Analysis Error of the Past is the Wisdom and Success of the Future

[Impromptu]

'Some of the best lessons we ever learn are learned from past mistakes. The error of the past is the wisdom and success of the future' (Dale E. Turner)

I hope everyone has had a nice break from SuperCoach and is recharged and ready for SuperCoach 2013.

However, I think before we start planning for SuperCoach 2013, it is appropriate that we review and dissect SuperCoach 2012. I know you've probably looked at what went wrong with your team, what went right and what went okay, but my view is that the most important thing to review is the mistakes, namely:

• what went wrong in SuperCoach 2012?

• will these wrongs occur again in SuperCoach 2013?

It should be noted that I am reviewing my mistakes not to dwell on the past but rather to see if I can avoid the same mistake again in 2013.

I think the worst mistakes for me in SuperCoach 2012 was not having Dayne Beams and Patrick Dangerfield. Now you need to understand the extent of the mistake to appreciate and understand the damage caused by the mistake to see how it rail road my horrible SuperCoach 2012. Beams and Dangerfield had career best form in 2012 and from a SuperCoach point of view had the following results:

• Dayne Beams - 5th highest total points (21 games @ 122.90)

• Patrick Dangerfield - 4th highest total points (22 games @ 118.60)

Therefore, even if Beams and Dangerfield were categorised as solely MIDs they would have been excellent choices anyway mainly due to the fact that between them they only missed one game and scored ~120. The damage is magnified as most good teams would have played Beams and Dangerfield in the FWDs, where they finished as the number 1 and number 2 FWDs. I also made the mistake of picking hyped up players of Docherty (MID/DEF) and Couch (MID/FWD) in my initial team. There were other mistakes, but Beams and Dangerfield stand out the most.

I don't believe Beams and Dangerfield will be categorised as MID/FWD this year, but rather MIDs and therefore, I obviously cannot make that mistake again. In relation to the Docherty/Couch scenario, I'm not sure I will completely look away from picking a non-starting round 1 player as a set rule, but I will wary of the Docherty/Couch scenario.

Now my intention highlighting the Beams/Dangerfield error is to highlight that my horrible SuperCoach 2012 had nothing to do with the Bye Strategy by rather sheer poor player selection. Experienced SuperCoach can objectively identify what went wrong without blaming everything but rather systematically going through the year and identifying which area went wrong.

I strongly believe a Bye Strategy has a lot of value and I will again be concentrating on the Bye Strategy. Remember, that a good Bye Strategy should never be picked ahead of picking the best player for your team. However, if the gain achieved from the Bye Strategy is more than the loss (if any) from a change in player selection, then it should be considered.

This is an introductory article for SuperCoach 2013, but more in-depth articles will be provided when Vapormedia, Herald Sun and/or Champion Data provide more details of SuperCoach 2013 as there are rumours that changes may occur.

Boy, I'm looking forward to when SuperCoach Gold releases the preliminary player positions and values in mid December!!

 

[Rowsus]

Looking forward to more articles when the positions and prices hit, Jay.
My sins in 2012 were nearly too numerous to list. Just off the top my head, the ones I will try really hard to not recommit this year are:
Not to knee jerk react into trading: I managed to do that 3 times early last season, and none worked out - lesson - unless you are sure, keep your powder dry.
Don't change plans/directions too many times: I went with set and forget rucks, and traded BOTH out early in the season. One was right (Mumford), one was wrong (Cox). Changed the direction I was travelling in 4 times before the byes, and paid the price of ending up with a mish-mash team. - lesson - stay the course, and be patient. If you are forced to change tack, do it once only, and commit completely to that knew direction.
I made one error last year from showing too much patience (missing the straight swap of Cloke and Sidebottom in round 6), and about 7 errors from showing too little patience.
PATIENCE - PATIENCE - PATIENCE.
It will be my mantra in 2013.
I need to learn the lesson, that sometimes doing nothing (not trading), is actually doing something!

 

[BuddyLove]

Hi Jay

Any chance of reposting your initial squad? Had a quick look for it but can't seem to find it in the new site.

Cheers

 

[Goodie's Guns]

Cheers Jay for the article and cannot wait for more to come.
Really love hearing how you go about SC and the certain ways you have reviewed your season.
I was lucky in getting on Beams just before he went ballistic but the one mistake I made was I had Danerfield, then traded him to Pendlebury who went on a got injured two weeks latter. Then when Dangerfield went ballistic I didn't have him and needed to wait for cash and a drop in price before I could get him back in.
Bring on SC 2013!!

 

[BC]

I went agressive trading and jumped on Stanton just before he went crap, my head said Watson but went with the gut Stanton, from there i was back peddling and chewed through my trades

 

[Goodie's Guns]

I went agressive trading and jumped on Stanton just before he went crap, my head said Watson but went with the gut Stanton, from there i was back peddling and chewed through my trades

Oh no, I never even considered getting Stanton. he seemed to be the flavour of the month at the start of the season and I saw many SC coaches jump on him without reviewing his past enough to make an informed decision. I recall Rowsus outlining this at the time.

 

[OzRulesFootball]

[There were other mistakes, but Beams and Dangerfield stand out the most.

I don't believe Beams and Dangerfield will be categorised as MID/FWD this year, but rather MIDs and therefore, I obviously cannot make that mistake again.

That maybe so for Dangerfield and Beams but there may just be another one or two FOR/MID youngsters that step up to elite level scoring this year and you would not want to miss out again. ..lol... I had Dangerfield from the start but Beams I missed too. Beams certainly surprised me more in 2011.. in the sense he seemed out of favour at Collingwood for some crazy reason. This year he certainly made everyone sit up and take notice he is one of the best players on Collingwood's list.

 

[Courtesans]

I had a great year, so not too many fatal mistakes. My two glaring errors were not getting Dangerfield, I didn't think he could keep his form up and keeping Franklin those last 6 weeks but only had two then one trade over that period and had cover apart from Fyfe kicking a suitcase! Playing the right players from the bench was often a coin toss..

 

[Impromptu]

Hi Jay

Any chance of reposting your initial squad? Had a quick look for it but can't seem to find it in the new site.

Cheers

Yes, I've been jugglying between migrating the old stuff from the blog with working on new stuff. Probably a bad article for me, but at least I can, actually we can , look at my mistakes and maybe learn from them. Give it a week and I'll bring it over.

With respect to this article, I was actually thinking that maybe I just pick a solid standard team and let my trading (which I think is good) do all the work. Sometimes, I'm a bit too cute with my initial team (unfortunately), so maybe just straight bat this year with my initial team. I'm not sure until I see some pre-season AFL action.

 

[OzRulesFootball]

With respect to this article, I was actually thinking that maybe I just pick a solid standard team and let my trading (which I think is good) do all the work. Sometimes, I'm a bit too cute with my initial team (unfortunately), so maybe just straight bat this year with my initial team. I'm not sure until I see some pre-season AFL action.

I feel I'm still quite new to playing supercoach properly compared to many of you guys but after my 1st season of looking at it properly and actually following what goes on, it still seems to me that how important the initial team is to winning and how important the trading are areas of uncertainty. When I look at the the overall game it seems to me you want to get as quickly as possible settled on a team that is closest to a team of 22 on field of high scoring premiums all over the field with priority on getting 6 gun midfielders as soon as you can.

So in essence it is 54 transactions for the season if you count 30 initial transactions before round one and another 24 trading transactions to use during the season itself.

All up 54 transactions basically to get to your best 22 you can have on field and hopefully that is in place by around round 16 and last few rounds you just tinker with the best 22 and have a couple of trades up sleeve to cover for injuries. Those 30 initial transactions is trickiest to understand their value in relation to winning because everyone has them so there is no variable there but only maybe a dozen of those 30 transactions become a core of your best 22 on field team... and the other ten probably come about as a result of the 24 trading transactions but trades have many more variables about them because we all get to choose when and how we use those trading transactions.

 

[Courtesans]

Yes, I've been jugglying between migrating the old stuff from the blog with working on new stuff. Probably a bad article for me, but at least I can, actually we can , look at my mistakes and maybe learn from them. Give it a week and I'll bring it over.

With respect to this article, I was actually thinking that maybe I just pick a solid standard team and let my trading (which I think is good) do all the work. Sometimes, I'm a bit too cute with my initial team (unfortunately), so maybe just straight bat this year with my initial team. I'm not sure until I see some pre-season AFL action.

Totally agree with the concept of a solid starting team Jay. I am keen on what could be called a mild G's & R's side; in my case a come back player in each line; ie Bock/Rischetelli, Ball/Embley, Leuenberger, LeCras/Gray. Standard, simple, with the merit of proven players at bargain prices. Preseason first!

 

[Goodie's Guns]

Totally agree with the concept of a solid starting team Jay. I am keen on what could be called a mild G's & R's side; in my case a come back player in each line; ie Bock/Rischetelli, Ball/Embley, Leuenberger, LeCras/Gray. Standard, simple, with the merit of proven players at bargain prices. Preseason first!

Sort of thinking the same way, especially with LeCras and Luenburger.
For the midfield I am thinking of sticking clear of the high priced mid-pricer (if that makes sense) and go for the cheaper option in Morabito and guys like Koby Stevens.

 

[Stroppy]

Not to knee jerk react into trading: I managed to do that 3 times early last season, and none worked out - lesson - unless you are sure, keep your powder dry.
Don't change plans/directions too many times:
PATIENCE - PATIENCE - PATIENCE.
I need to learn the lesson, that sometimes doing nothing (not trading), is actually doing something!

Since we are human we have inbuilt biases for doing something over doing nothing, and making judgements and decisions on limited information. In many situations this is a good thing (evolution baby!), but in SC not so much.

So I agree with Rowsus that not trading is doing something but we also should remember that 1 week does not a SC trend make. Because only one thing is certain in SC - we don't enough trades to flush them away on over-reactions. I suspect most people made a trade or 2 based on watching 1 game. I know I did!

Of course, the trick is working out when you have enough information to act and then getting on with it. This is what I failed to do last year with Beams and Nic Nat.