Opinion 2024 AFL SuperCoach Planning Thread
- Thread starter MC's Mix
- Start date
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2013
- Messages
- 1,928
- Likes
- 5,871
Not great JS i wouldn't think - in a sense of he's going to have to play alright to keep his spot. In a sense of who his competition is, it really depends on the team named. I'm curious whether he makes it in on form but stuck as a forward (where someone like Murphy could be on the edge) or whether we actually plan on giving him a decent run in the midfield (and maybe someone like Soligo who has had an interrupted back end of the pre season doesn't make it). All in all, will have a better answer once we see the team named and who the emergencies are.
Could see him making some cash but given there's a number of options, I find risk doesn't really justify the reward.
Could see him making some cash but given there's a number of options, I find risk doesn't really justify the reward.
It would be preferable if there were only two identified half back options, but I think it could potentially work (and I currently have all three in my side).
There is 200% TOG to go around for the half back flank roles, and those three players might play c. 255% combined, if we assume 85% TOG each.
That leaves c. 55% TOG to be spread across those three players in varying other roles (assuming they collectively play all the HBF time, which probably isn’t quite the case).
Sheezel will get some inside mid time, which is another high scoring role (assuming he is not tagged) and McKercher probably gets a small taste in there.
That might leave somewhere in the order of 25 or 30% TOG in lower scoring roles, and that is spread across the three … ie c. 8-10% each, which seems pretty modest to me, particularly given how the three players are priced.
The key is probably that the three are dominant in the HBF role, and not sharing it significantly with other players.
There is 200% TOG to go around for the half back flank roles, and those three players might play c. 255% combined, if we assume 85% TOG each.
That leaves c. 55% TOG to be spread across those three players in varying other roles (assuming they collectively play all the HBF time, which probably isn’t quite the case).
Sheezel will get some inside mid time, which is another high scoring role (assuming he is not tagged) and McKercher probably gets a small taste in there.
That might leave somewhere in the order of 25 or 30% TOG in lower scoring roles, and that is spread across the three … ie c. 8-10% each, which seems pretty modest to me, particularly given how the three players are priced.
The key is probably that the three are dominant in the HBF role, and not sharing it significantly with other players.
Will go both together because the 2nd is the answer to the first. Ziebell was averaging 102 up to round 13 after which he was subbed 4 times and played forward for a couple of games so they could try some of the kids down back. All 6 of Hall's games were in that 13 game period. Sheezel was at 98 to that point in the season. So clearly 3 can score very decently in that period.
I expect Sheezel and Fisher to be the main two, McKercher will have some very solid games but not expecting Sheezel level scoring. I also think Sheezel is quite likely to graduate during the season, he'd comfortably be their 2nd best midfielder right now if they want to use him there and there's definitely a case for him scoring even better in that role albeit he's going to have to get his hands dirtier to do it and he's yet to prove if he can do that (tackling especially).
At a guess I think Sheezel's talent level should have him push towards 105-110 range, he was better than Daicos in his first year, which as a comment feels absurd to be able to write, and he's on that level as a talent, I don't think he goes to 117 because of the Fisher and, to a lesser extent, McKercher factors. Fisher I think should be somewhere around 95 and a bit volatile in scoring. McKercher I think is probably looking at around 80 as the target point. Sheezel at half back if he adds some intercept work unexpectedly would raise that target a bit. Going to be interesting who their intercept option is, they had absolutely nothing in that area without Ziebell last year, Sheezel has the height and range to do it decently. Fisher and McKercher wont be. Biggie actually looked good doing it a bit in the preseason game.
I think Sheezel is probably overselected, my primary reason for taking him is I like him and I'm picking guys I like for a change given I expect to hit delete on the team by week 3 anyway
but I have to admit that on paper Ryan/Stewart/Sicily are probably still sounder picks and that Houston also is at least as strong an option (albeit there's too much history for me, even last year he burned me by finally being good after I got the balls to cut off our toxic relationship!). Of course Sheezel is cheaper than that whole group and that probably plays a big part in his popularity.
Added bonus that at least Sheezel and Fisher are both very happy to go sideways often which helps boost the size of the pie they're all sharing. Ideal result is basically Sheezel as top dog, Fisher 2nd and McKercher 3rd, leaves an awful lot of room for all 3 to be slam dunks still.
Richmond is another example of 3 players all being able to score decently together.
I expect Sheezel and Fisher to be the main two, McKercher will have some very solid games but not expecting Sheezel level scoring. I also think Sheezel is quite likely to graduate during the season, he'd comfortably be their 2nd best midfielder right now if they want to use him there and there's definitely a case for him scoring even better in that role albeit he's going to have to get his hands dirtier to do it and he's yet to prove if he can do that (tackling especially).
At a guess I think Sheezel's talent level should have him push towards 105-110 range, he was better than Daicos in his first year, which as a comment feels absurd to be able to write, and he's on that level as a talent, I don't think he goes to 117 because of the Fisher and, to a lesser extent, McKercher factors. Fisher I think should be somewhere around 95 and a bit volatile in scoring. McKercher I think is probably looking at around 80 as the target point. Sheezel at half back if he adds some intercept work unexpectedly would raise that target a bit. Going to be interesting who their intercept option is, they had absolutely nothing in that area without Ziebell last year, Sheezel has the height and range to do it decently. Fisher and McKercher wont be. Biggie actually looked good doing it a bit in the preseason game.
I think Sheezel is probably overselected, my primary reason for taking him is I like him and I'm picking guys I like for a change given I expect to hit delete on the team by week 3 anyway
but I have to admit that on paper Ryan/Stewart/Sicily are probably still sounder picks and that Houston also is at least as strong an option (albeit there's too much history for me, even last year he burned me by finally being good after I got the balls to cut off our toxic relationship!). Of course Sheezel is cheaper than that whole group and that probably plays a big part in his popularity.Added bonus that at least Sheezel and Fisher are both very happy to go sideways often which helps boost the size of the pie they're all sharing. Ideal result is basically Sheezel as top dog, Fisher 2nd and McKercher 3rd, leaves an awful lot of room for all 3 to be slam dunks still.
Richmond is another example of 3 players all being able to score decently together.
I'd actually recommend that 99% of SC coaches should copy the vanilla side.
If you looked at it now:
Dacios Sheezel Young Williams Howes Gibcus Reid/Coffield
Bont Gulden Green Miller Martin McKercher Sanders Roberts Wilson/Clark/Sharp
Grundy Gawn Naismith
Jackson Flanders Fisher Jordon Reid Duursma Windsor/Sexton
That's a damn solid team. Maybe a tweak of Sexton on field, perhaps a Gulden with a bad R0 score and the extra bye to another premium and Naismith to a R/F to take advantage of Jackson and you've got a damn good side, with Livingstone Gulden can become Butters as the next most popular (can't afford Dawson/Petracca). I'd wager very good money that most people are better off with that side. There might be a couple of rookie tweaks but that's some vanilla goodness that has you in a great position.
If you looked at it now:
Dacios Sheezel Young Williams Howes Gibcus Reid/Coffield
Bont Gulden Green Miller Martin McKercher Sanders Roberts Wilson/Clark/Sharp
Grundy Gawn Naismith
Jackson Flanders Fisher Jordon Reid Duursma Windsor/Sexton
That's a damn solid team. Maybe a tweak of Sexton on field, perhaps a Gulden with a bad R0 score and the extra bye to another premium and Naismith to a R/F to take advantage of Jackson and you've got a damn good side, with Livingstone Gulden can become Butters as the next most popular (can't afford Dawson/Petracca). I'd wager very good money that most people are better off with that side. There might be a couple of rookie tweaks but that's some vanilla goodness that has you in a great position.
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,983
- Likes
- 126,679
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
For that price I gather Touk would be viewed as a keeper and thus any potential price changes, etc should not influence decision making.
The initial point was moreso to exercise caution once you head over the $350,000 to $400,000 odd price range and if coaches attempt to use the cash generation point for reassurance in the selection, as then we start to head down a slippery slope. If they are averaging enough to earn say $50,000 from a $450,000 starting point, are they really a priority trade out relative to other holes or positions that may need to be fixed and when we eventually get around to trading, any advantage may be lost from both a points or cash perspective, if the price has fallen in the meantime.
The initial point was moreso to exercise caution once you head over the $350,000 to $400,000 odd price range and if coaches attempt to use the cash generation point for reassurance in the selection, as then we start to head down a slippery slope. If they are averaging enough to earn say $50,000 from a $450,000 starting point, are they really a priority trade out relative to other holes or positions that may need to be fixed and when we eventually get around to trading, any advantage may be lost from both a points or cash perspective, if the price has fallen in the meantime.
How many Round 0/Early Bye players do you have in your structure? I have tried to go very light on, particularly with Premiums. Rucks I feel are the exception as I have Jackson F1 as coverage, and comfortable with my forward coverage when Jackson moves. Fading Naicos and Green who otherwise would be locks.
Defence: 3 (Williams Howes Gibcus)
Midfield: 2 (Roberts and Windsor*)
Ruck: 2 (Gawn and Grundy)
Forward: 4 (Flanders, Jordon, Sexton, Cadman*)
Defence: 3 (Williams Howes Gibcus)
Midfield: 2 (Roberts and Windsor*)
Ruck: 2 (Gawn and Grundy)
Forward: 4 (Flanders, Jordon, Sexton, Cadman*)
- Joined
- 3 May 2017
- Messages
- 2,684
- Likes
- 8,886
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
R5-6 Rookies you can sell, and will want to because they'll have had an extra price change, hopefully a rise. Don't count them. It's best 18 in R3 where you'll be selecting from 21 as F6 will be a donut. This is fine, albeit not what I'm doing.
Jackson doesn't really cover Gawn/Grundy your F7 does. As that's the score that wouldn't otherwise be there if Jackson was say Macrae (assming Macrae is selected. What in the world? Bevo?...off topic. Heading to rant thread.).
I expect to cover Gawn, Grundy and Heeney at their bye. Some other MPs/Rookies allowing looping of rookies, like Zwilliams/Lyons/Roberts.
Jackson doesn't really cover Gawn/Grundy your F7 does. As that's the score that wouldn't otherwise be there if Jackson was say Macrae (assming Macrae is selected. What in the world? Bevo?...off topic. Heading to rant thread.).
I expect to cover Gawn, Grundy and Heeney at their bye. Some other MPs/Rookies allowing looping of rookies, like Zwilliams/Lyons/Roberts.
Last edited:
