Discussion 2023 Round 4: Teams & In Game Discussion
- Thread starter KLo30
- Start date
Yeah I am just not really seeing much of that in here lately.
For instance, someone suggested an aggressive leftfield move of trading Bont to Oliver in the trades thread and instead of generating any discussion about the merits of such a move, was just dismissed as a troll.
It's a shame because the depth of analysis and contrasting views in here was awesome a few years ago.
For instance, someone suggested an aggressive leftfield move of trading Bont to Oliver in the trades thread and instead of generating any discussion about the merits of such a move, was just dismissed as a troll.
It's a shame because the depth of analysis and contrasting views in here was awesome a few years ago.
Not sure if this has been posted re Bont's score last week :-
Marcus Bontempelli received 10 votes from the coaches for his heroic performance in the Bulldogs’ win against Brisbane, but his 28 disposals didn’t get the same reward in KFC SuperCoach. Bontempelli finished with 89 points, well short of Tim English (139), Tom Liberatore (120) and Adam Treloar (116). The explanation is simple – giving away free kicks isn’t good for scoring. Bontempelli gave away six, and he lost a total of 43 points for the match from negative acts – of which 22 were for free kicks alone.
Plays the tigers this week, his favourite team historically. Career average of 125.1 v them
Marcus Bontempelli received 10 votes from the coaches for his heroic performance in the Bulldogs’ win against Brisbane, but his 28 disposals didn’t get the same reward in KFC SuperCoach. Bontempelli finished with 89 points, well short of Tim English (139), Tom Liberatore (120) and Adam Treloar (116). The explanation is simple – giving away free kicks isn’t good for scoring. Bontempelli gave away six, and he lost a total of 43 points for the match from negative acts – of which 22 were for free kicks alone.
Plays the tigers this week, his favourite team historically. Career average of 125.1 v them
Not sure if this has been posted re Bont's score last week :-
Marcus Bontempelli received 10 votes from the coaches for his heroic performance in the Bulldogs’ win against Brisbane, but his 28 disposals didn’t get the same reward in KFC SuperCoach. Bontempelli finished with 89 points, well short of Tim English (139), Tom Liberatore (120) and Adam Treloar (116). The explanation is simple – giving away free kicks isn’t good for scoring. Bontempelli gave away six, and he lost a total of 43 points for the match from negative acts – of which 22 were for free kicks alone.
Plays the tigers this week, his favourite team historically. Career average of 125.1 v them
Marcus Bontempelli received 10 votes from the coaches for his heroic performance in the Bulldogs’ win against Brisbane, but his 28 disposals didn’t get the same reward in KFC SuperCoach. Bontempelli finished with 89 points, well short of Tim English (139), Tom Liberatore (120) and Adam Treloar (116). The explanation is simple – giving away free kicks isn’t good for scoring. Bontempelli gave away six, and he lost a total of 43 points for the match from negative acts – of which 22 were for free kicks alone.
Plays the tigers this week, his favourite team historically. Career average of 125.1 v them
I'm certainly not suggesting trading him this week, and even short term he could be an I'll fix him later type problem, but Gulden must be under some scrutiny. Priced at $488,600 means he priced to be scoring around 97. His most recent game of 85 is less than his current BE of 88.
This is slightly different to previous post of "what if you reverse the order of the scores", because if you reverse the order of Gulden's scores he becomes: Gulden 85, 107, 115 BE 58, which implies growth should happen this week. However, a BE of 88, a 2 game average of 96, and being priced at 97, all implies he has actually gone close to topping out price wise, unless he can inject another 110+ score soon.
This is slightly different to previous post of "what if you reverse the order of the scores", because if you reverse the order of Gulden's scores he becomes: Gulden 85, 107, 115 BE 58, which implies growth should happen this week. However, a BE of 88, a 2 game average of 96, and being priced at 97, all implies he has actually gone close to topping out price wise, unless he can inject another 110+ score soon.
I did think that, but on the flip side: Gulden isn't being picked to make money, he's being picked to be a keeper. Historically the knock on him has been that he drops out of games and puts out the odd 50, and in that regard I view him being nowhere for a lot of that game and putting up 85 as a positive, actually. I was thinking that kind of game would be the perfect thing to see from JHF in round 2 - the score might be low enough to scare people off but if that's his floor, he's a good pick - but then he dropped a sub 50 and that was the end of that for me.
I'm very happy to leave him in as a keeper on that basis, but I'm obviously going to keep following with interest.
That said, my team has much bigger problems, like a lot of this forum, so it's kind of a moot point!
I'm very happy to leave him in as a keeper on that basis, but I'm obviously going to keep following with interest.
That said, my team has much bigger problems, like a lot of this forum, so it's kind of a moot point!
I still think the depth of analysis and contrasting views is awesome. I also think that how people perceive suggestions can be greatly coloured by how they are feeling about their team, and also by the tone in which it is presented. In the same way those offering suggestions perceive the responses through the lens of their own team and the tone in which the responses are presented.
As a trade suggestion, moving Bont to Oliver is no more or less reasonable than a million others. Oliver is a clear Top 6 mid that everyone wants, and Bont is potentially a borderline top 6 mid who will likely lose a little cash due to an underwhelming performance last week. Those who had rolled with Bont as captain last week and who are missing Oliver can legitimately consider the move. Whether that would be a good move is open to question, and depends greatly on the context of your team.
A similar move would be to move a (for instance) Marshall or even Darcy to English this week. Moving the borderline top group player to the one you think is clearly better at the cost of a trade and dollars. Plenty are looking to do that this week. Again, is it the right move? Really depends on a lot else in your team. Do you have the free cash? Can you do it with a downgrade of a close enough to maxed out rookie or a stagnant mid pricer, while also kickstarting cash gen at the other end? What are your other options? Even if it's a good move, is it the _best_ move?
And in many cases what might be objectively the best move turns out not to be, because of just dumb bad luck.
We can all make suggestions, and we can all make strong cases as to why our suggestions make sense, but everyone has to take responsibility for their own moves. Because when that dumb bad luck comes (and it will) you're the only one who has to deal with it.
Regarding "it's bad/it's not that bad", again that really depends. Everyone's experience is different. Everyone's expectations are different and everyone processes the emotions involved in SC differently.
What I would say is don't judge how bad or not it is by your ranking. Rankings are temporary. You can be 100,000 now and 1,000 in a month. You can be 1 now, and 50,000 in a month. Judge how it's going by how your team looks vs how you want it to look. If you've burned 4 trades on rucks to get to this point (and it's cost you 400 points), then that sucks. But 400 points is nothing in the grand scheme of a year. Everyone will cop bad luck at some point, it's how you manage it that matters. As long as you maintain your focus on the process, understand what you're trying to achieve, and work to achieve that, then that's all you can do. Bad luck sucks but by focusing on the process you will slowly climb the rankings while teams that have given up, or who have tried to blow up their team to "fix" a team that was actually already good, and had just copped some bad luck, fall by the wayside.
The seasons not over for anyone after 3 rounds, luck will turn.
As a trade suggestion, moving Bont to Oliver is no more or less reasonable than a million others. Oliver is a clear Top 6 mid that everyone wants, and Bont is potentially a borderline top 6 mid who will likely lose a little cash due to an underwhelming performance last week. Those who had rolled with Bont as captain last week and who are missing Oliver can legitimately consider the move. Whether that would be a good move is open to question, and depends greatly on the context of your team.
A similar move would be to move a (for instance) Marshall or even Darcy to English this week. Moving the borderline top group player to the one you think is clearly better at the cost of a trade and dollars. Plenty are looking to do that this week. Again, is it the right move? Really depends on a lot else in your team. Do you have the free cash? Can you do it with a downgrade of a close enough to maxed out rookie or a stagnant mid pricer, while also kickstarting cash gen at the other end? What are your other options? Even if it's a good move, is it the _best_ move?
And in many cases what might be objectively the best move turns out not to be, because of just dumb bad luck.
We can all make suggestions, and we can all make strong cases as to why our suggestions make sense, but everyone has to take responsibility for their own moves. Because when that dumb bad luck comes (and it will) you're the only one who has to deal with it.
Regarding "it's bad/it's not that bad", again that really depends. Everyone's experience is different. Everyone's expectations are different and everyone processes the emotions involved in SC differently.
What I would say is don't judge how bad or not it is by your ranking. Rankings are temporary. You can be 100,000 now and 1,000 in a month. You can be 1 now, and 50,000 in a month. Judge how it's going by how your team looks vs how you want it to look. If you've burned 4 trades on rucks to get to this point (and it's cost you 400 points), then that sucks. But 400 points is nothing in the grand scheme of a year. Everyone will cop bad luck at some point, it's how you manage it that matters. As long as you maintain your focus on the process, understand what you're trying to achieve, and work to achieve that, then that's all you can do. Bad luck sucks but by focusing on the process you will slowly climb the rankings while teams that have given up, or who have tried to blow up their team to "fix" a team that was actually already good, and had just copped some bad luck, fall by the wayside.
The seasons not over for anyone after 3 rounds, luck will turn.
Not sure if this has been posted re Bont's score last week :-
Marcus Bontempelli received 10 votes from the coaches for his heroic performance in the Bulldogs’ win against Brisbane, but his 28 disposals didn’t get the same reward in KFC SuperCoach. Bontempelli finished with 89 points, well short of Tim English (139), Tom Liberatore (120) and Adam Treloar (116). The explanation is simple – giving away free kicks isn’t good for scoring. Bontempelli gave away six, and he lost a total of 43 points for the match from negative acts – of which 22 were for free kicks alone.
Plays the tigers this week, his favourite team historically. Career average of 125.1 v them
Marcus Bontempelli received 10 votes from the coaches for his heroic performance in the Bulldogs’ win against Brisbane, but his 28 disposals didn’t get the same reward in KFC SuperCoach. Bontempelli finished with 89 points, well short of Tim English (139), Tom Liberatore (120) and Adam Treloar (116). The explanation is simple – giving away free kicks isn’t good for scoring. Bontempelli gave away six, and he lost a total of 43 points for the match from negative acts – of which 22 were for free kicks alone.
Plays the tigers this week, his favourite team historically. Career average of 125.1 v them
Bont's career average is 3.36 Clangers/Game. The near 10 above average took around 30-32 points off his score dropping it to 89.
When you view it in that light, it makes his score frustrating and disappointing, but shouldn't be cause for rage trading.
Not sure if this has been posted re Bont's score last week :-
Marcus Bontempelli received 10 votes from the coaches for his heroic performance in the Bulldogs’ win against Brisbane, but his 28 disposals didn’t get the same reward in KFC SuperCoach. Bontempelli finished with 89 points, well short of Tim English (139), Tom Liberatore (120) and Adam Treloar (116). The explanation is simple – giving away free kicks isn’t good for scoring. Bontempelli gave away six, and he lost a total of 43 points for the match from negative acts – of which 22 were for free kicks alone.
Plays the tigers this week, his favourite team historically. Career average of 125.1 v them
Marcus Bontempelli received 10 votes from the coaches for his heroic performance in the Bulldogs’ win against Brisbane, but his 28 disposals didn’t get the same reward in KFC SuperCoach. Bontempelli finished with 89 points, well short of Tim English (139), Tom Liberatore (120) and Adam Treloar (116). The explanation is simple – giving away free kicks isn’t good for scoring. Bontempelli gave away six, and he lost a total of 43 points for the match from negative acts – of which 22 were for free kicks alone.
Plays the tigers this week, his favourite team historically. Career average of 125.1 v them
Bont does still look like a good option as VC though.
Patrick Voss possible/likely debut. Sorry if not passable source but has been playing well in the 2s.
View: https://twitter.com/Nowayshutup9/status/1643441554412175364?s=20
View: https://twitter.com/Nowayshutup9/status/1643441554412175364?s=20
For those like me who were a little puzzled by Docherty's score :-
Docherty’s 39 touches were made up of 12 effective kicks, 12 effective handballs, five ineffective kicks, five clanger kicks, three ineffective handballs and two clanger handballs. Each of those ineffective disposals is worth zero points and he lost points for the clanger disposals. Of his 11 disposals in the final quarter, only three were effective.
Docherty’s 39 touches were made up of 12 effective kicks, 12 effective handballs, five ineffective kicks, five clanger kicks, three ineffective handballs and two clanger handballs. Each of those ineffective disposals is worth zero points and he lost points for the clanger disposals. Of his 11 disposals in the final quarter, only three were effective.
Totally agree. But, IF he was to become a 96-97 type player, you are losing around 8/game to those that finished their team with a 104-105 F6.
If your team was nicely squared away, and you had cash*, turning that point loss into a gain in another area, could be the difference between a top 1,000 finish, and a top 500 finish.
* Not many teams nicely squared away AND sitting on cash.
** I did start by saying I wasn't suggesting trading him now, just he should be watched. The signs are there he may not fill the job he was taken to do.
If your team was nicely squared away, and you had cash*, turning that point loss into a gain in another area, could be the difference between a top 1,000 finish, and a top 500 finish.
* Not many teams nicely squared away AND sitting on cash.
** I did start by saying I wasn't suggesting trading him now, just he should be watched. The signs are there he may not fill the job he was taken to do.