2015: Premium Rucks
- Thread starter Erich1036
- Start date
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 750
- Likes
- 29
I think it's (H2A) improved now, otherwise there'd be no mention of it, but yeah of more importance is the 0 for ineffective hitouts which impacts anywhere between 70-90% of the score gain from hitouts.
I guess they thought after 2011 rucks were scoring too much and needed to be reigned back in. So more mids can score astronomically of course.
I guess they thought after 2011 rucks were scoring too much and needed to be reigned back in. So more mids can score astronomically of course.
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 2,301
- Likes
- 1,721
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
It would help if:
A. Someone actually told us what it was before! Unfortunately field view doesn't show hitouts. I thought ruckmen just got 2 points for hitouts to advantage but the implication is that it didn't matter if they were effective or not.
B. Someone told us what it is now! Is it +2, +3, +5?? And the same for negatives.
C. Someone gave us some stats for hitouts to disadvantage. Luckily superfooty gave us hitouts to advantage.
A. Someone actually told us what it was before! Unfortunately field view doesn't show hitouts. I thought ruckmen just got 2 points for hitouts to advantage but the implication is that it didn't matter if they were effective or not.
B. Someone told us what it is now! Is it +2, +3, +5?? And the same for negatives.
C. Someone gave us some stats for hitouts to disadvantage. Luckily superfooty gave us hitouts to advantage.
It's always been like that: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/supercoach-scoring-new.415799/
If the ruckman's hit out goes to advantage he gets 50% of what the teammate receiving it gets for his disposal. If the resulting passage of play ends in a goal the ruckman receives a proportionate percentage of the 8pts for a goal based on how many players were involved in the chain.
If the ruckman hits it to disadvantage he loses 3pts and a further 3 points for every subsequent opposition disposal until the ball is in dispute. If the result of his hitout to disadvantage ends up in an opposition goal he loses a further 8 points.
If the ruckman's hitout is neither to advantage or disadvantage he gets no points but the result of the hitout in his next ruck contest is doubled if hit to disadvantage.
And the Ruckmen sing,
"It's the hard-knock life..for us
It's the hard-knock life..for us
'Steada treated, we are tricked
'Steada kisses, we are kicked!"
If the ruckman hits it to disadvantage he loses 3pts and a further 3 points for every subsequent opposition disposal until the ball is in dispute. If the result of his hitout to disadvantage ends up in an opposition goal he loses a further 8 points.
If the ruckman's hitout is neither to advantage or disadvantage he gets no points but the result of the hitout in his next ruck contest is doubled if hit to disadvantage.
And the Ruckmen sing,
"It's the hard-knock life..for us
It's the hard-knock life..for us
'Steada treated, we are tricked
'Steada kisses, we are kicked!"
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 2,301
- Likes
- 1,721
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
Nah it always said that on the supercoach website. I looked last year as I was wondering how rucks managed to score so well.
It definitely always said +3 for a hitout to advantage and had no mention of a normal hitout.
I tried watching the game and then looking at updating scores to work it out but it was very hard to tell who was getting the hitouts and scaling made it hard to know the exact numbers.
Bare in mind the supercoach website is very wrong for some stats, so they might have had this wrong as well. Eg. A loose/hard ball get is +3 not +4.5 and a clanger is only -2 not -4 (This being without scaling either increasing or decreasing scores).
In fact all the stats are about 1-2 to high on the supercoach website and they leave out numerous stats such as goal assists (+3), long kick inside 50 to advantage (+5) and kick backwards (0).
It definitely always said +3 for a hitout to advantage and had no mention of a normal hitout.
I tried watching the game and then looking at updating scores to work it out but it was very hard to tell who was getting the hitouts and scaling made it hard to know the exact numbers.
Bare in mind the supercoach website is very wrong for some stats, so they might have had this wrong as well. Eg. A loose/hard ball get is +3 not +4.5 and a clanger is only -2 not -4 (This being without scaling either increasing or decreasing scores).
In fact all the stats are about 1-2 to high on the supercoach website and they leave out numerous stats such as goal assists (+3), long kick inside 50 to advantage (+5) and kick backwards (0).
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 2,301
- Likes
- 1,721
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
Well basically nobody knows what the old and new scoring actually is.
I'm sure the players at the top of the hitouts the advantage list will be positively effected in some way though.
I would take it into slight consideration when choosing between players but certainly don't base a selection around it. (If you thought Jacobs would average 100-105 before, don't pick him.)
I think most ruckmen will probably score slightly worse next season though, making a R/F in the forward look less appetising.
I'm sure the players at the top of the hitouts the advantage list will be positively effected in some way though.
I would take it into slight consideration when choosing between players but certainly don't base a selection around it. (If you thought Jacobs would average 100-105 before, don't pick him.)
I think most ruckmen will probably score slightly worse next season though, making a R/F in the forward look less appetising.
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 8,560
- Likes
- 11,561
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
The more time that goes by, the more I find Bellchambers as an R/F link in the forward line 'appetising'. Whilst BC may not set the world on fire, a ruckman having a sore foot for a week would otherwise guarantee a donut, in the first 8-10 weeks or so anyway.
He is a safe logical option in the absence of a playing cheap R3, such as Nankervis whom the Swans may give a go; he shows much promise.
I was burnt badly last year with injuries, running out of trades, if I can obtain some good pre-emptive insurance, whilst making some money out of BC. He seems a good play.
He is a safe logical option in the absence of a playing cheap R3, such as Nankervis whom the Swans may give a go; he shows much promise.
I was burnt badly last year with injuries, running out of trades, if I can obtain some good pre-emptive insurance, whilst making some money out of BC. He seems a good play.
