2022: AFL SC Player Discussions
- Thread starter Darkie
- Start date
Historically the DPP changes in AFLF have avoided the top scorers so those guys would need to have pretty terrible seasons to be a chance.
I think the CB stats is a myth used to cover for changes they don't make because the player is too good. For example, last year Danger and Martin were both forwards despite both attending >65% of CB in 2020, which would mean it's impossible to be 35% or higher starting as forwards (even assuming they were on the field 100% of games it wouldn't be possible).
This year Stringer started as a forward despite attending almost 70% of all CB last year, again making 35% impossible. Martin last year was at 71% and is still a forward.
It's been 5 odd years of it in AFL fantasy and they've still never released what their criteria actually is or the stats that support any of the decisions at any point over that period. They definitely don't want people being able to work it out in advance, aka they want to make it luck based and not skill based.
If you throw in Ultimate Footy which also does position changes you get quite a lot of differences, theirs isn't any better or more transparent outside that they sometimes post a "on the radar" type post but basically they're using the same source data. They've been honest in the past that they don't make changes sometimes for balance reasons (eg. Petracca last year).
I want to like the feature but their refusal to remove the cloak and daggers makes it impossible. If you did a post after round 4 saying these are the guys on the radar, we can plan around that, alternatively if you'd tell us exactly what the criteria are, we could at least make educated guesses. The last couple of years it has been exclusively fallen premium mids that played forward or back a bit that get the changes, they've genuinely used it as a mechanism to "save" people from bad picks, which from a commercial perspective I fully understand but it makes for a terrible mechanism for competitive purposes.
To be clear, Petracca in DT did not fall like he did in SC, if he'd been SC last year then he'd probably have qualified. Last year it was Hunter, Fyfe, Billings, Darcy, Kelly and Pendles that were the names that come to mind that got changes. Of that group Darcy was the only one who hadn't had at least a 10 point drop off from their previous season, most were 15+. But they weren't giving it to Petracca or Steele when they spent a month+ playing as forwards.
I think the CB stats is a myth used to cover for changes they don't make because the player is too good. For example, last year Danger and Martin were both forwards despite both attending >65% of CB in 2020, which would mean it's impossible to be 35% or higher starting as forwards (even assuming they were on the field 100% of games it wouldn't be possible).
This year Stringer started as a forward despite attending almost 70% of all CB last year, again making 35% impossible. Martin last year was at 71% and is still a forward.
It's been 5 odd years of it in AFL fantasy and they've still never released what their criteria actually is or the stats that support any of the decisions at any point over that period. They definitely don't want people being able to work it out in advance, aka they want to make it luck based and not skill based.
If you throw in Ultimate Footy which also does position changes you get quite a lot of differences, theirs isn't any better or more transparent outside that they sometimes post a "on the radar" type post but basically they're using the same source data. They've been honest in the past that they don't make changes sometimes for balance reasons (eg. Petracca last year).
I want to like the feature but their refusal to remove the cloak and daggers makes it impossible. If you did a post after round 4 saying these are the guys on the radar, we can plan around that, alternatively if you'd tell us exactly what the criteria are, we could at least make educated guesses. The last couple of years it has been exclusively fallen premium mids that played forward or back a bit that get the changes, they've genuinely used it as a mechanism to "save" people from bad picks, which from a commercial perspective I fully understand but it makes for a terrible mechanism for competitive purposes.
To be clear, Petracca in DT did not fall like he did in SC, if he'd been SC last year then he'd probably have qualified. Last year it was Hunter, Fyfe, Billings, Darcy, Kelly and Pendles that were the names that come to mind that got changes. Of that group Darcy was the only one who hadn't had at least a 10 point drop off from their previous season, most were 15+. But they weren't giving it to Petracca or Steele when they spent a month+ playing as forwards.
I can't remember where I read it, but I think it's where they line up at every contest during a game, not just the CBA, that determines the DPP.
So if there's 100 contests (around the ground + CBA) in a match, you'd need to be lining up on the forward side of them for more than 35 to get FWD status. That would be either from outside of the centre square for a CBA, or forward of the pack of players around a ruck contest (don't know how far out they draw that line...)
Still probably means they'll use their discretion, and still means the results are probably somewhat meaningless, but that could be why it doesn't correspond directly to CBA attendance or game time spent in F50.
So if there's 100 contests (around the ground + CBA) in a match, you'd need to be lining up on the forward side of them for more than 35 to get FWD status. That would be either from outside of the centre square for a CBA, or forward of the pack of players around a ruck contest (don't know how far out they draw that line...)
Still probably means they'll use their discretion, and still means the results are probably somewhat meaningless, but that could be why it doesn't correspond directly to CBA attendance or game time spent in F50.
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
- Likes
- 11,150
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Clarifying that the benchmark is not CBA's, it is CBA + Stoppages. I checked this up during the week.
For those thinking we will get a host of players forward, Nat Fyfe played 21% fwd in 2021.
Bont was 18% fwd across 2021 (ave 119) and was fwd 25% in rounds 1-11 (124). In case you wonder, why did his score drop away in 2H despite fwd time being less. Bont scoring looks to be inversely correlated with Dunkley playing, not to his CBA's.
If looking at updates in round 6,12,18, clearly round 6 is most important as law of small numbers applied. If Coniglio was a mid only and played fwd whilst Toby is only out, he could be designated fwd status by round 6. If however, he played mid first 6 rounds then played fwd for 6 rounds, he would still be mid only. Probably obviously, it is why the most changes happen in round 6.
Hope this clarifies some points on this topic.
For those thinking we will get a host of players forward, Nat Fyfe played 21% fwd in 2021.
Bont was 18% fwd across 2021 (ave 119) and was fwd 25% in rounds 1-11 (124). In case you wonder, why did his score drop away in 2H despite fwd time being less. Bont scoring looks to be inversely correlated with Dunkley playing, not to his CBA's.
If looking at updates in round 6,12,18, clearly round 6 is most important as law of small numbers applied. If Coniglio was a mid only and played fwd whilst Toby is only out, he could be designated fwd status by round 6. If however, he played mid first 6 rounds then played fwd for 6 rounds, he would still be mid only. Probably obviously, it is why the most changes happen in round 6.
Hope this clarifies some points on this topic.
Not sure if coaches choice percentages mean much at this time of year, but interesting anyway:
Hall – 18%
Miller – 16%
J Berry – 10%
T.Thomas – 6% (probably understandable, will be poddish)
Coleman – 3%
All in my team.
Hall – 18%
Miller – 16%
J Berry – 10%
T.Thomas – 6% (probably understandable, will be poddish)
Coleman – 3%
All in my team.
I'm very high on him but needs to tick the fitness box, big time, to make the final cut.
I'm not sure why you'd think he's down the mix. They've got the exact same group as 2 years ago and he was in the top couple then, if he's fit he's their best big bodied guy by a fair margin.
They'd clearly rather Zorko in the forward half and Berry on the ball based on the 2 seasons prior to last year so that's the obvious player who switches out a bit more.
I think people forget just how good he was through his first 4 seasons, a 97 is a huge effort. Got derailed last year but too good and too young to not be a main part of the midfield.
If he's fit is everything at that price. If there's a ton of 70+ rookies shaping up then he becomes a lot less appealing but those are a pretty rare class of rookie and he's a genuine 100+ potential guy.
Fyfe just helps to illustrate how random the position changes are given he was one of the guys who did get FWD status.
Basically if a premium has a bad start and plays forward or back a bit, they're a good chance. If they score the same then they're unlikely to get it.
I'm not sure why you'd think he's down the mix. They've got the exact same group as 2 years ago and he was in the top couple then, if he's fit he's their best big bodied guy by a fair margin.
They'd clearly rather Zorko in the forward half and Berry on the ball based on the 2 seasons prior to last year so that's the obvious player who switches out a bit more.
I think people forget just how good he was through his first 4 seasons, a 97 is a huge effort. Got derailed last year but too good and too young to not be a main part of the midfield.
If he's fit is everything at that price. If there's a ton of 70+ rookies shaping up then he becomes a lot less appealing but those are a pretty rare class of rookie and he's a genuine 100+ potential guy.
Fyfe just helps to illustrate how random the position changes are given he was one of the guys who did get FWD status.
Basically if a premium has a bad start and plays forward or back a bit, they're a good chance. If they score the same then they're unlikely to get it.
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
- Likes
- 11,150
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I will say all the commentary out of Brisbane sim games doesn't have Berry in the centre rotations. Bailey getting a substantial lift and Rayner back from injury and looks to be getting CBA's seem to be the beneficiaries. Berry sounds more wing, which I ma not certain if it suits his position.
re Fyfe, not as conspiracy theory that it is about scores. Best chance is a mid who for some reason (injury or other) ends up getting fwd role in the early part of the season. Fyfe with a 5% CBA game could have been the difference, plus at forward stoppages he may play more forward.
re Fyfe, not as conspiracy theory that it is about scores. Best chance is a mid who for some reason (injury or other) ends up getting fwd role in the early part of the season. Fyfe with a 5% CBA game could have been the difference, plus at forward stoppages he may play more forward.
What will JHF , Daicos & Ward need to average to get to $ 350k+.
Probably need 6 "perfect" downgrade trades to upgrade the 3 of them so that's 9 trades factored in.
Maybe another 4 to upgrade 2 other onfield rookies = 6.
Then the "second wave" to score quickly enough to upgrade 5 onfield value players so maybe another 12 trades.
9+6+12 = 27 if all the rookies are perfect.
3 correction trades Round 3.
5 spare trades if everything runs to plan 🤗
Sounds simple , now to execute
Probably need 6 "perfect" downgrade trades to upgrade the 3 of them so that's 9 trades factored in.
Maybe another 4 to upgrade 2 other onfield rookies = 6.
Then the "second wave" to score quickly enough to upgrade 5 onfield value players so maybe another 12 trades.
9+6+12 = 27 if all the rookies are perfect.
3 correction trades Round 3.
5 spare trades if everything runs to plan 🤗
Sounds simple , now to execute
From a track observer:-
Hewett very impressive and arguably BOG. JSOS another one who just brought pressure and intensity to every contest, despite being undersized in a lot of match ups when the ball went towards him inside 50.
OMac looking very good and I have a feeling we'll play him over Young. Gov and Williams WILL bounce back. Lock in Kemp to play rd 1, and Philp to play early on in the season. Fisher will get a lot more midfield minutes and will star under Voss. Walsh was just Walsh. LOB will have a breakout year. Getting those games into Charlie last year has got his confidence way up, will be a huge factor in our success this season.
Very positive news on Hewett, Kemp & Curnow 👏
Hewett very impressive and arguably BOG. JSOS another one who just brought pressure and intensity to every contest, despite being undersized in a lot of match ups when the ball went towards him inside 50.
OMac looking very good and I have a feeling we'll play him over Young. Gov and Williams WILL bounce back. Lock in Kemp to play rd 1, and Philp to play early on in the season. Fisher will get a lot more midfield minutes and will star under Voss. Walsh was just Walsh. LOB will have a breakout year. Getting those games into Charlie last year has got his confidence way up, will be a huge factor in our success this season.
Very positive news on Hewett, Kemp & Curnow 👏
Rate him really highly but Horse has had him well and truly entrenched in his dog house and as so many have proven in years past, that's a tough place to get out of. The likes of Mitchell, Newman, Jetta, Membrey, Nankervis and Zak Jones among a pretty strong list of guys who needed trades to get away from it. Once he gets the idea someone shouldn't be playing somewhere he's probably twice as stubborn as when he gets convinced that someone should be playing somewhere and you just have to look at the likes of Heeney and Mills taking 5+ years to get out of pockets to see how stubborn he is on the latter!
Tremendous talent but he's definitely not a Horse type of player, he takes risks, he kicks angles, he's got outside pace and actually runs creatively. These are all big no-nos for Horse so I can see why he's struggled. He reminds me so much of a blend between Gaff and Macrae as a player and honestly he could be on close to that level in the right situation, which for him has not been Sydney, just been starved of chances.
God I hope he works out though, this year is probably the last chance of him being a Swan long term or he'll need to leave for chances elsewhere before it's too late.
Tremendous talent but he's definitely not a Horse type of player, he takes risks, he kicks angles, he's got outside pace and actually runs creatively. These are all big no-nos for Horse so I can see why he's struggled. He reminds me so much of a blend between Gaff and Macrae as a player and honestly he could be on close to that level in the right situation, which for him has not been Sydney, just been starved of chances.
God I hope he works out though, this year is probably the last chance of him being a Swan long term or he'll need to leave for chances elsewhere before it's too late.
RE: Berry he generally played wing in 2020, fwiw. He would start wing and then push inside as the extra at the stoppage and was very good at it. Also excellent as a marking target around the ground. He does score better in those games where someone is missing and he gets more inside burn but wouldn't be concerned by him on the wing.
I've watched him pretty closely over the years as he's one of those guys that I've had in my keeper teams for his whole career, all of them
Durability is definitely his biggest issue, hasn't managed to stay fit very often and annoyingly seems to find a way to get hurt just as he's finding some nice form.
I've watched him pretty closely over the years as he's one of those guys that I've had in my keeper teams for his whole career, all of them
Durability is definitely his biggest issue, hasn't managed to stay fit very often and annoyingly seems to find a way to get hurt just as he's finding some nice form.
Maybe he’s been able to crawl out of the dog house finally?
View: https://twitter.com/sydneyswans/status/1487311854758076416?s=21
View: https://twitter.com/sydneyswans/status/1487311854758076416?s=21