Discussion 2025: AFL SuperCoach Discussion - OPEN
- Thread starter freowho
- Start date
Not very often, but once bitten twice shy, as the saying goes.
The other factor is that how many genuine bulletproof C options are there?
Sheezel? Playing M/F in match sims. Very consistent but doesn't put up many monster scores.
Bont? Just too expensive for me.
Butters? Ditto; and don't trust him to maintain 120 avg.
Xerri & Gawn: Pretty good but I only have 2 ruck spots and I'm not willing to pay the premium to start them.
The other factor is that how many genuine bulletproof C options are there?
Sheezel? Playing M/F in match sims. Very consistent but doesn't put up many monster scores.
Bont? Just too expensive for me.
Butters? Ditto; and don't trust him to maintain 120 avg.
Xerri & Gawn: Pretty good but I only have 2 ruck spots and I'm not willing to pay the premium to start them.
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,357
- Likes
- 3,838
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Yep he is for sure. The training reports are even indicating that Darcy will play more ruck this year, with English dropping behind the play a bit more. Not good for English, but could make Darcy a very viable selection up forward. Hard to know till the real stuff starts though.. they could just be practicing different options in case they need to employ it at times throughout the season.
Had my first serious look at throwing a team together today.
Deleting Kiddy from my squad proved to be a massive headache as it messed with my structure.
Seems to be cookie cutter with a few pods thrown in.
Heard our four favorite words concerning Luke Parker on the news. (Training the house down.)
Will sit on this squad for awhile and watch how the preseason goes.
Deleting Kiddy from my squad proved to be a massive headache as it messed with my structure.
Seems to be cookie cutter with a few pods thrown in.
Heard our four favorite words concerning Luke Parker on the news. (Training the house down.)
Will sit on this squad for awhile and watch how the preseason goes.
Not a lot of genuine keepers there as you’ve gone heavy on the speculative guys or those to take a jump. If they all work out great but history says they won’t and you’ll fall massively behind the pack making corrections when they are making upgrades.
I also agree with the post by Ben’s Beasts that you don’t really have an obvious C and a lot of very risky VCs. You could get a safe score but you could also cop some bad ones.
I don’t love some picks but there is always some personal preference to this things, but I think your structure is too risky and will likely set you back because too many of the risky picks won’t work.
I also agree with the post by Ben’s Beasts that you don’t really have an obvious C and a lot of very risky VCs. You could get a safe score but you could also cop some bad ones.
I don’t love some picks but there is always some personal preference to this things, but I think your structure is too risky and will likely set you back because too many of the risky picks won’t work.
I don’t disagree that I'm really heavy on speculative players, but the 2025 meta is already very heavy on those kind of players. Also, paradoxically, a lot of times 'safe picks' end up being completely failed picks. Dawson and LDU last year, for example. Then those mistakes are compounded upon by trading such players to others with a hot start - Serong or Luke Ryan, for instance, and then you're in a never ending hole.
Obviously, they're speculative picks for a reason, but if one looks at the players I've selected, a case can be made that any one of them has massive upside that might even allow them to outscore players $50-100k more expensive.
The other factor is that there are plenty of trades available. If Sean Darcy lasts up to his bye and explodes early and gets over $600k then I can swap him over to Xerri at the byes. Additionally, I have plenty of open options to bring elite mids in - Bont, Daicos, etc if and when they drop to that high $500k mark.
Obviously, they're speculative picks for a reason, but if one looks at the players I've selected, a case can be made that any one of them has massive upside that might even allow them to outscore players $50-100k more expensive.
The other factor is that there are plenty of trades available. If Sean Darcy lasts up to his bye and explodes early and gets over $600k then I can swap him over to Xerri at the byes. Additionally, I have plenty of open options to bring elite mids in - Bont, Daicos, etc if and when they drop to that high $500k mark.
There's been a fair bit of worthwhile chat over the number of trades that need to be used to complete a team. I'm hearing things like 'there's plenty of trades available' or 'be aggressive' with your trades.
Looking at my current team (one of many iterations) where I've tried to go G n R's but also target value and potential cheap keepers. Those cheap keepers I expect to be in most teams.
Mills
Clarry
MacRae, Smith, Phillipou and Daniel
They're my only MP's apart from Flynn in Flex possie.
After those 6 I can add 9 solid keepers, leaving 7 rookie priced players on field (and Flynn)
If every one of those above 6 prove to be keepers then I'll have to use around 23 trades to complete the team.
There's something though that changes the landscape with the amount of trades available and that's the Flex position. Last year we had 40 trades that could be used to complete a team of 22 players (some smart coaches managed 23) This year we have the same 40 trades but now we have to complete a team of 23 players which effectively cuts our accessibility to trades by 2 or 3, it might not seem much, but it has a profound effect on how aggressive you can be in using the available trades.
Looking at my current team (one of many iterations) where I've tried to go G n R's but also target value and potential cheap keepers. Those cheap keepers I expect to be in most teams.
Mills
Clarry
MacRae, Smith, Phillipou and Daniel
They're my only MP's apart from Flynn in Flex possie.
After those 6 I can add 9 solid keepers, leaving 7 rookie priced players on field (and Flynn)
If every one of those above 6 prove to be keepers then I'll have to use around 23 trades to complete the team.
There's something though that changes the landscape with the amount of trades available and that's the Flex position. Last year we had 40 trades that could be used to complete a team of 22 players (some smart coaches managed 23) This year we have the same 40 trades but now we have to complete a team of 23 players which effectively cuts our accessibility to trades by 2 or 3, it might not seem much, but it has a profound effect on how aggressive you can be in using the available trades.
You’ve got a plan and I admire that. My only caution is that so often a case can be made for each player at an individual level, but only so many fire and not always right away. When I looked at your team it was form the view of total risk profile, and how the overall effect comes together with so many that aren’t proven or carry risks. They could absolutely all pay off, but history does say they probably all don’t.
One last thing, there is a little bit of a fallacy in the thinking that Darcy starts really strong and gets over $600k only to be flipped at his bye. If you had a premium hitting those numbers, over such a long stretch, you’re highly unlikely to trade them. So just keep that in mind (a good problem to have if it eventuates mind you).
One last thing, there is a little bit of a fallacy in the thinking that Darcy starts really strong and gets over $600k only to be flipped at his bye. If you had a premium hitting those numbers, over such a long stretch, you’re highly unlikely to trade them. So just keep that in mind (a good problem to have if it eventuates mind you).
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2025
- Messages
- 1
- Likes
- 21
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Thing is, I've always been too afraid to actually go through with my first thoughts, to my detriment.
For instance, last season I:
Had Serong as one my first picked in pre-season, only to not pick him and watch him go 130 for the first 10 weeks, whilst I started Jordan Dawson.
Switched Nic Martin and Xerri to English.
Thought about trading Luke Jackson out at $600k and then baulked.
I do totally agree that from an overall perspective, there's a lot of risk that seems apparent, but I've been in a situation where I've tried to play it safe only to miss the 50/50 on which premium mid comes out with a 140 average and the other that goes 95. The other issue is that so many decent players have either scoring or role concerns or bye worries. I will agree that I probably only have 1 or 2 of the top line players on any line, but I think that plan maximises the chance of me picking off those uber-elite premiums when they fall in price.
Looking at my current list profile:
Fallen Premiums: Sicily, Oliver, Mills
Needs a bit of a boost to be in the top 6/8 of their line: NWM, Clark, JHF, Rankine
Breakout Candidates: McKercher, Richards, Young, Darcy, TDK
Just there for the ride: Peatling, Flynn
We're all in the same boat: Macrae, Smith, Phillipou, Daniel
Paradoxically, I think a lineup like this minimizes risk, if I want to finish with a solid ranking, buying low is absolutely paramount. I won't have to try to decide whether to hold onto an expensive investment or not, and with discipline I can ignore those $650k hot-streak players like Luke Ryan and Matt Rowell last year. Granted, I'll cop it if someone goes off in the early stage of the season and I don't have them, but statistically speaking, the likelyhood of a player above $600k outperforming their value is slim, unless it's a specific player for a specific reason.
For a bit of experimentation, I've put a list of every player over the past 4 years who were in the top 10 SC scorers by average for that year. A total of 27 players.
Additionally, here are how the top 10 scorers by average in a particular season compared with their previous and subsequent seasons:
Whilst not a complete list, as a player might have not been in the top 10 for any season yet hit an average of 114.9, here's another bit of analysis:
Going by these statistics:
Tier 1:
Bontempelli is a 100% chance to drop in average.
Tier 2:
Gawn and Butters have a 83.3% chance to drop in average.
Tier 3:
Xerri, Neale, Flanders, Sheezel, Daicos, Heeney, Ryan, Treloar, Serong and Merrett have a 81.25% chance to drop in average.
Tier 4:
Marshall, Dunkley, Whitfield, Cripps, Zorko, McGovern and Nankervis have a 63.63% chance to increase in average.
The issue is that these tier 4 players all have massive question marks; but this is where in most seasons you'd be looking for that safe upside potential.
If we go to Tier 5 you're looking at Sinclair and Brayshaw types. Some might consider English, LDU, Green, Houston or even Nic Martin, but most of these players are competing with Tier 3 players because of the massive question marks on the 110-114.9 averaging players, and when you're speculating on a breakout the difference between a Tier 5 player and speculating on a Tier 6 or 7 becomes far less certain, especially in the defence and forward line.
So for me, are those Tier 3 players worth investing in?
Of the 10: 5 have the early bye, so you have to think they need to outperform their average by about 2.5ppg to be worth picking. Before the pre-season news about his PF I might have though Daicos could do it. Of the rest, maybe Xerri and Sheezel are the best bets to maintain their average, but Xerri shares the same bye and line as TDK with massive upside potential. Sheezel seems a very solid pick but the fact is that North's most stacked area is probably their midfield. Granted, he is probably their best player but also most likely option out of him/LDU/Wardlaw to push forward of the ball. Flanders is a wait and see because of both role and the bye. I'm gambling that Clark and Young straight out out-average Ryan and Serong. Post byes last season Ryan and Serong did outperform Clark and Young respectively, but very narrowly.
For instance, last season I:
Had Serong as one my first picked in pre-season, only to not pick him and watch him go 130 for the first 10 weeks, whilst I started Jordan Dawson.
Switched Nic Martin and Xerri to English.
Thought about trading Luke Jackson out at $600k and then baulked.
I do totally agree that from an overall perspective, there's a lot of risk that seems apparent, but I've been in a situation where I've tried to play it safe only to miss the 50/50 on which premium mid comes out with a 140 average and the other that goes 95. The other issue is that so many decent players have either scoring or role concerns or bye worries. I will agree that I probably only have 1 or 2 of the top line players on any line, but I think that plan maximises the chance of me picking off those uber-elite premiums when they fall in price.
Looking at my current list profile:
Fallen Premiums: Sicily, Oliver, Mills
Needs a bit of a boost to be in the top 6/8 of their line: NWM, Clark, JHF, Rankine
Breakout Candidates: McKercher, Richards, Young, Darcy, TDK
Just there for the ride: Peatling, Flynn
We're all in the same boat: Macrae, Smith, Phillipou, Daniel
Paradoxically, I think a lineup like this minimizes risk, if I want to finish with a solid ranking, buying low is absolutely paramount. I won't have to try to decide whether to hold onto an expensive investment or not, and with discipline I can ignore those $650k hot-streak players like Luke Ryan and Matt Rowell last year. Granted, I'll cop it if someone goes off in the early stage of the season and I don't have them, but statistically speaking, the likelyhood of a player above $600k outperforming their value is slim, unless it's a specific player for a specific reason.
For a bit of experimentation, I've put a list of every player over the past 4 years who were in the top 10 SC scorers by average for that year. A total of 27 players.
Additionally, here are how the top 10 scorers by average in a particular season compared with their previous and subsequent seasons:
Whilst not a complete list, as a player might have not been in the top 10 for any season yet hit an average of 114.9, here's another bit of analysis:
Going by these statistics:
Tier 1:
Bontempelli is a 100% chance to drop in average.
Tier 2:
Gawn and Butters have a 83.3% chance to drop in average.
Tier 3:
Xerri, Neale, Flanders, Sheezel, Daicos, Heeney, Ryan, Treloar, Serong and Merrett have a 81.25% chance to drop in average.
Tier 4:
Marshall, Dunkley, Whitfield, Cripps, Zorko, McGovern and Nankervis have a 63.63% chance to increase in average.
The issue is that these tier 4 players all have massive question marks; but this is where in most seasons you'd be looking for that safe upside potential.
If we go to Tier 5 you're looking at Sinclair and Brayshaw types. Some might consider English, LDU, Green, Houston or even Nic Martin, but most of these players are competing with Tier 3 players because of the massive question marks on the 110-114.9 averaging players, and when you're speculating on a breakout the difference between a Tier 5 player and speculating on a Tier 6 or 7 becomes far less certain, especially in the defence and forward line.
So for me, are those Tier 3 players worth investing in?
Of the 10: 5 have the early bye, so you have to think they need to outperform their average by about 2.5ppg to be worth picking. Before the pre-season news about his PF I might have though Daicos could do it. Of the rest, maybe Xerri and Sheezel are the best bets to maintain their average, but Xerri shares the same bye and line as TDK with massive upside potential. Sheezel seems a very solid pick but the fact is that North's most stacked area is probably their midfield. Granted, he is probably their best player but also most likely option out of him/LDU/Wardlaw to push forward of the ball. Flanders is a wait and see because of both role and the bye. I'm gambling that Clark and Young straight out out-average Ryan and Serong. Post byes last season Ryan and Serong did outperform Clark and Young respectively, but very narrowly.
Super solid write up and analysis! You make lots of good points and it’s definitely worth calling out that the “safe” picks also carry degrees of risk as well. The only thing you missed when categorising your team into groups is the injury/role overlay. Guys like Rankine (injury) and Sicily (role) just to name a couple.
But you’ve put a lot of thinking in so back yourself in, if it doesn’t work out at least you ran your own race!
But you’ve put a lot of thinking in so back yourself in, if it doesn’t work out at least you ran your own race!