BBL|12: Combined SCS Team

[Ironhawk]

Also, we need to make a call on any Heat players before the first lockout.

I think we also ended up with a constrained set of options last round because we elected to make decisions progressively, rather than from the outset. Remaining nimble is good, but it can come at a cost.

Agree. Worth noting we have back to back games, definitely should be considering locking in any Melbourne based team changes sooner than later too (people will likely be distracted with the cricket once the first game starts).

 

[Chumpion]

Also, we need to make a call on any Heat players before the first lockout.

I think we also ended up with a constrained set of options last round because we elected to make decisions progressively, rather than from the outset. Remaining nimble is good, but it can come at a cost.

Agreed, some weeks it’s good but others it can hurt.

Of the players that lock out tonight, I’d probably do Lynn to Head (believe Lynn is done?) and then I think we just need to decide on Usman, Neser and Carey.

I’d be happy to lock in Lynn, Clarke to Head, Carey so we can get the. Arious loops set up for tonight’s game. Then we have a trade to decide on the final trade out to the final trade in.

We still have the option to update trade and get Clarke back if he’s not in the final list of outs, but does make it a little less complicated if we loop everyone from tonight’s game where we can.

 

[Deeman1]

Thoughts on fading Matt Short? He's due for a slump. You maximise his cash, bring in your preferred targets, Carey/Head/Warner/Smith/Ussie etc. The dynamic of the Strikers now changes considerably. As mentioned above, is Siddle captain or Head/Carey. Who now opens with Short? Who demands the strike more? I don't see Short getting too many overs especially with Head available to do the same.

This from someone ranked 3185.

It's an interesting point, assuming you mean fading him for VC or trading him out.

He has been due for a form slump for 2 years 😉.

I think given his ownership in the top 1% and the position of this team, I'm not sure that type of move against the majority of teams in the top 1% would be one I would be making.

I think it's situational, with the position of this team the risk is too great given his role and ownership

If you were ranked lower and wanted to make some gains by fading him, it might be worth it, but not sure he's the type of guy I would be willing to bet against.

Just my 2c 😎

 

[Ironhawk]

Agreed, some weeks it’s good but others it can hurt.

Of the players that lock out tonight, I’d probably do Lynn to Head (believe Lynn is done?) and then I think we just need to decide on Usman, Neser and Carey.

I’d be happy to lock in Lynn, Clarke to Head, Carey so we can get the. Arious loops set up for tonight’s game. Then we have a trade to decide on the final trade out to the final trade in.

We still have the option to update trade and get Clarke back if he’s not in the final list of outs, but does make it a little less complicated if we loop everyone from tonight’s game where we can.

Lynn has today's game to go, then is done.

 

[Professor]

It's an interesting point, assuming you mean fading him for VC or trading him out.

He has been due for a form slump for 2 years 😉.

I think given his ownership in the top 1% and the position of this team, I'm not sure that type of move against the majority of teams in the top 1% would be one I would be making.

I think it's situational, with the position of this team the risk is too great given his role and ownership

If you were ranked lower and wanted to make some gains by fading him, it might be worth it, but not sure he's the type of guy I would be willing to bet against.

Just my 2c 😎

Agree, was just an observation and clearly if in this position you won’t be doing something this radical. I guess my CDG vc vs Short is an example. Just wanted to put it out there and also stated my rank so you can take it with a grain of salt. 😉

 

[Chumpion]

Lynn has today's game to go, then is done.

In that case feels like a hold and loop option!

maybe Webster and Clarke to Carey and Head?

 

[Darkie]

Agreed, some weeks it’s good but others it can hurt.

Of the players that lock out tonight, I’d probably do Lynn to Head (believe Lynn is done?) and then I think we just need to decide on Usman, Neser and Carey.

I’d be happy to lock in Lynn, Clarke to Head, Carey so we can get the. Arious loops set up for tonight’s game. Then we have a trade to decide on the final trade out to the final trade in.

We still have the option to update trade and get Clarke back if he’s not in the final list of outs, but does make it a little less complicated if we loop everyone from tonight’s game where we can.

Lynn has one more game (and should have favourable conditions), which unfortunately complicates something that could otherwise potentially be fairly easy 🙂

 

[Chumpion]

Lynn has one more game (and should have favourable conditions), which unfortunately complicates something that could otherwise potentially be fairly easy 🙂

Yeah for some reason I thought he was done!

We definitely need to lock in some moves soon, Carey, Head and Usman lead the poll but that is putting all our eggs in tonight’s basket which is risky!

 

[Darkie]

Some modest weather risks to come. Not hugely concerning I don’t think, but worth flagging.

Strikers next round is probably the risk from an SC perspective. It’s game 2 of the round, which probably helps a bit.

Sixers vs Strikers Jan 16, 60% chance, 0-3mm, mainly morning. Think it’s a good batting pitch if they go ahead?

Thun vs Ren Jan 19 (Manuka), 70% chance, 0-5mm, mainly morning

 

[Ironhawk]

Yeah for some reason I thought he was done!

We definitely need to lock in some moves soon, Carey, Head and Usman lead the poll but that is putting all our eggs in tonight’s basket which is risky!

I'd probably look at Head plus one of the others only based on comments so far.

Webster -> Head
??? -> Carey/Khawaja

These seem to be the two trades before today's two games.

Short as VC. Lynn as BAT E. Rest to be determined based on that second trade.

Just over 2 hours to finalise.

 

[Ironhawk]

Agree, was just an observation and clearly if in this position you won’t be doing something this radical. I guess my CDG vc vs Short is an example. Just wanted to put it out there and also stated my rank so you can take it with a grain of salt. 😉

I don't mind the thinking, and it is the sort of trade I've done plenty of times myself in other years. Occasionally it works, but more often it doesn't. If we were ranked just outside the top 100 or so, I'd be happy to give it a go where there is less to lose, but as you noted, it is way too risky an option for where we are now. Happy to hear any other trade thoughts you come up with.

 

[Chumpion]

I don't mind the thinking, and it is the sort of trade I've done plenty of times myself in other years. Occasionally it works, but more often it doesn't. If we were ranked just outside the top 100 or so, I'd be happy to give it a go where there is less to lose, but as you noted, it is way too risky an option for where we are now. Happy to hear any other trade thoughts you come up with.

Yeah I tend to agree it’s a big risk at this rank. If we wanted to try and get a potential edge, we could loop Short on the bowl line and fade him for VC, if he scores well we’ll still get his score and have the VC and C option available. If he scores poorly we can potentially pass his score and get an advantage with our VC/C. Risky, but I tend to think you can take more of a risk on the Vc, and especially in a SGR.

 

[Chumpion]

I'd probably look at Head plus one of the others only based on comments so far.

Webster -> Head
??? -> Carey/Khawaja

These seem to be the two trades before today's two games.

Short as VC. Lynn as BAT E. Rest to be determined based on that second trade.

Just over 2 hours to finalise.

My vote is Clarke to Carey if he opens, or Clarke to Usman if Carey is named down the order.

That said, if Head is named 4 and Carey opens we may want to flip that trade around.

 

[Ironhawk]

Yeah I tend to agree it’s a big risk at this rank. If we wanted to try and get a potential edge, we could loop Short on the bowl line and fade him for VC, if he scores well we’ll still get his score and have the VC and C option available. If he scores poorly we can potentially pass his score and get an advantage with our VC/C. Risky, but I tend to think you can take more of a risk on the Vc, and especially in a SGR.

What do others think about skipping the Short VC? I don't mind it in a SGR. He has had a few huge scores though? Maybe depends on the surface?

My vote is Clarke to Carey if he opens, or Clarke to Usman if Carey is named down the order.

That said, if Head is named 4 and Carey opens we may want to flip that trade around.

I know you have suggested Clarke out a few times. I honestly think Wade is another option, especially if he may miss again with personal issues. Clarke is the better of the two for looping.

 

[Amazing Bombers]

I'd probably look at Head plus one of the others only based on comments so far.

Webster -> Head
??? -> Carey/Khawaja

These seem to be the two trades before today's two games.

Short as VC. Lynn as BAT E. Rest to be determined based on that second trade.

Just over 2 hours to finalise.

I guess there are 2 ways of thinking about it, firstly that there's potentially 4 Adelaide bats if you go Head/Carey, albeit one on e for this round. On the other hand you can argue that given Lynn is leaving after next round it's good to think ahead.
I'm more leaning towards the former school of thought but given you've got most of the desirable options I don't think it hurts to go for it.
Maybe use one on a loophole such as Holt allowing you to take someone like Clarke's score if he goes well.

So based on discussions something like
Webster>Head
Wade> Holt
Agar>Carey/Khawaja/other

 

[Chumpion]

What do others think about skipping the Short VC? I don't mind it in a SGR. He has had a few huge scores though? Maybe depends on the surface?

I know you have suggested Clarke out a few times. I honestly think Wade is another option, especially if he may miss again with personal issues. Clarke is the better of the two for looping.

Yeah I guess I don’t see a need for Clarke from here.. form isn’t amazing, no more DGRs. Can see the appeal in looping him if we hold him, but Wade potentially gives us an extra loop player if he misses and our E guys go well, and has a DGR coming up.

But that’s just my 2 cents though, it’s a group decision!

 

[mike89]

Hopefully we know if Wade will be back before the Derby locks out tonight. Should make Clarke v Wade easier.

I think this team has to play the percentages and VC Short, it would be such a silly risk if he goes off again. I don't view the landscape as having particularly standout C options beyond him, that might be where opportunities lie.

 

[Ironhawk]

I guess there are 2 ways of thinking about it, firstly that there's potentially 4 Adelaide bats if you go Head/Carey, albeit one on e for this round. On the other hand you can argue that given Lynn is leaving after next round it's good to think ahead.
I'm more leaning towards the former school of thought but given you've got most of the desirable options I don't think it hurts to go for it.
Maybe use one on a loophole such as Holt allowing you to take someone like Clarke's score if he goes well.

So based on discussions something like
Webster>Head
Wade> Holt
Agar>Carey/Khawaja/other

These were close to the trades I was thinking might be best based on comments so far. Can hold off on the second of those 3 until tomorrow, and possibly change it if Clarke fails as the E. Not sure on other's thoughts?

 

[Amazing Bombers]

Hopefully we know if Wade will be back before the Derby locks out tonight. Should make Clarke v Wade easier.

I think this team has to play the percentages and VC Short, it would be such a silly risk if he goes off again. I don't view the landscape as having particularly standout C options beyond him, that might be where opportunities lie.

It was in a double as opposed to a single but having lost rank when I potentially would have gone up from going Lynn over Short as VC when most of the rest of my players were at least respectable I'd advise to go safe on Short and make up points elsewhere as well.

 

[THCLT]

This round is not the round to go against the crowd and form on VC as there are already enough variables at play with regards to bench loops and those last few inherent 50/50 decisions on who to field which the majority of coaches will be faced with.

How many DGR players are we targetting for R12 & R13, do we have the preferred SGR players to make up the XI if less than the maximum for those DGRs...? Work back from that structure and you'll find that some of the players may not be as necessary as you now think.

Also note that being a combined team concept, some things are not as easy to manage and administer in a timely manner as there are some individual 'flair' involved. I suggest we decide on the number of DGR players we want for R12&13 as that should narrow down our trade targets and ensure that we don't just follow the 'flavour of the round' which is really not serving our ultimate aim.