Position 2022: Midfield Discussion

[Locky27]

You can buy Rowell and Cripps for basically 800,000, which is the same as buying a so-called super premo and a rookie. Super premo goes at 120, rookie goes at 75 but is at risk of rests. You have locked in a minimum of 2 trades to upgrade the rookie. I would back Rowell and Cripps at full fitness to go at a minimum of 215 between them. No trades required unless you decide on a luxury one when it suits you (which the extra 5 trades helps), or they can be your last 2 positions upgraded if deemed necessary.

A super-premo going at 120 will score 2640 for the season. A rookie going at 75 will score 600 by round 8 when you upgrade him to another super-premo, who averages 120 to the end of the season scoring 1680 for the last 14 rounds. This makes a total of 4920.

For Cripps and Rowell, 215 between them (so Cripps at 110, Rowell at 105), gives you 4730 over 22 rounds. Cripps/Rowell combination puts us behind by 190 points, but up by 2 trades, so it's a close call.

But I see this as the absolute best case scenario for these guys (anything higher is just wishful thinking). I'd prefer to make my decisions based on expected value, rather than best case value. Assuming they both improve on last season, Cripps could be anywhere between 100-110, so call it 105, and for Rowell 90-105 seems fair, so call it 97.5. That's 202.5 instead of 215 and gets you 4455 over 22 rounds - a deficit of 465.

 

[whydoihavetoo]

A super-premo going at 120 will score 2640 for the season. A rookie going at 75 will score 600 by round 8 when you upgrade him to another super-premo, who averages 120 to the end of the season scoring 1680 for the last 14 rounds. This makes a total of 4920.

For Cripps and Rowell, 215 between them (so Cripps at 110, Rowell at 105), gives you 4730 over 22 rounds. Cripps/Rowell combination puts us behind by 190 points, but up by 2 trades, so it's a close call.

But I see this as the absolute best case scenario for these guys (anything higher is just wishful thinking). I'd prefer to make my decisions based on expected value, rather than best case value. Assuming they both improve on last season, Cripps could be anywhere between 100-110, so call it 105, and for Rowell 90-105 seems fair, so call it 97.5. That's 202.5 instead of 215 and gets you 4455 over 22 rounds - a deficit of 465.

Having the rookie upgrade at round 8 doesn't show the full picture as the team with Cripps and Rowell would also be upgrading a rookie at that time, it would only be a +1 in super premos for the last rookie upgrade rather than the first. If you could guarantee that Cripps and Rowell got 105 and 97.5 I think they would be first picked in every team (Would make decent $ on top of ~100 average). The problem is in the worlds where they only slightly increase their average, maintain their average, regress or miss games and you are now stuck with a pick that's not making money, is bleeding points and still requires 2 trades to upgrade.

 

[Locky27]

Having the rookie upgrade at round 8 doesn't show the full picture as the team with Cripps and Rowell would also be upgrading a rookie at that time, it would only be a +1 in super premos for the last rookie upgrade rather than the first. If you could guarantee that Cripps and Rowell got 105 and 97.5 I think they would be first picked in every team (Would make decent $ on top of ~100 average). The problem is in the worlds where they only slightly increase their average, maintain their average, regress or miss games and you are now stuck with a pick that's not making money, is bleeding points and still requires 2 trades to upgrade.

Good point. Also, if they make 105 and 97.5, you would still want to upgrade them to full premo anyway, which is more trades.

 

[Locus Levy Lunacy]

A super-premo going at 120 will score 2640 for the season. A rookie going at 75 will score 600 by round 8 when you upgrade him to another super-premo, who averages 120 to the end of the season scoring 1680 for the last 14 rounds. This makes a total of 4920.

For Cripps and Rowell, 215 between them (so Cripps at 110, Rowell at 105), gives you 4730 over 22 rounds. Cripps/Rowell combination puts us behind by 190 points, but up by 2 trades, so it's a close call.

But I see this as the absolute best case scenario for these guys (anything higher is just wishful thinking). I'd prefer to make my decisions based on expected value, rather than best case value. Assuming they both improve on last season, Cripps could be anywhere between 100-110, so call it 105, and for Rowell 90-105 seems fair, so call it 97.5. That's 202.5 instead of 215 and gets you 4455 over 22 rounds - a deficit of 465.

Good points.

The unknown risks with the rookie are, 1) does he get rested and replaced with an inferior score, 2) do you have genuine downgrade options when you want them, 3) does he make enough in your scenario to be a simple up and down, or is there a 3rd trade required?

Also, while you are doing this, (looking at this specifically as my 2 positions versus your 2) I am upgrading another position at the end of that 8 weeks, which you are not (for at least an extra week).

Those hindsight assessments of the "best starting team possible" will always contain surprisingly few super premos. I think some years a team picked at the start of the year and using no trades, would have actually beaten the overall winner of SC. That says that the best possible way to play the game mathematically, is to nail as many players who outscore their starting price as possible. It also clearly illustrates that you don't need the highest averaging players, in every position on the ground, by the end of the year to win it.

 

[RIAL]

Interested in people's views on players like Macrae, Steele and Oliver.

All 3 are durable, consistent and won't fluctuate significantly in price. At best you can get Macrae at low 600s, or Steele/Oliver at high 500s.

But all 3 have limited upside at the same time. Sure C/VC has value, but surely 2 of them + Lloyd/Grundy/Neale, that group of 5 is enough?

Also don't subscribe to the idea that they will remain unreachable throughout the year. Let's stay you start a Rowell who appreciates $100k to $450k. Steele/Oliver has a single patch of quiet games and all of a sudden you are <$150k and only 1 trade away from picking up a top 5 midfielder?

While gaining roughly 300k cash at the start of the season.

I would much rather use that $300k on a safe R2.

So my question is - (1) If you had to drop one from the above 3, who would it be? (2) How necessary are these guys in the first place?

 

[Ben's Beasts]

Interested in people's views on players like Macrae, Steele and Oliver.

All 3 are durable, consistent and won't fluctuate significantly in price. At best you can get Macrae at low 600s, or Steele/Oliver at high 500s.

But all 3 have limited upside at the same time. Sure C/VC has value, but surely 2 of them + Lloyd/Grundy/Neale, that group of 5 is enough?

Also don't subscribe to the idea that they will remain unreachable throughout the year. Let's stay you start a Rowell who appreciates $100k to $450k. Steele/Oliver has a single patch of quiet games and all of a sudden you are <$150k and only 1 trade away from picking up a top 5 midfielder?

While gaining roughly 300k cash at the start of the season.

I would much rather use that $300k on a safe R2.

So my question is - (1) If you had to drop one from the above 3, who would it be? (2) How necessary are these guys in the first place?

Ideally we would start all three but for most of us the balance of the rest of our team gets thrown as a result.

I'm expecting to pick just one of the three for my starting team with Macrae the most likely.

If I had to leave one out it would be Steele. Started somewhat slowly last season plus he has the round 12 bye so is a good candidate as a trade-in target over the byes.

 

[whydoihavetoo]

Good points.

The unknown risks with the rookie are, 1) does he get rested and replaced with an inferior score, 2) do you have genuine downgrade options when you want them, 3) does he make enough in your scenario to be a simple up and down, or is there a 3rd trade required?

Also, while you are doing this, (looking at this specifically as my 2 positions versus your 2) I am upgrading another position at the end of that 8 weeks, which you are not (for at least an extra week).

Those hindsight assessments of the "best starting team possible" will always contain surprisingly few super premos. I think some years a team picked at the start of the year and using no trades, would have actually beaten the overall winner of SC. That says that the best possible way to play the game mathematically, is to nail as many players who outscore their starting price as possible. It also clearly illustrates that you don't need the highest averaging players, in every position on the ground, by the end of the year to win it.

Interested in people's views on players like Macrae, Steele and Oliver.

All 3 are durable, consistent and won't fluctuate significantly in price. At best you can get Macrae at low 600s, or Steele/Oliver at high 500s.

But all 3 have limited upside at the same time. Sure C/VC has value, but surely 2 of them + Lloyd/Grundy/Neale, that group of 5 is enough?

Also don't subscribe to the idea that they will remain unreachable throughout the year. Let's stay you start a Rowell who appreciates $100k to $450k. Steele/Oliver has a single patch of quiet games and all of a sudden you are <$150k and only 1 trade away from picking up a top 5 midfielder?

While gaining roughly 300k cash at the start of the season.

I would much rather use that $300k on a safe R2.

So my question is - (1) If you had to drop one from the above 3, who would it be? (2) How necessary are these guys in the first place?

(1) If you had to drop one from the above 3, who would it be?

I have currently dropped Oliver from that group at the moment. I think Mcrae and Steele are more consistent and less prone to being tagged; they also provide a good C and VC option as their games are the at the start and end of the weekend. To be honest though there is still a very real chance that I start all 3 as I believe they will all be top 6 by the end of the year, I just need some cheaper rookies to pop up so I can bridge that 50k gap.

(2) How necessary are these guys in the first place?

This would come down to structure; but looking at the common structure of 3 Super Premos + Neale or 2(!) Super Premos + Neale I believe its important to pay up to make sure the 2 or 3 super premos you buy are reliable and likely to be top 6 midfielders.

 

[Locky27]

If you're buying 2 of Macrae/Steele/Oliver, you better make sure the one you don't pick is the one that drops in price, and that they drop in price at a time that is convenient for you to bring them into your side.

 

[Shannon]

(1) If you had to drop one from the above 3, who would it be?

I have currently dropped Oliver from that group at the moment. I think Mcrae and Steele are more consistent and less prone to being tagged; they also provide a good C and VC option as their games are the at the start and end of the weekend. To be honest though there is still a very real chance that I start all 3 as I believe they will all be top 6 by the end of the year, I just need some cheaper rookies to pop up so I can bridge that 50k gap.

(2) How necessary are these guys in the first place?

This would come down to structure; but looking at the common structure of 3 Super Premos + Neale or 2(!) Super Premos + Neale I believe its important to pay up to make sure the 2 or 3 super premos you buy are reliable and likely to be top 6 midfielders.

Agree with all of this.

1 other thing I will add is Oliver's matchup with GWS in round 5, historically his worst team to play (overall average of 83.7).

I recall Matt Deboer put the clamps on him in their matchup last year, really struggled in the first half until DeBoer got injured - then Oliver was able to find some ball & kicked a few goals from memory.

Oliver's last 4 SC scores v GWS :- 87,67, 87 & 53.

So I am hoping that trend will continue & he will be at a bargain price post round 5

 

[freowho]

If you're buying 2 of Macrae/Steele/Oliver, you better make sure the one you don't pick is the one that drops in price, and that they drop in price at a time that is convenient for you to bring them into your side.

If you could tell us which one that is we we would be eternally grateful.

 

[Locky27]

If you could tell us which one that is we we would be eternally grateful.

Which ones are you picking? It will be one of those. Enjoy paying full price for the one you didn't pick.

 

[Herbie66]

Hmmm.......Are you saying that 115 is a bit low for keeper level in the Mids?

Based on pre season expectations , many are quoting 120 for mids this preseason but people love adding mayo on their predictions this time of year.

Be extremely surprised if even the great coaches end up with all their final mids averaging 115+

 

[Herbie66]

Almost no point of even trying to pick a midfield breakout candidate anymore.

Started with Brayshaw last year who went from 101 > 107, which while solid, just doesn't cut it anymore.

Similarly for this year, I see plenty of reasons for Cerra to rise from 90 > 107/108, but even then does it make it a worthwhile pick if it means bleeding up to (115 - 108) x 22 = 154 points throughout the season? Maybe yes, maybe no, but it's getting increasingly more difficult to justify a breakout pick nowadays.

How many of the winning teams even realistically have all 8 mids averaging 115+ though ?

 

[Shannon]

How many of the winning teams even realistically have all 8 mids averaging 115+ though ?

Just researched last year's winner, Supercoach Mumma, this was her starting structure :-

My starting structure went like this:

• I started with 4 premium defenders (Rory Laird, Tom Stewart, Jordan Ridley, Jayden Short)
• 3 uber midfielders (Jackson Macrae, Zach Merrett and Patrick Dangerfield), 2 value mid picks (Sam Walsh and Tim Taranto)
• 2 premium rucks (Brodie Grundy and Max Gawn)
• 1 premium forward (Josh Dunkley), 1 value pick (Zak Butters) and 2 cheap bargain picks (Jack Ziebell and Jarman Impey).

Traded in :-

Clayton Oliver in R5 for $612k
Marcus Bontempelli in R7 for $602k
Jack Steele in R11 for $563k
Josh Kelly at R14 (didn't mention price but after role change)

I recall she held Taranto all year, traded Danger so midfield was :-

Macrae - Merrett - Walsh - Steele - Bont - Oliver - Kelly - Taranto I think.

5 of those 8 averaged over 115, Merrett just missing out with a 114.5 avg :-



Kelly 107 avg & Taranto 96 avg

Kelly's scores from round 14 :-




Quite interesting reading.

 

[Professor]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493769897167695873

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/FantasyFreako/status/1493769897167695873

 

[Herbie66]

Just researched last year's winner, Supercoach Mumma, this was her starting structure :-

My starting structure went like this:

• I started with 4 premium defenders (Rory Laird, Tom Stewart, Jordan Ridley, Jayden Short)
• 3 uber midfielders (Jackson Macrae, Zach Merrett and Patrick Dangerfield), 2 value mid picks (Sam Walsh and Tim Taranto)
• 2 premium rucks (Brodie Grundy and Max Gawn)
• 1 premium forward (Josh Dunkley), 1 value pick (Zak Butters) and 2 cheap bargain picks (Jack Ziebell and Jarman Impey).

Traded in :-

Clayton Oliver in R5 for $612k
Marcus Bontempelli in R7 for $602k
Jack Steele in R11 for $563k
Josh Kelly at R14 (didn't mention price but after role change)

I recall she held Taranto all year, traded Danger so midfield was :-

Macrae - Merrett - Walsh - Steele - Bont - Oliver - Kelly - Taranto I think.

5 of those 8 averaged over 115, Merrett just missing out with a 114.5 avg :-

View attachment 39533

Kelly 107 avg & Taranto 96 avg

Kelly's scores from round 14 :-

View attachment 39534


Quite interesting reading.

Just highlights you probably don't have to have the "perfect" team to win it.

I guess it comes down to how and when you can get these premiums into your team and if you are not "wasting" trades early in the season fixing injured/suspended players.

I think @Wheedus wrote a great post either last preseason or the season before highlighting you needed all your players averaging at least 103 (from memory) each game to have outscored the previous year's winners team.

Obviously when we are fielding rookies initially they aren't scoring that so need the ultra premiums scoring more to make up the balance.

Maybe we start players more capable of averaging 103 from the get go and try and get a more consistent side then bring in the ultra premiums ASAP.

 

[GrainFedBeef]

Just highlights you probably don't have to have the "perfect" team to win it.

I guess it comes down to how and when you can get these premiums into your team and if you are not "wasting" trades early in the season fixing injured/suspended players.

I think @Wheedus wrote a great post either last preseason or the season before highlighting you needed all your players averaging at least 103 (from memory) each game to have outscored the previous year's winners team.

Obviously when we are fielding rookies initially they aren't scoring that so need the ultra premiums scoring more to make up the balance.

Maybe we start players more capable of averaging 103 from the get go and try and get a more consistent side then bring in the ultra premiums ASAP.

It is good point Herbie.

It is also a fine line between value and certainty and important to not pick someone who will be a weak M8 (Taranto for me last year). However, avoiding Neale, Lloyd (I picked them!) was important as well. More so as they underperformed, however just meeting pcp doesn't equal value either.

Do you go a Mitchell who had a good second half or is his correlation to winning games - probably not

Whereas a number of defender offer value this year and thats before you look at Whitfield and Sicily.

 

[Wheedus]

I think @Wheedus wrote a great post either last preseason or the season before highlighting you needed all your players averaging at least 103 (from memory) each game to have outscored the previous year's winners team.

Good memory!

It was indeed 103 based on the average winning total since 2012.

It also reinforces the value of taking a couple of solid / safe premos on each line. Basically players who will give you what you pay for over 22 rounds.

 

[Herbie66]

It is good point Herbie.

It is also a fine line between value and certainty and important to not pick someone who will be a weak M8 (Taranto for me last year). However, avoiding Neale, Lloyd (I picked them!) was important as well. More so as they underperformed, however just meeting pcp doesn't equal value either.

Do you go a Mitchell who had a good second half or is his correlation to winning games - probably not

Whereas a number of defender offer value this year and thats before you look at Whitfield and Sicily.

I think I ended up with Cerra & Cripps in my final side last season and maybe another 1-2 who wouldn't even rate as a poor (passable) M8.

I guess it is even more highlighted if you are missing out on the elite in the D , R & F lines and are running guys Ave 90-95 v the 105+ guys.

Whitfield and Sicily will be interesting at the end of the season where they end up both average & aggregate wise , both certainly look attractive at the moment due to price but are they Top 6-10 that we should be aiming for ?

I am particularly finding the DPP additions this season changing my thinking especially re the Forward line , it could end up that the Best 6 forwards for the season currently are not F eligible.

Not knowing who may/may not get F status during the season makes it interesting as to how many of the Bailey/Butters/de Goey/Graham/Heeney/Thomas type etc we should start or not start (are we actually better off waiting until Round 7 - > before jumping on these players and wait for the first lot of new DPP's or not to then determine the best options ? )

 

[Herbie66]

Good memory!

It was indeed 103 based on the average winning total since 2012.

It also reinforces the value of taking a couple of solid / safe premos on each line. Basically players who will give you what you pay for over 22 rounds.

Try and remember the extra good posts 😀