News Herald Sun SuperCoach Articles

Joined
17 Mar 2016
Messages
830
Likes
3,748
So on the DPP front, is the way to play it:

Look for MID-only starters likely to gain another position to be able to swing them to the other line?

Potential options around players likely to gain RUC/FWD DPP.


Edit: Potentially the Impey / Ziebell / Hall types, thinking about it, gaining a line for FWD/DEF swing.

Horne-Francis and Daicos potentially marginally more attractive on the assumption they would gain FWD / DEF status respectively(?)

That the idea? Sorry, thinking out loud, probably makes for terrible reading
 
Last edited:
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
6,769
Likes
14,766
AFL Club
Fremantle
So on the DPP front, is the way to play it:

Look for MID-only starters likely to gain another position to be able to swing them to the other line?

Potential options around players likely to gain RUC/FWD DPP.

Horne-Francis and Daicos potentially marginally more attractive on the assumption they would gain FWD / DEF status respectively(?)

That the idea? Sorry, thinking out loud, probably makes for terrible reading
I can't see a reason to pick someone in advance of a predicted change from rnd 1.
The rookies are mostly about quick cash so the chance to add a position would only be a secondary thought if you had trouble splitting them. If a forward or defender gets mid status then we've been chasing them for years anyway and if a full priced mid gains status on another line then they are probably scoring less than their starting price. The only thing I can see worth considering is not to fill up a line too early in case of a must have change. Danger or Gawn as forwards, Pendles in the backline etc.
 
Joined
15 Sep 2012
Messages
475
Likes
217
AFL Club
Essendon
I can't see a reason to pick someone in advance of a predicted change from rnd 1.
The rookies are mostly about quick cash so the chance to add a position would only be a secondary thought if you had trouble splitting them. If a forward or defender gets mid status then we've been chasing them for years anyway and if a full priced mid gains status on another line then they are probably scoring less than their starting price. The only thing I can see worth considering is not to fill up a line too early in case of a must have change. Danger or Gawn as forwards, Pendles in the backline etc.
I agree with this, i would certainly not be picking someone as a mid only with the hope they get DPP. In fact i wouldn't really pick anyone with the hope of DPP as you just never know.
Wish i knew if Rowan Marshall was going to play forward heaps to start the season, gets DPP then Ryder gets injured.
Gawn as a forward...could you imagine, what a lock!
 
Joined
25 Jul 2012
Messages
47,728
Likes
107,810
AFL Club
Collingwood
So on the DPP front, is the way to play it:

Look for MID-only starters likely to gain another position to be able to swing them to the other line?

Potential options around players likely to gain RUC/FWD DPP.


Edit: Potentially the Impey / Ziebell / Hall types, thinking about it, gaining a line for FWD/DEF swing.

Horne-Francis and Daicos potentially marginally more attractive on the assumption they would gain FWD / DEF status respectively(?)

That the idea? Sorry, thinking out loud, probably makes for terrible reading
Was just thinking a rookie D/M starting could be very handy if Daicos (and Constable) both end up getting D/M status.

Pendlebury sits behind the ball often enough he could be a chance of D/M status as well.

I guess the trap could be if you set up initially planning for certain players to get DPP status and they end up not getting it.

Round 7 could be very handy though if coaches can do 1-2 upgrades (sideways) at that time , Round 13 changes very handy around the Byes.
 
Last edited:
Joined
22 Oct 2014
Messages
7,882
Likes
41,731
AFL Club
North Melb.
My interpretation is that the trade update is just the trade loophole legitimised. Is that right? If so I assume that mean you can use it even if you don’t have a trade left. This would make complete sense to me.

Don’t mind the other changes. However my instinct tells me that this year‘s winner will use the trade boost to upgrade their team early and get lucky in avoiding COVID problems. Those that keep them up their sleeve (just in case) will probably fall back relatively. Not sure I love that likely impact.
 
Joined
9 Feb 2015
Messages
9,440
Likes
57,908
AFL Club
West Coast
Was just thinking a rookie D/M starting could be very handy if Daicos (and Constable) both end up getting D/M status.

Pendlebury sits behind the ball often enough he could be a chance of D/M status as well.

I guess the trap could be if you set up initially planning for certain players to get DPP status and they end up not getting it.

Round 6 could be very handy though if coaches can do 1-2 upgrades (sideways) at that time , Round 12 changes very handy around the Byes.
Nathan O"Driscoll I think is the best chance of starting that is a def/mid - has been playing on a wing on Freo's scratch matches & performing quite well.
 
Joined
25 Jul 2012
Messages
47,728
Likes
107,810
AFL Club
Collingwood
Nathan O"Driscoll I think is the best chance of starting that is a def/mid - has been playing on a wing on Freo's scratch matches & performing quite well.
Cool

I have only really looked at Gould & McLennan (this is the year) , the 3 X D/F at this stage.

Seen Kemp & Perez mentioned plus the Collingwood & Essendon mature age draftees a few times.

Bodhi Uwland could be even better
 
Last edited:
Joined
24 Feb 2020
Messages
4,897
Likes
13,335
AFL Club
Collingwood
I can't see a reason to pick someone in advance of a predicted change from rnd 1.
The rookies are mostly about quick cash so the chance to add a position would only be a secondary thought if you had trouble splitting them. If a forward or defender gets mid status then we've been chasing them for years anyway and if a full priced mid gains status on another line then they are probably scoring less than their starting price. The only thing I can see worth considering is not to fill up a line too early in case of a must have change. Danger or Gawn as forwards, Pendles in the backline etc.
It does open up all sorts of possibilities, looking at you Marshall.
 
Joined
8 Oct 2018
Messages
10,254
Likes
36,906
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Agree with all except the increase in trades. This year I understand the Covid impact needs addressing. Hopefully next year it reverts back to 30 or less. Good trading is a key part of the game and needs to be rewarded.

With boost you might be able to spend your trades before bye rounds.... Not a good thing, though I am sure some will do it.
Might as well just make it 2 trades per week ... quickly heading to an AFL Fantasy format ....
 
Last edited:
Joined
18 Jul 2016
Messages
3,771
Likes
26,262
AFL Club
Sydney
Hard to pick any of them. All too expensive to make quick cash and just short on average. With Hayden Young, how often have two defenders from the same team been worth picking? Maybe Rance and Houli, but Rance was a very unusual key defender. Not often that type of player scores that highly. Outside a couple of gun mids, job sharing doesn't often work for supercoach.
The two defenders scoring well is actually a very common theme.

Docherty/Simpson/Weitering/Newman
Lloyd/Mills/Dawson
Daniel/Dale
Hind/Heppell/Ridley
Short/Houli
Ziebell/Hall (although Hall did hurt Ziebell).
Hawthorn had 4 last year.
Shaw/Williams
Enright/Milburn/Bartel
Andrews/Rich
Crisp/Maynard/Howe
Salem/May/Lever
Cumming/Whitfield/Perryman
Hurn/McGovern

Those are all pretty recent (Cats one not so much!), many last year even.

General rule is that one or both will be a short kicker and/or that someone is a strong intercept marker.



KFC SUPERCOACH GAME CHANGES FOR 2022

TRADE BOOST

– Every coach now has 35 trades over 23 rounds with a maximum of two per round and three during the byes (Rounds 12-14), unless you use a ...

– New trade boost! Up to five trade boosts can be used in any round to gain an extra trade for that round, up to a maximum of three per round or four during the byes. These bonus trades come out of your total of 35, and you can choose to use some, all or none of your five available trade boosts.

PLAYER POSITION UPDATES

At regular intervals during the season Champion Data will reassess player positions and assign dual-position status to players if their on-field role changes. For example, in 2021 Jack Ziebell was listed as a forward in KFC SuperCoach but spent the entire season at full-back – under the new rule he could become a FWD-DEF player mid-season.

TRADE UPDATE

Change your trade plans during a round? Now you have ultimate flexibility to adjust your moves after lockout – providing the players involved aren’t locked out and don’t bust your salary cap.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...2/news-story/38cc908fd240cf2d43e6cd0b81ae06b8
Actually like the Trade Boost idea, was something I suggested in the potential changes. Gives those with a bad start more chance to fix it and helps to lessen those weeks where you just get overwhelmed and gives a chance to hold ground.

Hate the position changes unless they're going to be a LOT more transparent with it than AFL fantasy is. It's not the idea I dislike, the idea itself is actually pretty good, but AFLF execution is horrible. It feels utterly random and definitely seems that you have to also have a significant drop in scoring to get it if you're a midfielder.

For example, last year Petracca played significantly more forward time over the first month than Josh Kelly but only Kelly got the change because he also had an average drop or at least that's the only reasoning I can find for it. For comparison Petracca spent 66% of his time in the forward half with a large portion of that I50 compared to Kelly's 43%, which went over 50% just once and was almost non-existent I50 over the first 6 rounds. I'm actually still not sure how Petracca wasn't a forward this year.

I also hate that they leak the information to certain insiders so they can make trades a couple weeks in advance.

Only way I'd support it is to have a clear "position change leaderboard" that showed everyone who was under consideration.

Mostly I hate that you're just adding an element of luck because there's no logic or rhyme or reason to the position changes so you either get lucky or you get screwed.

That said, there is definitely a strong preseason planning element to it although nowhere near as much as you'd think. The problem is that you can't pick the midfielders who look set to get it and the D/F change is of very minimal actual value. The R/F one could be of interest but it's hard to pick a Marshall type on the hope he gets it knowing that if he gets it, he's most likely a bad ruck pick. So mostly you're better off waiting for it to happen and then moving.

The most value is probably in the rookies where the flexibility of them getting it can be a huge bonus. Especially given they still haven't allowed us to reposition DPP guys outside trades, although the open trade period might make this at least a little bit more possible.
 
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
4,890
Likes
11,150
AFL Club
West Coast
Hate the position changes unless they're going to be a LOT more transparent with it than AFL fantasy is. It's not the idea I dislike, the idea itself is actually pretty good, but AFLF execution is horrible. It feels utterly random and definitely seems that you have to also have a significant drop in scoring to get it if you're a midfielder.

For example, last year Petracca played significantly more forward time over the first month than Josh Kelly but only Kelly got the change because he also had an average drop or at least that's the only reasoning I can find for it. For comparison Petracca spent 66% of his time in the forward half with a large portion of that I50 compared to Kelly's 43%, which went over 50% just once and was almost non-existent I50 over the first 6 rounds. I'm actually still not sure how Petracca wasn't a forward this year.

I also hate that they leak the information to certain insiders so they can make trades a couple weeks in advance.
It is starting position at a CB and needs to be 35% to qualify. Petracca moving forward doesn't count post CBA.

Kelly - first 7 games saw CBA's around 30% for 4 games and zero for 3 games (could have been wing).

Petracca - was +70% on CBAs, with the balance mostly being on the bench I expect.

Re the leaks, agree the Traders have early insights. Think they ask Fantasy Freako for % at centre bounces (ie Kelly is 40% forward at round 4).
 
Joined
12 Jan 2014
Messages
3,760
Likes
11,757
AFL Club
West Coast
I supported the idea of an extra trade being allowed at least once or twice a season three or four years ago so not unhappy with that. People with access to the right kind of stats will have a big trading advantage over people that don't.
 
Joined
18 Jul 2016
Messages
3,771
Likes
26,262
AFL Club
Sydney
It is starting position at a CB and needs to be 35% to qualify. Petracca moving forward doesn't count post CBA.

Kelly - first 7 games saw CBA's around 30% for 4 games and zero for 3 games (could have been wing).

Petracca - was +70% on CBAs, with the balance mostly being on the bench I expect.

Re the leaks, agree the Traders have early insights. Think they ask Fantasy Freako for % at centre bounces (ie Kelly is 40% forward at round 4).
If that's the only stat that determines a forward it's even more ridiculous. Makes it pretty hard to justify Stringer as a forward this year as well given his CBA attendances.

Reality is that Petracca took CB and then mostly played FF for Melbourne until Brown was fit. He was distinctly more a forward than Kelly (as someone who had both in my team) who barely even went into the attacking half for the first 6 rounds, literally one game of 52% where he's above 50% in 6 rounds.

I stand by that the position changes are completely illogical and if a player being in a CB for 3 seconds and the forward line for 5 minutes makes them ineligible for forward status then the system is even stupider than even I thought!

I don't hate the idea of position changes, I hate the idea of random and illogical position changes that have zero transparency or accountability to them. Release the exact criteria and have the data publicly available and I think the system is a great idea. As long as it's a random cloak and daggers affair it's an element of complete luck added to a game that already has way too many elements of luck involved. I want to feel like I'm picking a side, not spinning a slot machine.
 
Top