are going down a good road, if you are looking for players priced $200-$340k to get 75/week. It's not much more than Def Rookies get, for double the price. You will be using a lot money that could be better used elsewhere. Still here are all the players from last year, that were Defenders priced between $200k and $340k, and averaged 70-80 for the season.

Carlisle - 76 ave, priced at $338,600
Otten - 75 ave, priced at $276,500
Williams M - 75 ave, priced at $274,700
Roberton - 75 ave, priced at $254,100
Shaw M - 73 ave, priced at $317,600
Suban - 73 ave, priced at $276,400
Gilham - 72 ave, priced at $279,100
Murphy T - 71 ave, priced at $293,200

 

[yakka]

Gday Rowsus,
I've taken your advise on not taking to many risks in regards to mid pricer numbers in my starting line up.
Then that leaves me with Daisy,Gunston,Wright.M and sandy.
But my dilemma is that I realy don't have faith in the premos in the defence or in the forward line bar 2 Danger and Mitchell.
At the same time there's not many rookies in these line either, maybe a few more in the defence, there's doubt on a number of rookies that were expected to line up round 1 (fuller, Laidler).
I think that there's a lot of value in the midfield both in fallen premiums an good rookies..
So therefore load up on rookies in mid 4 or 5.
Then Daisy, Deams, muphy, Shuey,cotchin.
aaaaaaannnnndden What about Wattson,Swan,Pendles and GAZ...
Im loosing my mind..
This is my team anyway.
Defenders
Mitchell, S Simpson, Hiberd, M McDonald, Langford, M Langdon, T, Fuller,Geogiou
Midfield
Ablett, Beams, cotchin, Shuey, Thomas, Mitchie, Polec, X Ellis, D Dunstan and Crouch
Rucks
Nick Nat, Sandilands, A Thurlow, Currie
Forwards
Dangerfield, , Cyril, Franklin, Gunston , Matt Wright, kennedy.B, Rohan, Kennedy Harris.J
Left over cash 423,400 is that way to much with this king of strategy?

There's a few calculated risks with my " UP GRADE & CASH COW" selections M Wright, Daisy & Sandy
So my first 3 backman are all hopefully keepers, with Simpson spending more time up the ground this year. So I'm hoping for a possible 95>105 avg this year.
Hibberd to continue rise and become a top 6 defender.. 95> 105 avg..
In the middle I've gone with " Captain Lock In " Gazza,Cotchin and then no player over 500.
Beams should get to 110 avg and Shuey is my " Break out player " I guess..
Rucks I've gone a very popular structure Nick Nat and Sandy.
Forward line Danger and no player over 500.
Buddy had a bad year..
Cyril if fit will become an ellite forward this year. Avg 100+
"BIG GUN'' Gunston should ave 95+ ready for a big year 50 goals+..
Wright Has huge potential and a very high scoring range when not tagging or the SUB like he was for the most of the last season.. round 20 Fremantle 2012
K HB Pos Mk Tk Free G.B
22 15 37 6 3 1/0 2.0 170 sc

So that's my analysis on my team.

 

[Rowsus]

Gday Rowsus,
I've taken your advise on not taking to many risks in regards to mid pricer numbers in my starting line up.
Defenders
Mitchell, S Simpson, Hiberd, M McDonald, Langford, M Langdon, T, Fuller,Geogiou
Midfield
Ablett, Beams, cotchin, Shuey, Thomas, Mitchie, Polec, X Ellis, D Dunstan and Crouch
Rucks
Nick Nat, Sandilands, A Thurlow, Currie
Forwards
Dangerfield, , Cyril, Franklin, Gunston , Matt Wright, kennedy.B, Rohan, Kennedy Harris.J
Left over cash 423,400 is that way to much with this king of strategy?

Hi yakka,
it's a good looking team. I think the Michie, Polec, Ellis no Martin Midfield will become more popular as we get closer to round 1. It's certainly how my Mid looks, anyway.
I think $400k is way too much to leave sitting there. It's sitting there for upgrades, so why not make an upgrade now? Just off the top of my head. Rohan to Martin D. That would still leave you $50k in reserve.

 

[Krieks]

Hey Rowsus,

I posted this in the rucks discussion but interested in your thoughts. (It's just a straight copy and paste job from that thread I hope you don't mind)

I've been sitting on the Lobbe/Sandi/Hickey/King combo for a while now.. barely touched my rucks with all my constant team changing. Starting to toy with a different idea.
At the moment my rucks read as above, and my forwards are:

Danger, Martin, Franklin, Pavlick, Rookie, Rookie (rookie, rookie) - for arguments sake we'll assume like most my rookie line up isn't locked just yet.
My new idea is to take a ruck/forward line of:

R - Lobbe, Sandi (Thurlow, King)

F - Danger, Martin, Franklin, Pavlich, Hale, Rookie (rookie, rookie)

Essentially instead of having Hickey as cover and playing 2 forward rookies, I'm using Hale as potential cover for Sandi and will only need to use him if Thurlow doesn't play. So if Sandi keeps playing injury free I only play 1 forward rookie.. If he doesn't I play the same 2 I would have played if I had Hickey as ruck cover instead. I figure the points I get from Hale v fwd rookie is better than the wasted money in Hickey being on the bench and playing 2 forward rookies.

Thanks!

 

[Hairy]

Hi Rowsus

What should I spend my 50k on?

Cheers
Hairy

 

[Fresh]

Hi Rowsus

What should I spend my 50k on?

Cheers
Hairy

Donate it to the Fresh Foundation

*Donations are not tax deductible

 

[Schmicko]

Hi Rowsus

What should I spend my 50k on?

Cheers
Hairy

...could give half to Rowsus!!!

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus

What should I spend my 50k on?

Cheers
Hairy

Donate it to the Fresh Foundation

*Donations are not tax deductible

...could give half to Rowsus!!!

Half might be a little too much ....... might

Seriously, $5k on a party, $10k on a holiday, $10k on luxuries for the home, $15k on debt reduction, and the last $10k to be sat on for futures decisions.

Some might say $5k for a part is a bit too excessive, but by the time you buy me a return ticket to come along, it only leaves you $3,500.

 

[OzRulesFootball]

Hi Rowsus

What should I spend my 50k on?

Cheers
Hairy

It won't be YOUR money.

It will be your wife's

You know it is true....

 

[Rowsus]

It won't be YOUR money.

It will be your wife's

You know it is true....

Punters Rule #1 - never tell the wife you won money.

Punters Rule #2 - if she finds out you won money, tell you won half as much as you actually did, OR, if your big mouthed mate has let the amount of your win slip out of his mouth in front of your wife, quickly add "Yeah, but don't forget I had to share half of that with Johno!".

 

[Rowsus]

Hey Rowsus,

I posted this in the rucks discussion but interested in your thoughts. (It's just a straight copy and paste job from that thread I hope you don't mind)

I've been sitting on the Lobbe/Sandi/Hickey/King combo for a while now.. barely touched my rucks with all my constant team changing. Starting to toy with a different idea.
At the moment my rucks read as above, and my forwards are:

Danger, Martin, Franklin, Pavlick, Rookie, Rookie (rookie, rookie) - for arguments sake we'll assume like most my rookie line up isn't locked just yet.
My new idea is to take a ruck/forward line of:

R - Lobbe, Sandi (Thurlow, King)

F - Danger, Martin, Franklin, Pavlich, Hale, Rookie (rookie, rookie)

Essentially instead of having Hickey as cover and playing 2 forward rookies, I'm using Hale as potential cover for Sandi and will only need to use him if Thurlow doesn't play. So if Sandi keeps playing injury free I only play 1 forward rookie.. If he doesn't I play the same 2 I would have played if I had Hickey as ruck cover instead. I figure the points I get from Hale v fwd rookie is better than the wasted money in Hickey being on the bench and playing 2 forward rookies.

Thanks!

To be honest, I don't feel I am any closer to finalising my Rucks than I was in October!
I desperately want to avoid Sandi, as I feel you are forced into a compromise to gain cover if you have him, and your scenarios above eximplify that perfectly. I too have had the Lobbe/Sandi/Hickey/King combination for much of the last month. Hickey will make some money, and the loopholing with King could be beneficial, but it's a lot of money on the bench. I don't like picking Hale/Dixon either. Basically, I don't think you should choose a player for DPP cover purposes, unless you would pick that player as he stands, ie in this case, would you pick Hale in your Fwds if he wasn't a DPP? I doubt it. Either a compromised Ruck bench, or a compromised Fwd line. Some will say "Just go without cover, and trade Sandi if problems hit" I think that is just as compromised. What if he is injured before he plays 3 games/gets a price rise? Which Rucks can you afford at his price? No one you'd be happy to stick with, that's for sure. So if it is too hard to make an uncompromised side with Sandi in, then leave him out. It might be the answer, but if he plays 7 or 8 games like the Sandi of old, you are giving up a HUGE advantage to the Coaches that have him. If you are locked into Sandi, I am not sure which of the compromises is better. If forced to choose, I'd go....... Hale? for the flexibilty.

 

[Krieks]

To be honest, I don't feel I am any closer to finalising my Rucks than I was in October!
I desperately want to avoid Sandi, as I feel you are forced into a compromise to gain cover if you have him, and your scenarios above eximplify that perfectly. I too have had the Lobbe/Sandi/Hickey/King combination for much of the last month. Hickey will make some money, and the loopholing with King could be beneficial, but it's a lot of money on the bench. I don't like picking Hale/Dixon either. Basically, I don't think you should choose a player for DPP cover purposes, unless you would pick that player as he stands, ie in this case, would you pick Hale in your Fwds if he wasn't a DPP? I doubt it. Either a compromised Ruck bench, or a compromised Fwd line. Some will say "Just go without cover, and trade Sandi if problems hit" I think that is just as compromised. What if he is injured before he plays 3 games/gets a price rise? Which Rucks can you afford at his price? No one you'd be happy to stick with, that's for sure. So if it is too hard to make an uncompromised side with Sandi in, then leave him out. It might be the answer, but if he plays 7 or 8 games like the Sandi of old, you are giving up a HUGE advantage to the Coaches that have him. If you are locked into Sandi, I am not sure which of the compromises is better. If forced to choose, I'd go....... Hale? for the flexibilty.

Thanks Rowsus!
I have looked at building a side without sandi but he keeps coming back as at his price he's a steal. With a massive * next to his name! 100% agree that putting him in is a huge risk as it forces you to make another decision you aren't happy with (either of the 3 scenarios above).

If only there was a better DPP forward! (Cox anyone?)

Ah well still plenty of time to work it out, hopefully a rookie ruck starts dominating and becomes acceptable cover!

 

[tracygrims]

Ah well still plenty of time to work it out, hopefully a rookie ruck starts dominating and becomes acceptable cover!

Thurlow should get a game until Bellchambers gets back, at which point Sandilands should have at least done his job of earning a few bucks?

 

[Rowsus]

Thurlow should get a game until Bellchambers gets back, at which point Sandilands should have at least done his job of earning a few bucks?

I have considered sitting Thurlow at R3, as there appears to be no suitable DPP link. I'm just worried that his scores will be low, and he is a huge vest risk, which means his cover value is not great. Still better than a donut, and might save you trading Sandi out if he is confirmed as missing 1 week, but still not great.

 

[Philzsay]

Punters Rule #1 - never tell the wife you won money.

Punters Rule #2 - if she finds out you won money, tell you won half as much as you actually did, OR, if your big mouthed mate has let the amount of your win slip out of his mouth in front of your wife, quickly add "Yeah, but don't forget I had to share half of that with Johno!".

Or Punters Rule #2A - Alternatively say "Yeah but I won it using one of the bookies promotional free bets. I can't collect as those bstrds require me to turn it all over not once but twice!!"

 

[baz_machine]

Hi Rowsus,

Long time listener (over 3 years), first time caller.

I had a thought about Mick Malthouse and the way his teams score points. Micks teams play a very team defense game which I think lends itself to very even scores across the board (apart from the SC superstars in Swan and Pendlebury).

Now my though is, does this "eveness" of scoring suggest that Carlton players (ie Murphy) won't have as a high ceiling as they did under Ratten?

 

[Rowsus]

Hi Rowsus,

Long time listener (over 3 years), first time caller.

I had a thought about Mick Malthouse and the way his teams score points. Micks teams play a very team defense game which I think lends itself to very even scores across the board (apart from the SC superstars in Swan and Pendlebury).

Now my though is, does this "eveness" of scoring suggest that Carlton players (ie Murphy) won't have as a high ceiling as they did under Ratten?

Hi baz, welcome aboard.
You are right, that MM plays a defensive structure, but I think there is slightly more to it than that. I think he is heading towards building a similar structure at Carlton, as he had at Collingwood. Already we can see that Walker played a Heath Shaw type role for much of last season. I think part of his structure is getting the ball into the "right hands" coming out of, or at half back. These players become preferred targets for want of a better label. Some will say "every team does that", but Collingwood under MM nearly perfected it. If he continues to build Carlton into a Collingwood V2.0, then the likes of Murphy, Gibbs, Robbo etc will start to benefit, SC-wise. I don't think there is any fingers to point at the Coach, or his game plan, if Carltons better players can't lift their scores.

 

[siwel]

ROWSUS

Question re Paul Roos
ASSUMPTION - he will employ a similar game structure to the one he had at the Swans

Who scored well when Roos started coaching? He started in 2002, this is my 3rd year in SC and I dont think the game goes back that far but maybe you have or can access stats from back in the day (even DT stats)

Failing the success of this are you able to look at who has been the highest scoring players at the Swans in the last 5 years. I am more concerned with the position types to hopefully gain an insight to what positions excel with Roos as coach (I think def will be up there with his game style)

 

[PC]

I have a question for the Guru, Rowsus.

Is it better to have a punt on a 'breakout' in the fwd line and hope for a keeper (say Dahlhaus, Darling, Pav, Zorko, Gunston etc)?
OR
Knowing that there is a hole in a team due to injuries (lets call them Geelong), go for a cheaper player that may take up the slack? (thinking Caddy, Gurthrie, Varcoe, Thurlow etc)

Cheers in advance.

 

[Rowsus]

SIWEL

Paul Roos was Coach at Sydney from 2002 to 2010. SuperCoach started in 2005.
Before you look at these lists, keep in mind the face of SuperCoach scoring changed a little bit from the early day to what it is today.
2005: Hall 132, Kirk 114, Goodes 107, Bolton J 105.
2006: Goodes 120, Hall 118, O'Keefe 108, Kirk 105, Bolton J 101.
2007: Kirk 109, Goodes 105, Malceski 101.
2008: Goodes 106, Schmidt 105*, Kirk 105, O'Keefe 104. * only played 1 game!
2009: Goodes 114, O'Keefe 108, Bolton J 102.
2010: Bolton J 101, Jack 100.
That's a complete list of every player to average 100+ under Roos. It's not too many, and I suspect, given he played a defensive, high possession game, most people would think there would be more. The thing is, it was a "scatter gun" high possession game, where the ball was shared a lot, and not put into specific players hands too much. Given it was high possession, and defensive, how did Sydneys Defenders go?
2005: Kennelly 86, Bolton C 82, Barry 80.
2006: Barry 85, Bolton C 84, Kennelly 82.
2007: Malceski 101, Bolton C 88, Kennelly 85, Barry 83, Roberts-Thompson 82.
2008: Mattner 98, Kennelly 85, Bolton C 81.
2009: Mattner 84.
2010: Malceski 96, Grundy 89.
That's every Defender to average 80+ under Roos.
So what do we take from this? Roos isn't an overly "friendly" Coach for SC Premiums. If you can find the best Defender, you can do ok, and no Midfielders seem to dominate. Goodes and Hall did ok, but they were focal points under what seemed to be a slightly different scoring system. I would concentrate more on Melbournes lower priced players, and leave most of the Mid priced (do they have any high priced players?!) alone. Watts might be the Defender to target, and Tyson, Michie and Kennedy-Harris the lower priced players to go for. I am hoping Salem might be a target later in the season. That's about it, I'd leave the rest alone, including Vince and Cross.