Hey guys!
Just helping Purple 77 out as requested. This thread serves THREE purposes:
a) Award nominations and fixture discussions
b) Rule suggestions - WHICH ANYONE CAN NOMINATE ANY RULE for discussion. I think all new rules need to be decided BEFORE trading begins, and that once they are decided, shouldn't be changed until this time next year (unless something drastic happens like a radical new AFL rule change or a tragedy of some sort)
c) Are you going to be around next year? Cos if you are thinking of retiring to the great fantasy land in the sky, now'd be the time to let people know :)
This is going to be a huge post. So I've numbered things.
Award Nominations
1. Coach of the Year
Purps asked me to do this as he is a coach and can't rightfully nominate himself for instance
I've decided that instead of adding my potential bias to this, will give this a simple criteria:
- If you've won more games during the regular season in 2015 than 2014, you get a nomination for coach of the year. If you had the same amount of wins, if you scored more overall points you get a nomination
- A wild card nomination if I feel that a coach has had to overcome particular adversity or done something special to deserve it.
The nominations will be announced after Round 17 is complete.
2. Coaches award
Each team can nominate a player on there team they think deserves special mention. You can use any criteria you like, it doesn't have to be the best player. Previous winners are Chad Wingard and Matt Jaensch, both from PNL.
Fixture
We've played for 4 years! The fixture for 2016 is likely to be very similar to the fixture in 2015 (with three groups of six based on ladder position).
You guys have any teams you want to start a 2 year 'rivalry' with where you play each other on neutral ground for 2 years? Let me know, or I'll make them up.
My Rule Suggestions/Thoughts
Ok, a lot of these are just me playing around (you should be use to this by now), and I fully expect people to hate some of these. That's fine! Not hugely sold on some myself. Suggestions are welcome.
ANYONE can nominate a rule change. And it will be voted on.
1. Preseason Training
I'd say that once the fixture is announced, each team can nominate which preseason training regime they would like.
a) Hard - train hard in the preseason, and your team gets +10% in the first 4 rounds of the season, but -15% in the last 4 rounds of the season (finals not impacted)
b) Normal - no bonus/penalty
c) Light - light training, and your team gets -15% in the first 4 rounds of the season, but +10% in the last 4 rounds of the season (finals not impacted).
2. Getting up for a match
I don't think we could have but #1 and #2, but how about this:
You can choose to train your team really hard for a week, and get a +10% bonus the next round, but a -20% penalty the round after.
Finals wouldn't count.
3. Salary Cap Change
Cap stays the same (30,000 max, 22,000 min - points scored over 17 rounds)
BUT, instead of taking just a players 2015 score, you take the highest score between 2015 and 2014? I.e. Tom Liberatore would be worth his 2014 value, not his 2015 value of 0.
4. Flood/Attack Changes
Talked about this before :P
Each team can choose whether they play with 5 forwards and 3 defenders, 4 forwards and 4 defenders or 3 forwards and 5 defenders ANY week (except finals)
If you have 5 forwards against the opposition 4 defenders, each forward gets +10% and the opposition defender loses 15%
If you have 5 forwards against the opposition 3 defenders, each forward gets +15% and the opposition defender loses 20%
If you have 4 forwards against the opposition 3 defenders, each forward gets +5% and the opposition defender loses 10%
If you have the same amount of forwards/defenders, no penalty.
And vice versa if you have more defenders than forwards.
5. Tag
A lot of people have had issues with a tagging rule, I've tried to incorporate that feedback.
You nominated a midfielder in your team to tag a midfielder on the opposition (that midfielder has to be named on the midfield or interchange). The tagger loses 15% just for playing a tagging role. The player being tagged loses 5% for each TACKLE the tagger makes. BUT if the player being tagged has the same or more tackles than the tagger, he breaks the tag and receives no penalty, while the tagger still loses 15%.
I.e. Liam Shiels tags Jack Steven. Shiels loses 15% of his score for playing the tagging role, and has 7 tackles, so Steven loses 35% of his score. BUT if Steven also has 7 (or more tackles), the tag is broken, and he receives no penalty.
6. Sub Rule
AFL is a real chance of getting rid of the sub rule. So what do we do?
- Remove the sub rule and just have bad luck?
- Retain the sub rule for players injured in first half?
- Something else?
I'm in favour of just reverting back to bad luck.
7. Ruck OOP
Trying to incorporate everyone's feedback. My main issue isn't so much about the scarcity of players, but who is playing OOP there. I.e. if Caleb Daniel is ever named OOP ruck that is just ridiculous.
My proposal:
If you name a player OOP in the ruck you still lose 50% of the score (as has always been the case). BUT, if that player is less than 190cm, not only do you lose 50% of your score, the opposition ruck gains 25%.
8. Leadership Group
Think it could be good that at the start of each season each team names 5 players in a leadership group and the Captain (and Co-Captains) can only be selected from those 5 players for the season (unless all 5 aren't available)
9. Trading Future Draft Picks
Think the same rules as the ones recently announced by the AFL
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-06/future-trading-given-goahead-but-with-restrictions
- Clubs can trade one year in the future only.
- Clubs must make at least two first-round selections in each four-year period. If they don't, they will face restrictions from trading any further first-round draft picks.
- If a club trades a future first-round selection, it may not trade any other future selection from that same draft. But if a club keeps its future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds.
10. Form Confidence
A bit quirky this one.
If you have a player that has increased his score for 3 weeks in a row, his next score gets a +10% confidence bonus (must have played all 4 matches consecutively, but not necessarily in the WXV seniors).
AND
If you have a player that has decreased his score for 4 weeks in a row, his next score gets a -10% confidence penalty (must have played all 4 matches consecutively, but not necessarily in the WXV seniors).
So in Round 1 Travis Boak scores 85, then 90, then 92, the 96 - his next score in round 5 will get a +10% confidence bonus.
While if David Armitage scores 120, 115, 104, 96, his next score in round 5 will get a -10% confidence penalty.
So, feel free to not read any of that.
This wont suprise you but im against any additional rules.
I would scrap every rule but the Sub rule and go back to who the worlds was when it started. Nice and simple.
I think we at Cairo deserve a Coach of the Year nomination for not throwing in the towel and/or rage quitting this season despite the stupidly bad luck we've endured. :P
Fixture stuff is all gravy, I liked how it was this season, made it interesting (with a fair few teams going up or down, along with the upset here and there).
Don't like any of those rules/suggestions to be honest, I agree with Holz there.
Quote from: Nige on August 07, 2015, 05:25:09 PM
I think we at Cairo deserve a Coach of the Year nomination for not throwing in the towel and/or rage quitting this season despite the stupidly bad luck we've endured. :P
Nige pls, get through a 2nd/ 3rd year of pain and then come talk to us
Quote from: Ricochet on August 07, 2015, 05:27:43 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 07, 2015, 05:25:09 PM
I think we at Cairo deserve a Coach of the Year nomination for not throwing in the towel and/or rage quitting this season despite the stupidly bad luck we've endured. :P
Nige pls, get through a 2nd/ 3rd year of pain and then come talk to us
Yeah, but we were fine last season. :(
You guys have been consistently bad (not your fault) for a couple of years. :P
Quote from: Nige on August 07, 2015, 05:34:33 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on August 07, 2015, 05:27:43 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 07, 2015, 05:25:09 PM
I think we at Cairo deserve a Coach of the Year nomination for not throwing in the towel and/or rage quitting this season despite the stupidly bad luck we've endured. :P
Nige pls, get through a 2nd/ 3rd year of pain and then come talk to us
Yeah, but we were fine last season. :(
You guys have been consistently bad (not your fault) for a couple of years. :P
haha thanks mate
Are we going to start a separate thread here for nominations or do we nominate here.
Also agree with Holz some of these rules are getting too complicated to keep on top off so would like to keep it simple. It is hard enough now keeping up with Floot, attack etc. without adding in additional scoring.
I like the same rule that I brought up in British with regards to the sub rule.
With only 15 scoring players on each team if one goes down early and scores say 0 it then becomes very difficult for a team to compete in the match.
Whereas in the AFL if a player goes down early with injury it might hurt them a bit late on but, it generally doesn't decide the outcome of a match.
Which is why I think having some rule for injured players would be good, to better reflect real life.
The rule proposal Ringo came up with in British was this:
If a player is replaced before half time or if he spends less than 40% time on ground then substitution from emergency players is allowed at either full points if emergency is from same line or half points if OOP emergency is used. Administrator to decide if TOG is injury related or not to remove cases where player is sparingly used.
Lol, I love every single one of those rules. Maybe it's just an admin thing bro?
Except I'm not a fan of future draft pick trading is all, given the high quantity of trades as it is.
The two rules that particularly catch my fancy is the tagger and confidence rules. I think they're magnificent.
Yep, Worlds has got a lot of rules. However I like to think we have all got accustomed to them? I understand Ringo has two lots of rules to keep track of in Worlds and British, but how is everyone else coping with all the rules?
I like to think Worlds will keep on advancing that little extra bit every year; allowing coaches to have more of a coaching role and controlling their luck to a degree. I don't expect all of those rules to be implemented and won't enforce against the consensus, but I encourage everyone to give at least one yes vote when voting time does come :)
I reckon the leadership group rule is pretty cool.
Quote from: Ringo on August 07, 2015, 05:46:59 PM
Are we going to start a separate thread here for nominations or do we nominate here.
Also agree with Holz some of these rules are getting too complicated to keep on top off so would like to keep it simple. It is hard enough now keeping up with Floot, attack etc. without adding in additional scoring.
Yeah, nominate away :)
And not expecting EVERY rule to get up, cos that would be confusing, I agree
Quote from: Vinny on August 07, 2015, 06:07:58 PM
I reckon the leadership group rule is pretty cool.
Yeah, it bugs me a little that a player who has a break out season is named captain later in the year (I'm looking at you Max Gawn). I don't think it is very realistic
I'm happy to roll with the majority on most of those suggested rules. But I really don't like the future draft pick trading.
Royals will nominate Dan Hannebery for their coaches player award. Dan has really stepped up again for the Royals this year and has assumed sole captaincy getting us a few wins with his outstanding forms. The ideal player fro the Royals to build their team around.
I'm not part of Worlds but I got linked to read this. I think those rule changes are cool.
Future trading of draft picks is not a good idea though, unlike the AFL coaches here change hands so often I think that is one element that should be kept the same as it is. It really does not add anything except confusion.
Quote from: PowerBug on August 07, 2015, 07:24:14 PM
I'm not part of Worlds but I got linked to read this. I think those rule changes are cool.
Future trading of draft picks is not a good idea though, unlike the AFL coaches here change hands so often I think that is one element that should be kept the same as it is. It really does not add anything except confusion.
Is a good point PB, will point out though this has been an incredibly stable year under Purps - no coaches have resigned, and everybody has submitted a team every week on time (except for a couple of partial lock out issues)
Quote from: ossie85 on August 07, 2015, 07:29:04 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on August 07, 2015, 07:24:14 PM
I'm not part of Worlds but I got linked to read this. I think those rule changes are cool.
Future trading of draft picks is not a good idea though, unlike the AFL coaches here change hands so often I think that is one element that should be kept the same as it is. It really does not add anything except confusion.
Is a good point PB, will point out though this has been an incredibly stable year under Purps - no coaches have resigned, and everybody has submitted a team every week on time (except for a couple of partial lock out issues)
Wow that is a very good effort then, well done :) I also know that in AXV which is the only XVs I'm currently involved with seems to be vastly against the future draft picks too. The other stuff though looks really really awesome, would be time consuming as a manager, but still very very good.
The Cape Town coaches award nominee is so easy I don't even need to consult My Chumps on this one.
I'm sure he'll agree that Mark Blicavs thoroughly deserves the nomination from the Cobras.
After averaged a shade under 70 last year in 21 games Blicavs has played all but one game this season for an astounding average of 106.18 - 37 points per game better than in 2014.
His lowest score for the year is 71 (better than his average last year) and he's passed the ton in more than 50% of his games (9/17 games). These tons have included several monster scores including a 153, 134 and 132.
There is no competition at all for my nomination. This lad averaged a mere 50.8 from 18 games last year, and when I traded out backstabber Clark for X.Ellis, I didn't expect the sweetener on top of Ellis to be the best player in the trade! Yes he may have finished the H&A season with an average of 79.44 (28.64 point improvement) after running out of puff somewhat, he has played EVERY game for me in the forward line or bench, and his wicked crazy consistency cannot be undervalued.
I speak of no other, than Marco "PapaGun" Paparone!
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 10, 2015, 03:02:48 PM
There is no competition at all for my nomination. This lad averaged a mere 50.8 from 18 games last year, and when I traded out backstabber Clark for X.Ellis, I didn't expect the sweetener on top of Ellis to be the best player in the trade! Yes he may have finished the H&A season with an average of 79.44 (28.64 point improvement) after running out of puff somewhat, he has played EVERY game for me in the forward line or bench, and his wicked crazy consistency cannot be underestimated.
I speak of no other, than Marco "PapaGun" Paparone!
how Fyfe didnt win Ill never understand.
Quote from: Holz on August 10, 2015, 03:03:32 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 10, 2015, 03:02:48 PM
There is no competition at all for my nomination. This lad averaged a mere 50.8 from 18 games last year, and when I traded out backstabber Clark for X.Ellis, I didn't expect the sweetener on top of Ellis to be the best player in the trade! Yes he may have finished the H&A season with an average of 79.44 (28.64 point improvement) after running out of puff somewhat, he has played EVERY game for me in the forward line or bench, and his wicked crazy consistency cannot be underestimated.
I speak of no other, than Marco "PapaGun" Paparone!
how Fyfe didnt win Ill never understand.
Cost me a couple of games towards the end of the year... and tbh, his dominance was expected.
I most certainly didn't expect Paparone to play all 17 matches for me this year.
Jelly wasn't able to make it 3 Dublin medals in a row.
The man who took it out, just wasn't the best player at Dublin, he was the best player in the compl and he did it all not as a midfielder. From a very very good 107 last year he pumped that up to a 131 average, from every single game played.
He had an amazing 15/18 100+ scores.
but what is more scary 6/18 or 33% of his games at 150 or more including the 221 point masterclass.
I give you the best player in the World
(http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Todd+Goldstein+cGuuRQp7wAHm.jpg)
I probably should run this by AK first, but I doubt he would argue when I say that we nominate Heath "Heater" Shaw
This has been Heater's best season ever in terms of SC and picking him up during the trade period last season from Moscow has been a massive gain for New York
He has played every game this season so far and is the 7th highest overall scoring player, highest averaging defender and 12th highest averaging player in the entire comp!
Absolutely massive year from Heater, and a very worthy award winner
(http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2014/07/30/1227007/893421-d7413f32-17be-11e4-af9d-7fe33283992e.jpg)
Official Coach of the Year Nominations
AaronKirk/Raisy Daisy (New York)
2015 Finish: 10 wins, 2367 points
2014 Finish: 5 wins, 2157 points
Difference: 5 wins, 210 points
New York with new coaches and heavy trading were always thought to be one of the big improvers this year, but they suffered a lot of injuries, and STILL posted impressive results, on its way to New York's best season and first finals appearance.
Boomz (Tokyo)
2015 Finish: 8 wins, 2278 points
2014 Finish: 6 wins, 2287 points
Difference: 2 wins, -9 points
A team that for a while looked like they might take a surprising finals appearance, but nonetheless they are competitive team, and Boomz will just be striving for some consistency.
Hellopplz (PNL)
2015 Finish: 13 wins, 2532 points
2014 Finish: 12 wins, 2422 points
Difference: 1 win, 110 points
Along with assistant coach DazBurg, HP has crafted one of the few legitimate contenders for this year's flag. Always competitive, but not that lucky, can the Reindeers win there first ever final, prelim, Grand Final?
Holz (Dublin)
2015 Finish: 16 wins, 2773 points
2014 Finish: 14 wins, 2641 points
Difference: 2 wins, 132 points
Purely outstanding effort, winning the minor premiership by 3 wins and a bucket load of percentage. Holz has dramatically improved his PREMIERSHIP winning team. Well done, and an amazing effort.
Jayman (Pacific)
2015 Finish: 11 wins, 2361 points
2014 Finish: 3 wins, 2040 points
Difference: 8 wins, 321 points
Controversial finish this time last year, Pacific have drafted and traded VERY well and kept the faith in others. Jayman has built his team to FIFTH from LAST the year before! Even the great Dublin only managed to go from 18th to 9th in one year. Well done Jayman on Pacific's first finals appearance.
JBs-Hawks/kilbluff1985 (Seoul)
2015 Finish: 8 wins, 2236 points
2014 Finish: 7 wins, 2293 points
Difference: 1 win, -57 points
I don't know how they do it, but Seoul found a way to keep winning this year, often out of nowhere, and even took out the Asian cup. Well done to JB and KB!
meow meow (Christchurch)
2015 Finish: 13 wins, 2430 points
2014 Finish: NA
A terrific effort from one of the new teams on the block, a some of the Sao Paulo DNA in this team, but a heck of lot of meow meow razzle dazzle, coaching a team that keeps on surprising.
Purple 77 (Berlin)
2015 Finish: 10 wins, 2484 points
2014 Finish: 8 wins, 2306 points
Difference: 2 wins, 178 points
The 4th highest scoring team this year, Purple 77 recovered from last year's disappointing result to be a team that can beat any team on its day, and will be a team that no other team will like to face in the finals.
Toga/Master Q (Beijing)
2015 Finish: 7 wins, 2318 points
2014 Finish: 3 wins, 2038 points
Difference: 4 wins, 280 points
Toga (and silent partner Master Q? Haven't heard from Q in a long time!) has built a very competitive team that nobody takes lightly anymore, 7 wins is really a tremendous effort, and they are in finals calculations next year if they continue to do what they are doing.
Quote from: Holz on August 10, 2015, 03:08:59 PM
Jelly wasn't able to make it 3 Dublin medals in a row.
The man who took it out, just wasn't the best player at Dublin, he was the best player in the compl and he did it all not as a midfielder. From a very very good 107 last year he pumped that up to a 131 average, from every single game played.
He had an amazing 15/18 100+ scores.
but what is more scary 6/18 or 33% of his games at 150 or more including the 221 point masterclass.
I give you the best player in the World
(http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Todd+Goldstein+cGuuRQp7wAHm.jpg)
Goldstein a worthy nomination, but just pointing out (you might know anyway) that this is the Coaches Award, not the best and fairest, so it isn't your best player necessary, just a guy who deserves special mention. I would've thought Tom McDonald (particularly at the beginning of the year) would've been yours. But no criteria!
Still feeling a little deprived of a coach of the year nomination. :( :P
Picken was stiff to miss out but really there can be only one man who gets the coaches award from Christchurch this year. We're known for our consistency and while Sammy Mitchell is consistency personified it is much more difficult to find a defender who puts up a good score week in, week out. Coming off a 49.7 average last year you need only look at these numbers to realize how good the man has been this year.
96, 70, 123, 73, 65, 82, 69, 77, 84, 124, 95, 115, 123, 89, 144, 91, 97
No shockers amongst them, but plenty of awesome.
Just turned 24 years old, 95.1 averaging defender who never ever misses a target by foot DYLAN ROBERTON
(http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Dylan+Roberton+AFL+Rd+14+Richmond+v+St+Kilda+VZCQAuK4K4Nl.jpg)
A very worthy nominee Meow - he's been super this year
In regards to rule changes, we kind of touched on this earlier in another thread, but I would personally like to see a change made to Ruck OOP
The way I see it, we have two options. We can either reduce the OOP penalty or bring in something new
When I say something new, we already have the option to flood or attack, so we should have another option which allows us to go without a ruck. We can flood and attack on lines that have heaps of players, yet the one line that most of us have just 1, maybe 2 rucks who actually play we cant do anything for except cop OOP, and when you're faced with OOP, let alone OOP and HGA against, it's too hard to win for most of us
So the love affair with man is like no other.
Cairo's pick is Luke Breust!
(http://transform.fairfaxregional.com.au/transform/v1/crop/frm/8tYDWUpBiaA8SfdG6xkddz/bc895fae-c2f8-4796-9b29-85a97405508b.JPG/r0_0_1974_2459_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
Not much needs to be said here. A solid 85 avg with a few tons here and there. Luke Breust was one of our better players.
This year, through the adversity and the terribleness, Luke shone through.
It was the best of time, it was the Breust of times ~ The Karen faithful.
Take a well earned golfing trip Luke, you've earned it bud!
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2015, 03:58:14 PM
A very worthy nominee Meow - he's been super this year
In regards to rule changes, we kind of touched on this earlier in another thread, but I would personally like to see a change made to Ruck OOP
The way I see it, we have two options. We can either reduce the OOP penalty or bring in something new
When I say something new, we already have the option to flood or attack, so we should have another option which allows us to go without a ruck. We can flood and attack on lines that have heaps of players, yet the one line that most of us have just 1, maybe 2 rucks who actually play we cant do anything for except cop OOP, and when you're faced with OOP, let alone OOP and HGA against, it's too hard to win for most of us
I think HGA is a different argument - but a bunch of people had issues with OOP - I mean Nige had to play three OOP MIDFIELDERS this round just gone. That's just crazy.
Purple - are you able to say how many games ruckmen (not just WXV games, AFL games) played this year in total across the 17 WXV rounds? If it is say under 459 (1.5 games per team per round) I think we're in trouble, otherwise I'm kind of on the side of still having it. It isn't like it isn't realistic - just look at Essendon :(
Quote from: ossie85 on August 10, 2015, 04:16:10 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 10, 2015, 03:58:14 PM
A very worthy nominee Meow - he's been super this year
In regards to rule changes, we kind of touched on this earlier in another thread, but I would personally like to see a change made to Ruck OOP
The way I see it, we have two options. We can either reduce the OOP penalty or bring in something new
When I say something new, we already have the option to flood or attack, so we should have another option which allows us to go without a ruck. We can flood and attack on lines that have heaps of players, yet the one line that most of us have just 1, maybe 2 rucks who actually play we cant do anything for except cop OOP, and when you're faced with OOP, let alone OOP and HGA against, it's too hard to win for most of us
I think HGA is a different argument - but a bunch of people had issues with OOP - I mean Nige had to play three OOP MIDFIELDERS this round just gone. That's just crazy.
Purple - are you able to say how many games ruckmen (not just WXV games, AFL games) played this year in total across the 17 WXV rounds? If it is say under 459 (1.5 games per team per round) I think we're in trouble, otherwise I'm kind of on the side of still having it. It isn't like it isn't realistic - just look at Essendon :(
Yeh agree Oss. There's got to be a penalty for not having an actual ruckman play ruck
Appreciate the effort in the nominations oz!
And the amount of AFL games ruckmen has played over the 17 WXV rounds was 431.
We've had a few big improvers this year that we can attribute our rise up the ladder to - guys like Jacko Thurlow, Josh Caddy and Lachie Neale have all increased their averages by close to 20 points per game this year, while others like Cale Hooker have really come into their skin and showed elite scoring ability. But there's one bloke who's improvement has been astounding, and just demands to be our nomination for the coaches award!
Tom Bell has transformed himself from a run-of-the-mill midfielder on the scrapheap to an elite forward for the Thunder this year. Acquired in a trade with the New Dehli Tigers near the end of the off-season for not much of a loss, which was easily our best trade of the period, Bell has boosted his average from a measly 64 (which he was consistent in averaging for the first 3 years of his career) to a very solid 88, ranked 32nd among forwards.
(http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2012/07/30/1226438/443224-tom-bell.jpg)
Our coaches award will go to Sir Easton Wood.
In what was a disaaponiting year for the Dillos , the 25 year old stepped up as the general in defence posting an average of 87. Wood played all but one game and managed a solid 10 scores of 85 and above with 6 of them cracking the tonne. After a mere 68 average in 2014, Easton was on the brink of leaving the club but following a plea to earn his place, he was held and he flowering delivered.
I think the fixture worked great this year and made for an exciting end to the season. Big thumbs up.
1 - Don't really like this one if the fixture difficulty is applied as it advantages the very best teams too much. Dublin are going to beat Buenos Aires so they could take the hit early but later on the team that finished 6th the year before basically has no chance vs a 110% Dublin.
2 - Not a huge fan, but why not? I don't know how many teams would use it.
3 - Maybe a 10% discount for players who miss the entire season?
4 - No issue with this as long as the % penalty at one end matches the bonus at the other end.
5 - Could work but you'd have to be unlucky to come up against a team playing in the wet. The strategy aspect outweighs the luck so I'd be all for it.
6 - FF has the TOG % so any player that plays less than 50% gametime could be considered as being subbed off in WXV? Losing a WXV match due to an injury sucks so I'd be for keeping some form of the sub rule.
7 - I still think that players who have previously had ruck status in SC shouldn't cop the full 50% penalty. Maybe only 25% for the likes of Vickery who could easily ruck in the AFL again?
8 - I like it.
9 - Strongly against the trading of future picks.
10 - Is there any way of seeing how many times this would have applied this year? Quirky but I like it.
Quote from: ossie85 on August 10, 2015, 03:30:24 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 10, 2015, 03:08:59 PM
Jelly wasn't able to make it 3 Dublin medals in a row.
The man who took it out, just wasn't the best player at Dublin, he was the best player in the compl and he did it all not as a midfielder. From a very very good 107 last year he pumped that up to a 131 average, from every single game played.
He had an amazing 15/18 100+ scores.
but what is more scary 6/18 or 33% of his games at 150 or more including the 221 point masterclass.
I give you the best player in the World
(http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Todd+Goldstein+cGuuRQp7wAHm.jpg)
Goldstein a worthy nomination, but just pointing out (you might know anyway) that this is the Coaches Award, not the best and fairest, so it isn't your best player necessary, just a guy who deserves special mention. I would've thought Tom McDonald (particularly at the beginning of the year) would've been yours. But no criteria!
I thought it was best and fairest but Goldy wins the coaches award aswell.
Tmac was close but a 24 point jump from 107 to 131 was just too good. In a year where my C and VC in Jelly and Sloane fell away he saved my season.
Tmac going 70 to 96 is a massive massive effort and easily the second place getter with Lachy hansen being injured most of the year so needing the cover.
Thompson and Mundy would be 3rd and 4th.
Also, I think that players originally drafted to your club should get some % discount in the points cap. Everyone wants to trade their picks away for instant improvement but a loyalty bonus should exist.
Quote from: meow meow on August 10, 2015, 05:09:13 PM
Also, I think that players originally drafted to your club should get some % discount in the points cap. Everyone wants to trade their picks away for instant improvement but a loyalty bonus should exist.
I like this rule! Potentially that % could work both ways, depending on what end of the cap you are on?
Thanks meow for the comments :)
Quote1 - Don't really like this one if the fixture difficulty is applied as it advantages the very best teams too much. Dublin are going to beat Buenos Aires so they could take the hit early but later on the team that finished 6th the year before basically has no chance vs a 110% Dublin.
That's interesting because I was thinking opposite... Let's say the Cairo gives themselves a 10% boost for the first 4 weeks of the season, and Dublin a 15% decrease... all of a sudden Cairo are a shot at winning.
Quote3 - Maybe a 10% discount for players who miss the entire season?
Yeah, that sounds interesting
Quote4 - No issue with this as long as the % penalty at one end matches the bonus at the other end.
Good point, might have to tweak the percentages a bit
Quote6 - FF has the TOG % so any player that plays less than 50% gametime could be considered as being subbed off in WXV? Losing a WXV match due to an injury sucks so I'd be for keeping some form of the sub rule.
I know it is unlikely these days, but what if a player is on the bench for 50% of the time because he is just having a sucky day? But I don't think that'd be a deal breaker. Administration might be a bit tough though.
Quote7 - I still think that players who have previously had ruck status in SC shouldn't cop the full 50% penalty. Maybe only 25% for the likes of Vickery who could easily ruck in the AFL again?
Not really against that
Quote10 - Is there any way of seeing how many times this would have applied this year? Quirky but I like it.
I might have to borrow Purps spreadsheet!
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 10, 2015, 05:22:45 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 10, 2015, 05:09:13 PM
Also, I think that players originally drafted to your club should get some % discount in the points cap. Everyone wants to trade their picks away for instant improvement but a loyalty bonus should exist.
I like this rule! Potentially that % could work both ways, depending on what end of the cap you are on?
Yep, when Andrews, Steele, Lever and McLean are dominating I should get a little relief since I was willing to take the risk and head to the draft, and on the other end NDT shouldn't have to trade spuds in just to make up the cap when McCartin and Heeney aren't going to stay low for long.
Quote from: meow meow on August 10, 2015, 05:30:25 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 10, 2015, 05:22:45 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 10, 2015, 05:09:13 PM
Also, I think that players originally drafted to your club should get some % discount in the points cap. Everyone wants to trade their picks away for instant improvement but a loyalty bonus should exist.
I like this rule! Potentially that % could work both ways, depending on what end of the cap you are on?
Yep, when Andrews, Steele, Lever and McLean are dominating I should get a little relief since I was willing to take the risk and head to the draft, and on the other end NDT shouldn't have to trade spuds in just to make up the cap when McCartin and Heeney aren't going to stay low for long.
the issue in all of these is implementing the rule after we have planned our teams with the rules in place. I dont like any rules but thats not because they arent good but because people planned their teams with the exisiting rule. Teams like yours who have drafted are hugely advantaged under this system than teams who traded there way to the top.
Quote from: Holz on August 10, 2015, 05:39:27 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 10, 2015, 05:30:25 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 10, 2015, 05:22:45 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 10, 2015, 05:09:13 PM
Also, I think that players originally drafted to your club should get some % discount in the points cap. Everyone wants to trade their picks away for instant improvement but a loyalty bonus should exist.
I like this rule! Potentially that % could work both ways, depending on what end of the cap you are on?
Yep, when Andrews, Steele, Lever and McLean are dominating I should get a little relief since I was willing to take the risk and head to the draft, and on the other end NDT shouldn't have to trade spuds in just to make up the cap when McCartin and Heeney aren't going to stay low for long.
the issue in all of these is implementing the rule after we have planned our teams with the rules in place. I dont like any rules but thats not because they arent good but because people planned their teams with the exisiting rule. Teams like yours who have drafted are hugely advantaged under this system than teams who traded there way to the top.
There's nothing to stop you from trading some of your players for picks. We could bring the rule in for players drafted from 2015 onwards if you're so worried about it advantaging some teams more than others.
Quote from: meow meow on August 10, 2015, 05:30:25 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 10, 2015, 05:22:45 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 10, 2015, 05:09:13 PM
Also, I think that players originally drafted to your club should get some % discount in the points cap. Everyone wants to trade their picks away for instant improvement but a loyalty bonus should exist.
I like this rule! Potentially that % could work both ways, depending on what end of the cap you are on?
Yep, when Andrews, Steele, Lever and McLean are dominating I should get a little relief since I was willing to take the risk and head to the draft, and on the other end NDT shouldn't have to trade spuds in just to make up the cap when McCartin and Heeney aren't going to stay low for long.
Nobody has to trade in players, the min cap is there to stop teams from investing in the future to much like the teams did after season 1
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 10, 2015, 05:22:45 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 10, 2015, 05:09:13 PM
Also, I think that players originally drafted to your club should get some % discount in the points cap. Everyone wants to trade their picks away for instant improvement but a loyalty bonus should exist.
I like this rule! Potentially that % could work both ways, depending on what end of the cap you are on?
I too am for this rule. Will make teams more likely keep players across seasons to potentially get that discount for their cap and more likely to keep these players. Not like we see insane amount of list changes in regular AFL teams.
And think this is the season PNL's run of Coaches Award Winners end, unless we can still sneak in a winner :D. We have a few worthy of a nomination, so just need to narrow it down!
David Armitage for us
Traded him in off a 93 average hoping for a 100-ish guy who can fill up a utility spot, his 110 average has really helped cover the losses of Jaeger and Greeny and locked him in as third-mid and CC option.
Second in the B&F too
This one's super easy.. Rory Laird.
(http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2013/08/13/1226696/257249-rory-laird-handballs.jpg)
After making the transition from London, to Pacific - he has absolutely shone in his debut season at the club. Has improved his average of 59.1 in 2014, to now 93.9. At only 21 years of age, he's without a doubt one of the most valuable defenders in the whole competition.
I'll nominate Luke Dahlhaus.
One of my favourite players & a driving force behind the doggies surge up the ladder. Lifted his average by 12 points to 103, breaking the ton 11 times in the process. Unlike the rest of my team, his consistency improved with only 3 scores under 80 compared to 8 in 2014. Looking forward to good times ahead and hopefully he stays as a forward or dual position for at least a few more years!
The three groups next year for the fixture will be:
Top: Dublin, PNL, Mexico City, Christchurch, Winners of Elimination Finals
Middle: Losers of Elimination Finals, Toronto, Tokyo, Cape Town, Seoul
Bottom: London, Beijing, Rio de Janeiro, Cairo, Buenos Aires, New Delhi
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 14, 2015, 11:49:57 AM
Can I suggest that next season in the reserves finals series we have rule where if a player has played more than X number of games for the reserves throughout the season they are eligible to play in the finals even if they would have made that side's Best XV that week.
It would make for a better reserves finals series I think. There might be a a double up or two with a player scoring for both the first team and the reserves. For example in our team this week probably Nick Haynes and Sam Reid would have been eligible to play for the reserves under the above rule (Gwilt and Savage would have taken their spots in the side).
I could be down for that. Not so much the double up though.
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 14, 2015, 12:37:38 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 14, 2015, 11:49:57 AM
Can I suggest that next season in the reserves finals series we have rule where if a player has played more than X number of games for the reserves throughout the season they are eligible to play in the finals even if they would have made that side's Best XV that week.
It would make for a better reserves finals series I think. There might be a a double up or two with a player scoring for both the first team and the reserves. For example in our team this week probably Nick Haynes and Sam Reid would have been eligible to play for the reserves under the above rule (Gwilt and Savage would have taken their spots in the side).
I could be down for that. Not so much the double up though.
I feel the best way is the current way.
I'd like to have a proper reserves comp with players named (say 5 per side) one day though
Reminding guys to put in there Coaching nominations!
Also, how about this for a new sub rule? (If the sub rule is scrapped in the AFL)
IF you have a player who is injured and doesn't return after half time, an emergency is activiated and comes in at HALF points and you keep the score that player has already scored.
I.e. if Chad Wingard is injured 5 minutes into the 2nd quarter and gets a score of 33, Zach O'Brien comes in as a sub from the emergency list at half points (so if he scores 60 only 30 counts). So you basically get Wingard's 33 + O'Brien's 60/2 = 63?
If the subs are scrapped next year. ..
In real life if a player gets injured and doesnt return then then team goes from 22 players worth of output to 21. I'd personally back us to have it as the same and have no sub/emergency rule
Hi Everyone!
I will send these out for a vote soonish (once everyone has nominated a player for the coaches award).
SO DON'T VOTE HERE. Send your votes to me after I send them to you, and I'll collect the votes.
You can't vote for yourself or your players.
Also, please put your best and fairest winner here:
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,104613.0.html
Coach of the Year
Official Coach of the Year Nominations
Vote for your best coach on a 3-2-1 basis
AaronKirk/Raisy Daisy (New York)
2015 Finish: 10 wins, 2367 points
2014 Finish: 5 wins, 2157 points
Difference: 5 wins, 210 points
New York with new coaches and heavy trading were always thought to be one of the big improvers this year, but they suffered a lot of injuries, and STILL posted impressive results, on its way to New York's best season and first finals appearance.
Boomz (Tokyo)
2015 Finish: 8 wins, 2278 points
2014 Finish: 6 wins, 2287 points
Difference: 2 wins, -9 points
A team that for a while looked like they might take a surprising finals appearance, but nonetheless they are competitive team, and Boomz will just be striving for some consistency.
Hellopplz (PNL)
2015 Finish: 13 wins, 2532 points
2014 Finish: 12 wins, 2422 points
Difference: 1 win, 110 points
Along with assistant coach DazBurg, HP has crafted one of the few legitimate contenders for this year's flag. Always competitive, but not that lucky, can the Reindeers win there first ever final, prelim, Grand Final?
Holz (Dublin)
2015 Finish: 16 wins, 2773 points
2014 Finish: 14 wins, 2641 points
Difference: 2 wins, 132 points
Purely outstanding effort, winning the minor premiership by 3 wins and a bucket load of percentage. Holz has dramatically improved his PREMIERSHIP winning team. Well done, and an amazing effort.
Jayman (Pacific)
2015 Finish: 11 wins, 2361 points
2014 Finish: 3 wins, 2040 points
Difference: 8 wins, 321 points
Controversial finish this time last year, Pacific have drafted and traded VERY well and kept the faith in others. Jayman has built his team to FIFTH from LAST the year before! Even the great Dublin only managed to go from 18th to 9th in one year. Well done Jayman on Pacific's first finals appearance.
JBs-Hawks/kilbluff1985 (Seoul)
2015 Finish: 8 wins, 2236 points
2014 Finish: 7 wins, 2293 points
Difference: 1 win, -57 points
I don't know how they do it, but Seoul found a way to keep winning this year, often out of nowhere, and even took out the Asian cup. Well done to JB and KB!
meow meow (Christchurch)
2015 Finish: 13 wins, 2430 points
2014 Finish: NA
A terrific effort from one of the new teams on the block, a some of the Sao Paulo DNA in this team, but a heck of lot of meow meow razzle dazzle, coaching a team that keeps on surprising.
Purple 77 (Berlin)
2015 Finish: 10 wins, 2484 points
2014 Finish: 8 wins, 2306 points
Difference: 2 wins, 178 points
The 4th highest scoring team this year, Purple 77 recovered from last year's disappointing result to be a team that can beat any team on its day, and will be a team that no other team will like to face in the finals.
Toga/Master Q (Beijing)
2015 Finish: 7 wins, 2318 points
2014 Finish: 3 wins, 2038 points
Difference: 4 wins, 280 points
Toga (and silent partner Master Q? Haven't heard from Q in a long time!) has built a very competitive team that nobody takes lightly anymore, 7 wins is really a tremendous effort, and they are in finals calculations next year if they continue to do what they are doing.
Coaches Award
Vote for your favourite from this list on a 3-2-1 basis
Beijing - Tom Bell
Berlin - Marco Paparone
Buenos Aires - Easton Wood
Cairo - Luke Breust
Cape Town - Mark Blicavs
Christchurch - Dylan Roberton
Dublin - Tom McDonald
London - Dan Hannebery
Mexico City - Brett Deledio
Moscow - David Armitage
New Delhi - Koby Stevens
New York - Heath Shaw
Pacific - Rory Laird
PNL - Dylan Shiel
Rio de Janeiro - Elliot Yeo
Seoul - Patrick Dangerfield
Tokyo - Luke Dahlhaus
Toronto - Jack Crisp
All-Worlds Nominations
Min 12 Games Qualifications â€" 8 players per position (4 for ruck). Vote for your best XV (4 def, 4 mid, 1 ruck, 4 fwd, 2 interchange) and a CAPTAIN.
The All-World nominations are out! Of the 28 nominations for the 15 positions, 17 are vying for their first ever selection in the team, while Patrick Dangerfield and Scott Pendlebury are vying to become the first guys to be named All-Worlds FOUR times.
Defenders
Shaun Higgins (Cape Town), 17, 99.41
Luke Hodge (PNL), 14, 115.36
Bachar Houli (Rio de Janeiro), 17, 98.35
Tom McDonald (Dublin), 17, 99.18
Liam Picken (Christchurch), 15, 103.87
Alex Rance (Dublin), 17, 94.29
Dylan Roberton (Christchurch), 16, 95.13
Heath Shaw (New York), 17, 112.06 (All-Worlds 2012)
Midfielders
Dayne Beams (Cairo), 15, 112.60 (All-Worlds 2012, 2014)
Patrick Dangerfield (Seoul), 15, 120.27 (All-Worlds 2012, 2013, 2014)
Nat Fyfe (Berlin), 15, 124.80 (All-Worlds 2014)
Dan Hannebery (London), 17, 114.88
Leigh Montagna (New York), 12, 114.50
David Mundy (Dublin), 16, 115.25
Scott Pendlebury (Toronto), 17, 116.82 (All-Worlds 2012, 2013, 2014)
Matt Priddis (PNL), 16, 114.63
Rucks
Mark Blicavs (Cape Town), 15, 103.53
Todd Goldstein (Dublin), 17, 130.06 (All-Worlds 2013)
Sam Jacobs (Rio de Janeiro), 16, 106.00 (All-Worlds 2014)
Stefan Martin (Cape Town), 15, 108.33
Forwards
Marcus Bontempelli (Pacific), 15, 100.27
Luke Dahlhaus (Tokyo), 17, 104.47
Brett Deledio (Mexico City), 12, 112.08 (All-Worlds 2012)
Robbie Gray (Moscow), 16, 112.38 (All-Worlds 2014)
Dustin Martin (Dublin), 17, 109.00 (All-Worlds 2013)
Tom Mitchell (Pacific), 12, 107.00
Dane Swan (PNL), 17, 106.94 (All-Worlds 2012)
Chad Wingard (PNL), 17, 98.65
The 2014 All-Worlds team who aren’t nominated this year are:
Jimmy Bartel, Pearce Hanley, Nick Malceski, David Swallow, Gary Ablett jnr, Tom Rockliff, Brent Harvey, Luke Parker and Josh P Kennedy.
Dublin, not unexpected, lead the way with 5 nominations for team of the year, while PNL are not far behind with 4 nominations. Cape Town, who didn’t make the finals, has a surprising 3 nominations, while Mexico City could only manage the 1 nomination this year (and he only just qualified with 12 games in Brett Deledio). New teams Christchurch and Rio de Janeiro had 2 nominations each, and New York and Pacific’s breakout seasons where rewarded with 2 nominations also.
Despite showing improvement, Beijing missed out on a nomination, while Buenos Aires and New Delhi also didn’t get a gong.
By team:
Dublin - 5
PNL - 4
Cape Town - 3
Christchurch - 2
New York - 2
Pacific - 2
Rio de Janerio - 2
Berlin - 1
Cairo - 1
London - 1
Mexico City - 1
Moscow - 1
Seoul â€" 1
Tokyo - 1
Toronto - 1
Beijing - 0
Buenos Aires â€" 0
New Dehli â€" 0
Rising Star Nominations
19 Rising Star nominees this week (vote for your best 5! Top pick gets 5 votes, 2nd 4 votes, etc.)
Harris Andrews (Christchurch), 1, 80.00
Angus Brayshaw (Buenos Aires), 16, 67.00
Tim Broomhead (Beijing), 8, 64.00
Patrick Cripps (Rio de Janeiro), 14, 90.43
Matt Crouch (Buenos Aires), 7, 77.00
Caleb Daniel (Seoul), 5, 65.40
Jordan De Goey (Buenos Aires), 9, 53.11
Hugh Goddard (Cairo), 3, 55.33
Nick Graham (Buenos Aires), 4, 87.00
Billy Hartung (London), 4, 95.25
Jesse Hogan (Moscow), 15, 82.93
Jack Lonie (Cairo), 14, 54.36
Cameron McCarthy (Cape Town), 6, 56.33
Kamdyn McIntosh (Mexico City), 7, 66.43
Touk Miller (Beijing), 13, 76.38
Adam Saad (London), 13, 82.54
Dom Sheed (Moscow), 12, 75.70
Jack Steele (Christchurch), 4, 75.75
Jackson Thurlow (Beijing), 13, 74.69 (Previously nominated in 2013)
By team:
Buenos Aires - 4
Beijing - 3
Cairo - 2
Christchurch - 2
London - 2
Moscow - 2
Cape Town - 1
Mexico City - 1
Rio de Janeiro - 1
Seoul - 1
Buenos Aires, despite a shocking season, have an impressive 4 nominations this year, while the improving Beijing have an even greater future with 3 nominations. Cairo, Christchurch, London and Moscow all snagged 2 nominations each.
What must be a huge concern for New Delhi is that they didn’t receive a single nomination.
Outstanding oz, you've helped me heaps.
IRL, I'm ultra defensive of Hogan's claim over the Rising Star Award versus Cripps... will be interesting to see who I vote for (could be someone else entirely).
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 17, 2015, 09:55:13 AM
Outstanding oz, you've helped me heaps.
IRL, I'm ultra defensive of Hogan's claim over the Rising Star Award versus Cripps... will be interesting to see who I vote for (could be someone else entirely).
based on the numbers above
Adam Saad would be my front runner.
Well done OSS and nice write up. Will be interesting to sere how the votes fall. Pity Hartung was sub material for a fair portion of the season. With Hawks getting early games a lot was able to change.
Cripps and Hogan have played more games and average higher than Saad
We'd like to nominate Koby Stevens for NDT.
Has had a ripper year after a terrible 66ave last year. Going at a 92 average this year until his last game where subbed our with an injury on 26. His scores were a bit more consistent in DT but be became a reliable mid/fwd for us this year.
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2015, 10:26:58 AM
Cripps and Hogan have played more games and average higher than Saad
correct but defenders are tougher to find.
Hogan only played 2 more games and is only averaging 0.5 more.
Cripps only played 1 more game and is averaging less than 8 more.
82 from a defender is huge.
those averages would have;
Saad 31st best defender
Hogan 44th best defender
Cripps 123rd best mid if you count DPP mids. If you take pure mids than still 90+
Saad isn't the Suns #1 defender though, Hogan is the Dees #1 forward taking the best defender each week
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2015, 12:16:13 PM
Saad isn't the Suns #1 defender though, Hogan is the Dees #1 forward taking the best defender each week
im talking Supercoach.
I wouldn't give Saad the actual rising star. Thats clearly Jesse Hogan in my books.
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2015, 12:23:57 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2015, 12:16:13 PM
Saad isn't the Suns #1 defender though, Hogan is the Dees #1 forward taking the best defender each week
im talking Supercoach.
I wouldn't give Saad the actual rising star. Thats clearly Jesse Hogan in my books.
I'm talking supercoach also
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2015, 12:43:54 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2015, 12:23:57 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2015, 12:16:13 PM
Saad isn't the Suns #1 defender though, Hogan is the Dees #1 forward taking the best defender each week
im talking Supercoach.
I wouldn't give Saad the actual rising star. Thats clearly Jesse Hogan in my books.
I'm talking supercoach also
Why does number 1 defender matter then. I thought sc scoring was all that matered
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2015, 12:51:19 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2015, 12:43:54 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2015, 12:23:57 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2015, 12:16:13 PM
Saad isn't the Suns #1 defender though, Hogan is the Dees #1 forward taking the best defender each week
im talking Supercoach.
I wouldn't give Saad the actual rising star. Thats clearly Jesse Hogan in my books.
I'm talking supercoach also
Why does number 1 defender matter then. I thought sc scoring was all that matered
because the opponent you are on impacts your score
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2015, 01:30:49 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2015, 12:51:19 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2015, 12:43:54 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2015, 12:23:57 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on August 17, 2015, 12:16:13 PM
Saad isn't the Suns #1 defender though, Hogan is the Dees #1 forward taking the best defender each week
im talking Supercoach.
I wouldn't give Saad the actual rising star. Thats clearly Jesse Hogan in my books.
I'm talking supercoach also
Why does number 1 defender matter then. I thought sc scoring was all that matered
because the opponent you are on impacts your score
correct but isnt it removed from AFL completely. So even if your a jet AFL player and you score poorly than your a Worlds spud.
once we start taking into account AFL apsects than its not worlds anymore. For example Alex Rance should be a shot at the world medal then. Gun SC defender who has to play on the key forward week in week out and beats them.
I'll nominate Brett Deledio
(http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/1/4/2/b/2/c/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.1mbnt3.png/1427936046934.jpg)
Went after him last year and paid a bit for him. But he's repaid the faith averaging 112 points. He's become the #1 averaging fwd in the comp and my #1 player. Even better, he will keep DPP for next season.
Also no Lids = no Suns, losing 3/5 games (beating NDT and Pacific)
I'm not surprised that we have three nominations for the All-Worlds squad.
We've have five guys pretty much carrying our team all year - Martin, Blicavs, JPK, Cotchin and Higgins.
After them it drops away significantly which is our issue. Probably 10 points or more between Higgins and the next best average.
Good to see 2 noms for NY
In terms of the Rising Star, Hogan is the clear standout and deserving winner
Cripps has been awesome, as have many others, but seriously to come in first year and play the position of Full Forward like he has is nothing short of remarkable
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2015, 03:00:56 PM
Good to see 2 noms for NY
In terms of the Rising Star, Hogan is the clear standout and deserving winner
Cripps has been awesome, as have many others, but seriously to come in first year and play the position of Full Forward like he has is nothing short of remarkable
are we talking fantays or AFL here?
I prefer Saad over Hogan in terms of fantasy
But obviously Daniel Andrews beats them both
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2015, 03:03:02 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2015, 03:00:56 PM
Good to see 2 noms for NY
In terms of the Rising Star, Hogan is the clear standout and deserving winner
Cripps has been awesome, as have many others, but seriously to come in first year and play the position of Full Forward like he has is nothing short of remarkable
are we talking fantays or AFL here?
I'm talking AFL, which is all that really matters in terms of the award but for a SC Worlds Rising Star Award which we would have to base off SC performances then it has to be Cripps doesn't it?
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2015, 03:47:03 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2015, 03:03:02 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2015, 03:00:56 PM
Good to see 2 noms for NY
In terms of the Rising Star, Hogan is the clear standout and deserving winner
Cripps has been awesome, as have many others, but seriously to come in first year and play the position of Full Forward like he has is nothing short of remarkable
are we talking fantays or AFL here?
I'm talking AFL, which is all that really matters in terms of the award but for a SC Worlds Rising Star Award which we would have to base off SC performances then it has to be Cripps doesn't it?
strongly disagree with cripps. I did an analysis on it
Hogan only played 2 more games and is only averaging 0.5 more.
Cripps only played 1 more game and is averaging less than 8 more.
82 from a defender is huge.
those averages would have;
Saad 31st best defender
Hogan 44th best defender
Cripps 123rd best mid if you count DPP mids. If you take pure mids than still 90+
Have to take the 3 P's into account. Position, Performance, Potential.
Saad the best performed in his position, but do the other two have more potential improvement left in them?
But as Dave said, the Premier trumps them all.
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2015, 04:23:08 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2015, 03:47:03 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 17, 2015, 03:03:02 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 17, 2015, 03:00:56 PM
Good to see 2 noms for NY
In terms of the Rising Star, Hogan is the clear standout and deserving winner
Cripps has been awesome, as have many others, but seriously to come in first year and play the position of Full Forward like he has is nothing short of remarkable
are we talking fantays or AFL here?
I'm talking AFL, which is all that really matters in terms of the award but for a SC Worlds Rising Star Award which we would have to base off SC performances then it has to be Cripps doesn't it?
strongly disagree with cripps. I did an analysis on it
Hogan only played 2 more games and is only averaging 0.5 more.
Cripps only played 1 more game and is averaging less than 8 more.
82 from a defender is huge.
those averages would have;
Saad 31st best defender
Hogan 44th best defender
Cripps 123rd best mid if you count DPP mids. If you take pure mids than still 90+
Now I'm confused
Saad is averaging 80 and Cripps nearly 96.
Ossie's post above ^^^ has the WXV games played and also WXV average listed - so the average is based purely upon WXV games, doesn't count games that they were left out.
I'm clearing up all this confusion.
Vote for whoever you want.
With that said, vote for Jack Lonie and Hugh Goddard, you know you want to.
Having written everyone's teams up this year, I always noticed Lonie was a first choice at Cairo :P
If he played 14 games with me, I'd probably give him my Coaches Award haha
Quote from: Toga on August 17, 2015, 05:33:27 PM
Ossie's post above ^^^ has the WXV games played and also WXV average listed - so the average is based purely upon WXV games, doesn't count games that they were left out.
Ahhh ok then
Well then Hogan gets it in real life AND here
For the Coaches Award I nominate Elliot Yeo. He has stepped up his game dramatically this year, up about 20 points from last season. What make him really worthy of nomination is the fact that he has basically been Rio's rock in defence this year(along with Houli) without the other 3 starting backs; Mackie missing 6 games, Andrew Walker missing 8 and Harwood 12.
Well, time for PNL's Coaches Award. We had a few players step up this season such as Marley Williams, Zach Merrett and Tom Lynch who cemented their spot in what was a all-time best season for PNL. Special mention to Luke Hodge who out-performed what we expected of him and then some, certainly was a fine addition to the team. However, after discussing with Daz, we have decided that our Coaches Award this season goes to.....
(http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Dylan+Shiel+GWS+Giants+Portrait+Session+VgbdyZYM06xl.jpg)
Our Little Tank that could, Dylan Shiel. Seriously, check out those guns.
Behind Priddis and Nate Jones, we really lacked another midfield gun to help contend with the big boys of Worlds. In came Shiel's who put in his best season to date, including three scores over 130 within the first four rounds which is unreal! 9/14 of his games were over the 100 mark and helped build PNL to our best record yet early in the season. With Shiel injured latter half of the season, it showed in PNL's performances and our need to play the likes of Thomas Sheridan and Daniel Rich as our 3rd best Midfielder and even having to use Swan as a Midfielder. He was vital to our structure and hopefully will continue with his growth later years.
Tough decision this season and not as clear cut as our past two nominations (and winners ;) in Chad Wingard and Matthew Jaensch. Lets hope Shiel can go for our 3-peat as he really was on his way to having a top notch year before injury struck.
Hard to go past old mate Jack Crisp for Coaches Award! After arriving at Collingwood as the steak knives in the Beams deal, I felt I'd take a punt trading him in, along with probably my coaches award runner up in Issac Smith, in return for Jack Riewoldt
Crisp had shown some signs of being a decent scorer at Brisbane, but all I'd hoped for 2015 was that he would get some games at Collingwood and be a handy backup mid. Little did I know!
To kick things off he got (a little unexpectedly!) FWD/MID dpp. Handy, I thought at the time
Then the season started, and wowee. Crisp wasn't selected for rounds 1 or 2, but after then he went on to score 10 scores of 90+, including 7 tons, on his way to an average of 93, supreme consistency for a young player, and my first selected forward each week
Seoul nominate Patrick Dangerfield
is that all you need from us?
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on August 20, 2015, 04:31:46 PM
Seoul nominate Patrick Dangerfield
is that all you need from us?
Indeed :)
Thanks for the quick replies so far guys, 10 in, 8 to go... unless I've missed something. Those remaining are:
- Buenos Aires
- Cairo
- Cape Town
- New Delhi
- PNL
- Rio de Janeiro
- Seoul
- Tokyo
I can tell you there are clear leaders for Coach of the Year and Coaches of the Year (as in I could basically call it now), the All-Worlds team is starting to take shape, but it is WAY TOO CLOSE to call the Rising Star so far.
Ours are in now. 8)
And only 4 left now! Thanks everyone
just
- Buenos Aires
- Cape Town
- Seoul
- Tokyo
to go
Rising Star still really close, while 3-8 players fighting for last 3-4 spots in All-Worlds
Daniel Andrews the front-runner I assume
Quote from: GoLions on August 22, 2015, 05:54:17 PM
Daniel Andrews the front-runner I assume
He's dominating again. Gun!
The points cap is pretty much useless if teams just trade in injured players.
I can see the merit behind the best of the previous 2 years being the one that counts but I don't think previous seasons should have as much influence as the one just gone.
Libba is a gun with 0 points. That's not exactly an accurate representation of his value. But neither is making him worth full points since he's no certainty to bounce back to that level. I think we should count whichever is higher out of 90% of 2014 scores vs 100% of 2015 scores. A guy like Rocky shouldn't be worth the full 100% of his 2014 output because he's no certainty to get back to those astonishing levels ever again.
Quote from: meow meow on August 26, 2015, 05:01:10 PM
The points cap is pretty much useless if teams just trade in injured players.
I can see the merit behind the best of the previous 2 years being the one that counts but I don't think previous seasons should have as much influence as the one just gone.
Libba is a gun with 0 points. That's not exactly an accurate representation of his value. But neither is making him worth full points since he's no certainty to bounce back to that level. I think we should count whichever is higher out of 90% of 2014 scores vs 100% of 2015 scores. A guy like Rocky shouldn't be worth the full 100% of his 2014 output because he's no certainty to get back to those astonishing levels ever again.
its the system though. I guess it kind of helps teams with injured players.
If it wasn't for the cap i wouldn't be trading in Liberatore i would have kept Tmac + Mundy.
as I have said the cap just distorts reality and causes mis pricing.
Quote from: Holz on August 26, 2015, 05:06:06 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 26, 2015, 05:01:10 PM
The points cap is pretty much useless if teams just trade in injured players.
I can see the merit behind the best of the previous 2 years being the one that counts but I don't think previous seasons should have as much influence as the one just gone.
Libba is a gun with 0 points. That's not exactly an accurate representation of his value. But neither is making him worth full points since he's no certainty to bounce back to that level. I think we should count whichever is higher out of 90% of 2014 scores vs 100% of 2015 scores. A guy like Rocky shouldn't be worth the full 100% of his 2014 output because he's no certainty to get back to those astonishing levels ever again.
its the system though. I guess it kind of helps teams with injured players.
If it wasn't for the cap i wouldn't be trading in Liberatore i would have kept Tmac + Mundy.
as I have said the cap just distorts reality and causes mis pricing.
Which is why I am very for the home-grown players costing less cap points rule that was mooted.
If you draft a player then if they've been on your list for X number of years (lets say 3 seasons) they get a 10/20/30% discount when determining your cap.
Quote from: Vinny on August 10, 2015, 04:35:04 PM
Our coaches award will go to Sir Easton Wood.
In what was a disaaponiting year for the Dillos , the 25 year old stepped up as the general in defence posting an average of 87. Wood played all but one game and managed a solid 10 scores of 85 and above with 6 of them cracking the tonne. After a mere 68 average in 2014, Easton was on the brink of leaving the club but following a plea to earn his place, he was held and he flowering delivered.
Missed us Os ;)
Oh yeah, will get round to sending the rule votes in due course... basically every idea mentioned in this thread will be voted on.
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 26, 2015, 05:40:12 PM
Oh yeah, will get round to sending the rule votes in due course... basically every idea mentioned in this thread will be voted on.
surely we cant change the cap rules for this year. It would have to be the year after, given all trades are based on current rules
Quote from: ossie85 on August 07, 2015, 05:09:44 PM
2. Getting up for a match
I don't think we could have but #1 and #2, but how about this:
You can choose to train your team really hard for a week, and get a +10% bonus the next round, but a -20% penalty the round after.
Finals wouldn't count.
Thinking about this some more, I think it is a terrible rule. If one week we had Mexico City vs Dublin, then next week Dublin are playing Buenos Aires but Mexico City have a match against PNL it brings an extra element of luck into the game. The same situation could arise between mid-tier teams, where team A has another mid-tier opponent next week and team B has a match against Dublin that they're not going to win anyway. Or maybe they would have won but they've effectively given themselves no chance, handing Dublin an extra win. It's like teams resting players against Dublin, all it does it advantage them even more.
Quote from: Holz on August 26, 2015, 05:41:22 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 26, 2015, 05:40:12 PM
Oh yeah, will get round to sending the rule votes in due course... basically every idea mentioned in this thread will be voted on.
surely we cant change the cap rules for this year. It would have to be the year after, given all trades are based on current rules
What trades? I'm pretty sure that no trades have been done yet. Probably shouldn't get anywhere further than preliminary negotiations until the rules are voted on.
Quote from: meow meow on August 26, 2015, 05:44:36 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 26, 2015, 05:41:22 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 26, 2015, 05:40:12 PM
Oh yeah, will get round to sending the rule votes in due course... basically every idea mentioned in this thread will be voted on.
surely we cant change the cap rules for this year. It would have to be the year after, given all trades are based on current rules
What trades? I'm pretty sure that no trades have been done yet. Probably shouldn't get anywhere further than preliminary negotiations until the rules are voted on.
Exactly. This is why rules are going to be voted on before trading starts.
Quote from: ossie85 on August 26, 2015, 05:48:19 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 26, 2015, 05:44:36 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 26, 2015, 05:41:22 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 26, 2015, 05:40:12 PM
Oh yeah, will get round to sending the rule votes in due course... basically every idea mentioned in this thread will be voted on.
surely we cant change the cap rules for this year. It would have to be the year after, given all trades are based on current rules
What trades? I'm pretty sure that no trades have been done yet. Probably shouldn't get anywhere further than preliminary negotiations until the rules are voted on.
Exactly. This is why rules are going to be voted on before trading starts.
(http://archive.freeenterprise.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/media/00_REGS_shutterstock_1486574_red_tape_659px.jpg?itok=SXxsYh81)
Can i propose a rule change:
Rule Change 3458: Bring back the rules from when the WXV just started, when it was just fun and easy.
having people vote on rule changes is completely unfair. Everyone will just do whats best for their team. If you have lots of injured players then the existing rule is good. If you dont its in your best interest to vote for the new rule.
Have an gun ruck: clearly you vote for the rules as they are, don't have a ruck vote for the new rules.
the system is based on self interest.
Quote from: Holz on August 26, 2015, 05:57:09 PM
having people vote on rule changes is completely unfair. Everyone will just do whats best for their team. If you have lots of injured players then the existing rule is good. If you dont its in your best interest to vote for the new rule.
Have an gun ruck: clearly you vote for the rules as they are, don't have a ruck vote for the new rules.
the system is based on self interest.
disagree. Some, or even most, will vote what is best for the competition. 100% of coaches voted for New Delhi's priority pick when it disadvantaged them. I think most coaches here are mature enough to look past self interest.
Quote from: ossie85 on August 26, 2015, 06:05:00 PM
disagree. Some, or even most, will vote what is best for the competition. 100% of coaches voted for New Delhi's priority pick when it disadvantaged them. I think most coaches here are mature enough to look past self interest.
Quote from: Toga on August 26, 2015, 06:25:19 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on August 26, 2015, 06:05:00 PM
disagree. Some, or even most, will vote what is best for the competition. 100% of coaches voted for New Delhi's priority pick when it disadvantaged them. I think most coaches here are mature enough to look past self interest.
There is a difference in moving one spot down the order and having a 75% OOP ruck. If you have a bad ruck spot.
Purps should we say all rule suggestions need to be in by Sunday so vote can be sent out Monday?
I have my rucks set and I will vote for a 75% ruck.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 26, 2015, 07:24:55 PM
I have my rucks set and I will vote for a 75% ruck.
and I had OOP ruck most of the year and will vote the opposite. There goes your theory holz...
Quote from: ossie85 on August 26, 2015, 06:40:27 PM
Purps should we say all rule suggestions need to be in by Sunday so vote can be sent out Monday?
All rule suggestions need to be in by Sunday so vote can be sent out Monday
Now if you want to make it like the AFL you should impose penalties for anyone caught talking trades before the season is finished. ;) That would make people sit quietly and wait their turn :)
Quote from: Boomz on August 26, 2015, 07:35:37 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 26, 2015, 07:24:55 PM
I have my rucks set and I will vote for a 75% ruck.
and I had OOP ruck most of the year and will vote the opposite. There goes your theory holz...
I didn't say everyone.
Ill be voting for whatever is the simplest rule no matter if it hurts or helps dublin.
here is quote for you
"liberalism for this reason restricts deliberate control of the overall order of society to the enforcement of such general rules as are necessary for the formation of spontaneous order, the details of which we cannot forsee"
F.A Hayek, Rules and Order
it basically means a free society is not one without rules or government power, but one in which government itself is limited by predictable rules.
Quote from: Holz on August 26, 2015, 09:48:50 PM
Quote from: Boomz on August 26, 2015, 07:35:37 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 26, 2015, 07:24:55 PM
I have my rucks set and I will vote for a 75% ruck.
and I had OOP ruck most of the year and will vote the opposite. There goes your theory holz...
I didn't say everyone.
Ill be voting for whatever is the simplest rule no matter if it hurts or helps dublin.
here is quote for you
"liberalism for this reason restricts deliberate control of the overall order of society to the enforcement of such general rules as are necessary for the formation of spontaneous order, the details of which we cannot forsee"
F.A Hayek, Rules and Order
it basically means a free society is not one without rules or government power, but one in which government itself is limited by predictable rules.
seriously Holz? What a weird thing to say. This isn't Soviet Russia, Communist China or capitalist USA. This isn't even a society. This is a game. I can see you are frustrated, but seriously we're just having fun.
Just throwing in a red herring here but is there any merit increasing the number of times flood and attack can be used to say 5. Also should there be a restriction on the number of times resting can be used. Do not care either way but just thought some discussion may be worth while before Sunday.
Quote from: Ringo on August 27, 2015, 08:25:26 AM
Just throwing in a red herring here but is there any merit increasing the number of times flood and attack can be used to say 5. Also should there be a restriction on the number of times resting can be used. Do not care either way but just thought some discussion may be worth while before Sunday.
What is currently? 3 times each?
That's enough IMO. I think we used the flood/attack option once this year
#makesureyoudraftdepth
Quote from: ossie85 on August 27, 2015, 05:23:56 AM
Quote from: Holz on August 26, 2015, 09:48:50 PM
Quote from: Boomz on August 26, 2015, 07:35:37 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 26, 2015, 07:24:55 PM
I have my rucks set and I will vote for a 75% ruck.
and I had OOP ruck most of the year and will vote the opposite. There goes your theory holz...
I didn't say everyone.
Ill be voting for whatever is the simplest rule no matter if it hurts or helps dublin.
here is quote for you
"liberalism for this reason restricts deliberate control of the overall order of society to the enforcement of such general rules as are necessary for the formation of spontaneous order, the details of which we cannot forsee"
F.A Hayek, Rules and Order
it basically means a free society is not one without rules or government power, but one in which government itself is limited by predictable rules.
seriously Holz? What a weird thing to say. This isn't Soviet Russia, Communist China or capitalist USA. This isn't even a society. This is a game. I can see you are frustrated, but seriously we're just having fun.
I was going for more interesting then weird. Just a fun way of showing my opinion.
Definitely different humour
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 26, 2015, 05:15:06 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 26, 2015, 05:06:06 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 26, 2015, 05:01:10 PM
The points cap is pretty much useless if teams just trade in injured players.
I can see the merit behind the best of the previous 2 years being the one that counts but I don't think previous seasons should have as much influence as the one just gone.
Libba is a gun with 0 points. That's not exactly an accurate representation of his value. But neither is making him worth full points since he's no certainty to bounce back to that level. I think we should count whichever is higher out of 90% of 2014 scores vs 100% of 2015 scores. A guy like Rocky shouldn't be worth the full 100% of his 2014 output because he's no certainty to get back to those astonishing levels ever again.
its the system though. I guess it kind of helps teams with injured players.
If it wasn't for the cap i wouldn't be trading in Liberatore i would have kept Tmac + Mundy.
as I have said the cap just distorts reality and causes mis pricing.
Which is why I am very for the home-grown players costing less cap points rule that was mooted.
If you draft a player then if they've been on your list for X number of years (lets say 3 seasons) they get a 10/20/30% discount when determining your cap.
reckon this is a great idea
Quote from: DazBurg on August 29, 2015, 11:09:42 AM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 26, 2015, 05:15:06 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 26, 2015, 05:06:06 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 26, 2015, 05:01:10 PM
The points cap is pretty much useless if teams just trade in injured players.
I can see the merit behind the best of the previous 2 years being the one that counts but I don't think previous seasons should have as much influence as the one just gone.
Libba is a gun with 0 points. That's not exactly an accurate representation of his value. But neither is making him worth full points since he's no certainty to bounce back to that level. I think we should count whichever is higher out of 90% of 2014 scores vs 100% of 2015 scores. A guy like Rocky shouldn't be worth the full 100% of his 2014 output because he's no certainty to get back to those astonishing levels ever again.
its the system though. I guess it kind of helps teams with injured players.
If it wasn't for the cap i wouldn't be trading in Liberatore i would have kept Tmac + Mundy.
as I have said the cap just distorts reality and causes mis pricing.
Which is why I am very for the home-grown players costing less cap points rule that was mooted.
If you draft a player then if they've been on your list for X number of years (lets say 3 seasons) they get a 10/20/30% discount when determining your cap.
reckon this is a great idea
I like this idea also but how would it work for Rio, Christchurch and the 2 new teams?
Quote from: Levi434 on August 29, 2015, 11:40:58 AM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 29, 2015, 11:09:42 AM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 26, 2015, 05:15:06 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 26, 2015, 05:06:06 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 26, 2015, 05:01:10 PM
The points cap is pretty much useless if teams just trade in injured players.
I can see the merit behind the best of the previous 2 years being the one that counts but I don't think previous seasons should have as much influence as the one just gone.
Libba is a gun with 0 points. That's not exactly an accurate representation of his value. But neither is making him worth full points since he's no certainty to bounce back to that level. I think we should count whichever is higher out of 90% of 2014 scores vs 100% of 2015 scores. A guy like Rocky shouldn't be worth the full 100% of his 2014 output because he's no certainty to get back to those astonishing levels ever again.
its the system though. I guess it kind of helps teams with injured players.
If it wasn't for the cap i wouldn't be trading in Liberatore i would have kept Tmac + Mundy.
as I have said the cap just distorts reality and causes mis pricing.
Which is why I am very for the home-grown players costing less cap points rule that was mooted.
If you draft a player then if they've been on your list for X number of years (lets say 3 seasons) they get a 10/20/30% discount when determining your cap.
reckon this is a great idea
I like this idea also but how would it work for Rio, Christchurch and the 2 new teams?
Could just say if a player whom has been on your list for two straight years, gets a 5% discount. 3 years 10% etc?
So at the end of next year, when the rule will be implemented (if voted for), that means Christchurch & Rio will have such players?
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 29, 2015, 11:51:27 AM
Quote from: Levi434 on August 29, 2015, 11:40:58 AM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 29, 2015, 11:09:42 AM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 26, 2015, 05:15:06 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 26, 2015, 05:06:06 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 26, 2015, 05:01:10 PM
The points cap is pretty much useless if teams just trade in injured players.
I can see the merit behind the best of the previous 2 years being the one that counts but I don't think previous seasons should have as much influence as the one just gone.
Libba is a gun with 0 points. That's not exactly an accurate representation of his value. But neither is making him worth full points since he's no certainty to bounce back to that level. I think we should count whichever is higher out of 90% of 2014 scores vs 100% of 2015 scores. A guy like Rocky shouldn't be worth the full 100% of his 2014 output because he's no certainty to get back to those astonishing levels ever again.
its the system though. I guess it kind of helps teams with injured players.
If it wasn't for the cap i wouldn't be trading in Liberatore i would have kept Tmac + Mundy.
as I have said the cap just distorts reality and causes mis pricing.
Which is why I am very for the home-grown players costing less cap points rule that was mooted.
If you draft a player then if they've been on your list for X number of years (lets say 3 seasons) they get a 10/20/30% discount when determining your cap.
reckon this is a great idea
I like this idea also but how would it work for Rio, Christchurch and the 2 new teams?
Could just say if a player whom has been on your list for two straight years, gets a 5% discount. 3 years 10% etc?
So at the end of next year, when the rule will be implemented (if voted for), that means Christchurch & Rio will have such players?
again this is unfair for coaches who didnt know about this rule and are now disadvantaged for trading and moving players around. You could argue the reverse that trading is part of the game and teams that dont participate much are not as good for the comp. So penalise them for holding onto players.
why is it that drafting is rewarded and trading should be punished. Thats bogus. My strategy is around brining in guys in their early 20s and taking punts on them.
Gray, Boak, Rance, Goldy, Walters etc... how come this strategy is now planned to be punished.
But again i hear everyone says it is based on the AFL so how many teams have a completely different lost in 2 years as meow pointed out
Kinda too much revolving doors for what is classed as based on AFL
Quote from: DazBurg on August 29, 2015, 12:23:51 PM
But again i hear everyone says it is based on the AFL so how many teams have a completely different lost in 2 years as meow pointed out
Kinda too much revolving doors for what is classed as based on AFL
Im not saying the rule isnt valid. Its just not fair to introduce once we have built around existing rules. Realistically we built our teams in 2012 with those rules in place, any rule change (baring sub) will be unjustly unfair to some teams
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 29, 2015, 12:23:51 PM
But again i hear everyone says it is based on the AFL so how many teams have a completely different lost in 2 years as meow pointed out
Kinda too much revolving doors for what is classed as based on AFL
Im not saying the rule isnt valid. Its just not fair to introduce once we have built around existing rules. Realistically we built our teams in 2012 with those rules in place, any rule change (baring sub) will be unjustly unfair to some teams
true but because it is unfair we leave it in place?
what about rules that are unfair already
(injured players as an example)
will they be changed then?
btw when discussing this i'm like you holz we at PNL are actually benefiting form the injury rule atm (shiel, myers etc)
so not a case of sour grapes etc just think it is silly though
If you give a bonus to players who stay at one club, that would make trading less attractive. Isn't trading one of the main things that makes the comp fun?
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 29, 2015, 12:23:51 PM
But again i hear everyone says it is based on the AFL so how many teams have a completely different lost in 2 years as meow pointed out
Kinda too much revolving doors for what is classed as based on AFL
Im not saying the rule isnt valid. Its just not fair to introduce once we have built around existing rules. Realistically we built our teams in 2012 with those rules in place, any rule change (baring sub) will be unjustly unfair to some teams
Why don't we start the rule now then and not retrospectively apply it to any players.
So, from now on in anyone who was on your list at the end of the 2015 season before trading (so including the two new teams when they have drafted their teams) starts to count towards being home-grown.
Then once they've been on your list for X number of seasons they start to count a bit less for your cap. Maybe it could be a sliding scale where if you've been on the list for 3 years you get a 10% discount and then for each subsequent year an extra 2% discount up to a maximum of say 20 or 30% discount.
So while we would bring in this rule now it won't actually affect anyone's caps for a few seasons. Teams can now plan for the rule and everyone is on a level playing field.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 29, 2015, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 29, 2015, 12:23:51 PM
But again i hear everyone says it is based on the AFL so how many teams have a completely different lost in 2 years as meow pointed out
Kinda too much revolving doors for what is classed as based on AFL
Im not saying the rule isnt valid. Its just not fair to introduce once we have built around existing rules. Realistically we built our teams in 2012 with those rules in place, any rule change (baring sub) will be unjustly unfair to some teams
Why don't we start the rule now then and not retrospectively apply it to any players.
So, from now on in anyone who was on your list at the end of the 2015 season before trading (so including the two new teams when they have drafted their teams) starts to count towards being home-grown.
Then once they've been on your list for X number of seasons they start to count a bit less for your cap. Maybe it could be a sliding scale where if you've been on the list for 3 years you get a 10% discount and then for each subsequent year an extra 2% discount up to a maximum of say 20 or 30% discount.
So while we would bring in this rule now it won't actually affect anyone's caps for a few seasons. Teams can now plan for the rule and everyone is on a level playing field.
only thing i dislike about the idea though
are we over complicating things too much
Quote from: DazBurg on August 29, 2015, 02:29:33 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 29, 2015, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 29, 2015, 12:23:51 PM
But again i hear everyone says it is based on the AFL so how many teams have a completely different lost in 2 years as meow pointed out
Kinda too much revolving doors for what is classed as based on AFL
Im not saying the rule isnt valid. Its just not fair to introduce once we have built around existing rules. Realistically we built our teams in 2012 with those rules in place, any rule change (baring sub) will be unjustly unfair to some teams
Why don't we start the rule now then and not retrospectively apply it to any players.
So, from now on in anyone who was on your list at the end of the 2015 season before trading (so including the two new teams when they have drafted their teams) starts to count towards being home-grown.
Then once they've been on your list for X number of seasons they start to count a bit less for your cap. Maybe it could be a sliding scale where if you've been on the list for 3 years you get a 10% discount and then for each subsequent year an extra 2% discount up to a maximum of say 20 or 30% discount.
So while we would bring in this rule now it won't actually affect anyone's caps for a few seasons. Teams can now plan for the rule and everyone is on a level playing field.
only thing i dislike about the idea though
are we over complicating things too much
Yes.
It sounds a lot more complicated than it is.
I like having player loyalty or clubs being defined by certain players.
For example JPK is synonymous with Cape Town as will Blicavs be in a few more seasons.
And then there's Goldstein and Dublin, Pendles and Toronto (although this will sadly end) and many more.
I think clubs should be rewarded for their loyalty for players. And, I like the fact people will agonise even more over whether to trade a guy they've had for a while because he gets a cap discount.
In real life fans don't want to see their favourite players leave the nest and this rule will help replicate that.
Quote from: Jayman on August 29, 2015, 02:46:22 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 29, 2015, 02:29:33 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 29, 2015, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 29, 2015, 12:23:51 PM
But again i hear everyone says it is based on the AFL so how many teams have a completely different lost in 2 years as meow pointed out
Kinda too much revolving doors for what is classed as based on AFL
Im not saying the rule isnt valid. Its just not fair to introduce once we have built around existing rules. Realistically we built our teams in 2012 with those rules in place, any rule change (baring sub) will be unjustly unfair to some teams
Why don't we start the rule now then and not retrospectively apply it to any players.
So, from now on in anyone who was on your list at the end of the 2015 season before trading (so including the two new teams when they have drafted their teams) starts to count towards being home-grown.
Then once they've been on your list for X number of seasons they start to count a bit less for your cap. Maybe it could be a sliding scale where if you've been on the list for 3 years you get a 10% discount and then for each subsequent year an extra 2% discount up to a maximum of say 20 or 30% discount.
So while we would bring in this rule now it won't actually affect anyone's caps for a few seasons. Teams can now plan for the rule and everyone is on a level playing field.
only thing i dislike about the idea though
are we over complicating things too much
Yes.
Quote from: Nige on August 29, 2015, 03:21:51 PM
Quote from: Jayman on August 29, 2015, 02:46:22 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 29, 2015, 02:29:33 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 29, 2015, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 29, 2015, 12:23:51 PM
But again i hear everyone says it is based on the AFL so how many teams have a completely different lost in 2 years as meow pointed out
Kinda too much revolving doors for what is classed as based on AFL
Im not saying the rule isnt valid. Its just not fair to introduce once we have built around existing rules. Realistically we built our teams in 2012 with those rules in place, any rule change (baring sub) will be unjustly unfair to some teams
Why don't we start the rule now then and not retrospectively apply it to any players.
So, from now on in anyone who was on your list at the end of the 2015 season before trading (so including the two new teams when they have drafted their teams) starts to count towards being home-grown.
Then once they've been on your list for X number of seasons they start to count a bit less for your cap. Maybe it could be a sliding scale where if you've been on the list for 3 years you get a 10% discount and then for each subsequent year an extra 2% discount up to a maximum of say 20 or 30% discount.
So while we would bring in this rule now it won't actually affect anyone's caps for a few seasons. Teams can now plan for the rule and everyone is on a level playing field.
only thing i dislike about the idea though
are we over complicating things too much
Yes.
The discount thing isn't that complicated but it's probably best to leave things the way they are on that front.
But Libba should not be worth 0 points or else the cap is useless. True?
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 29, 2015, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 29, 2015, 12:23:51 PM
But again i hear everyone says it is based on the AFL so how many teams have a completely different lost in 2 years as meow pointed out
Kinda too much revolving doors for what is classed as based on AFL
Im not saying the rule isnt valid. Its just not fair to introduce once we have built around existing rules. Realistically we built our teams in 2012 with those rules in place, any rule change (baring sub) will be unjustly unfair to some teams
Why don't we start the rule now then and not retrospectively apply it to any players.
So, from now on in anyone who was on your list at the end of the 2015 season before trading (so including the two new teams when they have drafted their teams) starts to count towards being home-grown.
Then once they've been on your list for X number of seasons they start to count a bit less for your cap. Maybe it could be a sliding scale where if you've been on the list for 3 years you get a 10% discount and then for each subsequent year an extra 2% discount up to a maximum of say 20 or 30% discount.
So while we would bring in this rule now it won't actually affect anyone's caps for a few seasons. Teams can now plan for the rule and everyone is on a level playing field.
see this i have no issue with. Because it only affects future decisions not past decisions. Would mean i keep my list more in tact.
In terms of the injury thing, you could argue it does give an advantage to teams with injured players however, they have been disadvantaged all year by not having him.
look at New York, libba out all year really hurt them, but I paid a premium for his zero cap so it lessens the blow abit. So if the rule was to change it should be at the end of next year.
Quote from: meow meow on August 29, 2015, 03:59:11 PM
The discount thing isn't that complicated but it's probably best to leave things the way they are on that front.
But Libba should not be worth 0 points or else the cap is useless. True?
False as i just stated, libba out all year hurt New York and I paid a premium for that low cap. Its why I traded out tmac and mundy two high cap players which should help New York imensly for a guy who could have a slow year.
you dont know what a serious injury will do to someone, he might miss games next year, he might drop his average dramatically.
If i go under the cap because of the zero, then next year he goes big then i will have to deal with that in the cap. So there you go there is the cap coming into play.
As i said if you want to change the rule it should be the end of next year.
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 04:01:08 PM
I paid a premium for that low cap.
Nobody has paid anything yet.
Quote from: ossie85 on August 29, 2015, 07:00:04 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 04:01:08 PM
I paid a premium for that low cap.
Nobody has paid anything yet.
This haha trade period hasn't even opened so no one has paid anything ;)
Quote from: ossie85 on August 29, 2015, 07:00:04 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 04:01:08 PM
I paid a premium for that low cap.
Nobody has paid anything yet.
Fine I will pay a premium.
Point stands
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 07:38:39 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on August 29, 2015, 07:00:04 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 04:01:08 PM
I paid a premium for that low cap.
Nobody has paid anything yet.
Fine I will pay a premium.
Point stands
And that would be your choice, knowing the rules.
Where is the line? rocky missed half the season. Do we count half or his score last year?
Why shouldnt high draft picks count in the cap?
They played the same amount of games as Libba. Most come out scoring well
Quote from: ossie85 on August 29, 2015, 07:46:40 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 07:38:39 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on August 29, 2015, 07:00:04 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 04:01:08 PM
I paid a premium for that low cap.
Nobody has paid anything yet.
Fine I will pay a premium.
Point stands
And that would be your choice, knowing the rules.
exactly
your only 770 points over the cap
but your trading out 4000+ to get in a 0 which with delistings and retirements you most likely would of been under in the first place
which is what your saying your only paying overs because of the cap etc etc but i'm just saying your not really that much over to "need" to pay overs just for the sake of cap imo
Quote from: DazBurg on August 29, 2015, 08:18:27 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on August 29, 2015, 07:46:40 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 07:38:39 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on August 29, 2015, 07:00:04 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 29, 2015, 04:01:08 PM
I paid a premium for that low cap.
Nobody has paid anything yet.
Fine I will pay a premium.
Point stands
And that would be your choice, knowing the rules.
exactly
your only 770 points over the cap
but your trading out 4000+ to get in a 0 which with delistings and retirements you most likely would of been under in the first place
which is what your saying your only paying overs because of the cap etc etc but i'm just saying your not really that much over to "need" to pay overs just for the sake of cap imo
Well I have lots of plans. I plan for months
Its not that its a small benefit to guys hit by injury like Cairo new York etc..
In the process of writing up the votes for rule proposals...
Speak now if you want your voice heard in this thread!
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 31, 2015, 08:31:05 AM
In the process of writing up the votes for rule proposals...
Speak now if you want your voice heard in this thread!
3. Salary Cap Change - Vote A, B or C
Cap stays the same (30,000 max, 22,000 min - points scored over 17 rounds)
BUT, instead of taking just a players 2015 score (rule would count from 2016):
A) you take the highest score between 2015 and 2014. I.e. Tom Liberatore would be worth his 2014 value, not his 2015 value of 0.
B) you take the highest score out of 90% of 2014 value & the 2015 value.
question on this. This is for every player right?
So Rockcliff counts for 2374 not 1333 correct? If A gets up.
I want to show how this hits out of form players aswell as injured guys. i realise its only worlds games that count but this is just a rough estiamte.
Scott Thompson +240
Rockliff + 1000
Johnson + 600
Sidey + 700
Wells + 400
Hampson +600
Bartel +1300
Harvey +300
Nroo +600
they are now more than 6,000 over the cap and in real trouble.
Its completely unfair to take the highest of both years. As guys like boomer, nroo have monster caps even though they have clearly slowed down and sucomming to injury. This even futher devalues older guys.
Whereas teams with young guys who are improving get unaffected except major injury.
How come there wasn't a 'keep as is' option for the flood/attack rule just out of curiosity?
Quote from: Nige on August 31, 2015, 10:04:08 AM
How come there wasn't a 'keep as is' option for the flood/attack rule just out of curiosity?
Ahhhhhhhhh flower!
flowerin, flower!
*sigh*
I knew I would have missed something. :-[
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 31, 2015, 11:36:05 AM
Quote from: Nige on August 31, 2015, 10:04:08 AM
How come there wasn't a 'keep as is' option for the flood/attack rule just out of curiosity?
Ahhhhhhhhh flower!
flowerin, flower!
*sigh*
I knew I would have missed something. :-[
I still love you.
Quote from: Nige on August 31, 2015, 12:30:28 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 31, 2015, 11:36:05 AM
Quote from: Nige on August 31, 2015, 10:04:08 AM
How come there wasn't a 'keep as is' option for the flood/attack rule just out of curiosity?
Ahhhhhhhhh flower!
flowerin, flower!
*sigh*
I knew I would have missed something. :-[
I still love you.
:-*
I don't think you understood what I meant about the 75% ruck rule Purps.
I meant that the 50% OOP ruck rule stays, but if you have a player who was formerly listed as a ruck (like Vickery) but has lost ruck status they score 75% as an OOP ruck, not 50%. Caleb Daniel would still score 50%.
Quote from: meow meow on August 31, 2015, 12:46:00 PM
I don't think you understood what I meant about the 75% ruck rule Purps.
I meant that the 50% OOP ruck rule stays, but if you have a player who was formerly listed as a ruck (like Vickery) but has lost ruck status they score 75% as an OOP ruck, not 50%. Caleb Daniel would still score 50%.
I understood at the time, but I must have missed that suggestion when I was reading the thread this morning :-\
My apologies.
Quote from: meow meow on August 31, 2015, 12:46:00 PM
I don't think you understood what I meant about the 75% ruck rule Purps.
I meant that the 50% OOP ruck rule stays, but if you have a player who was formerly listed as a ruck (like Vickery) but has lost ruck status they score 75% as an OOP ruck, not 50%. Caleb Daniel would still score 50%.
Will remember this when all the votes come back btw, will see what I can do.
All good Purple, I appreciate the mountain of work you're doing.
I first bought the ruck discussion to attention I believe
Just felt that if teams are light down back or forward they get to flood or attack, but light on rucks get punished
Whether it's 75%, or ex rucks etc is to be determined, but ultimately I just think there needs to be something in place because forwards and def get an option
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 31, 2015, 01:04:33 PM
I first bought the ruck discussion to attention I believe
Just felt that if teams are light down back or forward they get to flood or attack, but light on rucks get punished
Whether it's 75%, or ex rucks etc is to be determined, but ultimately I just think there needs to be something in place because forwards and def get an option
you only need 1 ruckman though. You should ensure that you have backups who should be cheap enough.
For example I paid up to get Goldy Currie.
If Goldy misses i know I have currie there to play.
on that a rule i think should be added is four emergencies.
for example if Goldy was a late out i would have to play an OOP guy even though I have currie (as i would never play him on the bench)
if we had 4 spots then i would stick Currie at E4 every week.
I still prefer my OOP Ruck rule from the end of last season.
Also RE: Holz's point about the cap. This is a direct quote from the PM I just sent Purple with my votes on it.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 31, 2015, 01:01:23 PM
3. C. But, only because I don't agree with either A or B. I don't think the player should be worth his whole 2014 value or 90% of both years. Also if we are going to give injured players cap points the overall cap needs increasing in my opinion.
Quote from: Holz on August 31, 2015, 01:06:30 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 31, 2015, 01:04:33 PM
I first bought the ruck discussion to attention I believe
Just felt that if teams are light down back or forward they get to flood or attack, but light on rucks get punished
Whether it's 75%, or ex rucks etc is to be determined, but ultimately I just think there needs to be something in place because forwards and def get an option
you only need 1 ruckman though. You should ensure that you have backups who should be cheap enough.
For example I paid up to get Goldy Currie.
If Goldy misses i know I have currie there to play.
The issue I raised was that even if all teams have ruck depth, it's not like there is 36 rucks playing AFL every week.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 31, 2015, 01:11:09 PM
I still prefer my OOP Ruck rule from the end of last season.
Also RE: Holz's point about the cap. This is a direct quote from the PM I just sent Purple with my votes on it.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 31, 2015, 01:01:23 PM
3. C. But, only because I don't agree with either A or B. I don't think the player should be worth his whole 2014 value or 90% of both years. Also if we are going to give injured players cap points the overall cap needs increasing in my opinion.
Interesting enough I basically sent the same PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 31, 2015, 01:11:29 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 31, 2015, 01:06:30 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 31, 2015, 01:04:33 PM
I first bought the ruck discussion to attention I believe
Just felt that if teams are light down back or forward they get to flood or attack, but light on rucks get punished
Whether it's 75%, or ex rucks etc is to be determined, but ultimately I just think there needs to be something in place because forwards and def get an option
you only need 1 ruckman though. You should ensure that you have backups who should be cheap enough.
For example I paid up to get Goldy Currie.
If Goldy misses i know I have currie there to play.
The issue I raised was that even if all teams have ruck depth, it's not like there is 36 rucks playing AFL every week.
Thats is correct only 24 played this week. But people need to think about Handcuffing.
the issue is more some teams have alot of rucks playing.
there is lots of merit in having all the rucks from one team.
Quote from: Holz on August 31, 2015, 01:14:27 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 31, 2015, 01:11:09 PM
I still prefer my OOP Ruck rule from the end of last season.
Also RE: Holz's point about the cap. This is a direct quote from the PM I just sent Purple with my votes on it.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 31, 2015, 01:01:23 PM
3. C. But, only because I don't agree with either A or B. I don't think the player should be worth his whole 2014 value or 90% of both years. Also if we are going to give injured players cap points the overall cap needs increasing in my opinion.
Interesting enough I basically sent the same PM
What I didn't actually say, which I meant to, was that I'm not against making some changes to the cap (I am very much in favour of the home-grown talent rule and voted for that) but, the rule that was sent out on this one I didn't think would work.
That reminds me.
I have another question actually Purple i wanted to ask about how you will interpret the results of these votes.In a lot of the votes there was one option of no and two, or more, options for how the new rule would work.
I'm thinking that in some cases 5 people might vote for option A in favour of a new rule and and 5 for B also in favour of a new rule but a different interpretation, but then if 8 others vote against it it would not get through.
However, in reality 10 WXV coaches want the new rule and 8 don't so the majority are in favour of it - they just don't know what interpretation they want. So this needs to be taken in to consideration in the final results surely?
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 31, 2015, 01:24:21 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 31, 2015, 01:14:27 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 31, 2015, 01:11:09 PM
I still prefer my OOP Ruck rule from the end of last season.
Also RE: Holz's point about the cap. This is a direct quote from the PM I just sent Purple with my votes on it.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 31, 2015, 01:01:23 PM
3. C. But, only because I don't agree with either A or B. I don't think the player should be worth his whole 2014 value or 90% of both years. Also if we are going to give injured players cap points the overall cap needs increasing in my opinion.
Interesting enough I basically sent the same PM
What I didn't actually say, which I meant to, was that I'm not against making some changes to the cap (I am very much in favour of the home-grown talent rule and voted for that) but, the rule that was sent out on this one I didn't think would work.
That reminds me. I have another question actually Purple i wanted to ask about how you will interpret the results of these votes.
In a lot of the votes there was one option of no and two, or more, options for how the new rule would work.
I'm thinking that in some cases 5 people might vote for option A in favour of a new rule and and 5 for B also in favour of a new rule but a different interpretation, but then if 8 others vote against it it would not get through.
However, in reality 10 WXV coaches want the new rule and 8 don't so the majority are in favour of it - they just don't know what interpretation they want. So this needs to be taken in to consideration in the final results surely?
^^ That's exactly what I'm looking for, seeing those type of trends so a re-vote was definitely a thing I thought might happen.
There are a lot ruck ideas, I knew that when I gave the options. These options will give me a basic idea of where people were at, so if a re-vote was to happen on some rules, then I'll mention the ones I left out.
11 votes in, 5 to go.
Can confirm a few decisions:
1) Pre-season training is an overwhelming no, 100% of votes in the negative.
2) Getting up for a match is also an overwhelming no.
5) Another no to the tag :(
Others still in dispute.
I will get the tag up one day!
Really think having an ability to impact an opponents score is something we should have
Can only speak for myself, but I think the overload in new rules is why people are negging these ideas
As cool as a lot of them are, it's just too much to keep on top off
The cap would definitely have to be raised if we're including the higher points across two seasons. Would need to see the before and afters of the proposed changes before the correct figure could be decided.
Quote from: meow meow on August 31, 2015, 02:20:46 PM
The cap would definitely have to be raised if we're including the higher points across two seasons. Would need to see the before and afters of the proposed changes before the correct figure could be decided.
Most certainly.
I like the idea of the tagging rule :(
for the higher points across 2 seasons though
is that for every single player or for players who missed a certain amount (i.e like how SC discount for 10 or less)??
Quote from: DazBurg on August 31, 2015, 04:57:41 PM
for the higher points across 2 seasons though
is that for every single player or for players who missed a certain amount (i.e like how SC discount for 10 or less)??
I was confused by this but it has to be everyone surely. If you miss 5 games and are cheap this year its completely unfair for you to be worth less points then a guy who missed the whole year.
e.g.
Player A 100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
85 points per game from 10 games in 2014 (average dropped as a red vest killed their average)
Player B 100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
0 games in 2014
completely unfair if player A is 850 points and player B is 1700.
Quote from: DazBurg on August 31, 2015, 04:57:41 PM
for the higher points across 2 seasons though
is that for every single player or for players who missed a certain amount (i.e like how SC discount for 10 or less)??
Every player.
Gibbs for example would be worth 824 points under the current system. = an average of 48 across 17 games
Would be worth 1805 under the best of 2 years system (his 2014 score) = an average of 106
Would be worth 1625 with the 10% discount since his best year was not the one just gone = a 95 average
Quote from: Holz on August 31, 2015, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 31, 2015, 04:57:41 PM
for the higher points across 2 seasons though
is that for every single player or for players who missed a certain amount (i.e like how SC discount for 10 or less)??
I was confused by this but it has to be everyone surely. If you miss 5 games and are cheap this year its completely unfair for you to be worth less points then a guy who missed the whole year.
e.g.
Player A 100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
85 points per game from 10 games in 2014 (average dropped as a red vest killed their average)
Player B 100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
0 games in 2014
completely unfair if player A is 850 points and player B is 1700.
Under my proposal they'd both be worth 1530. Player A is basically the same output as Gibbs. Player B is basically Libba. Making them worth the same amount in the cap isn't unreasonable.
Yeah every player.
It has both good and bad attributes, up to you to decide which is greater :)
Quote from: meow meow on August 31, 2015, 05:56:51 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 31, 2015, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 31, 2015, 04:57:41 PM
for the higher points across 2 seasons though
is that for every single player or for players who missed a certain amount (i.e like how SC discount for 10 or less)??
I was confused by this but it has to be everyone surely. If you miss 5 games and are cheap this year its completely unfair for you to be worth less points then a guy who missed the whole year.
e.g.
Player A 100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
85 points per game from 10 games in 2014 (average dropped as a red vest killed their average)
Player B 100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
0 games in 2014
completely unfair if player A is 850 points and player B is 1700.
Under my proposal they'd both be worth 1530. Player A is basically the same output as Gibbs. Player B is basically Libba. Making them worth the same amount in the cap isn't unreasonable.
I agree with you there is no way that Player B should cost more. i like the cap how it is (If we need a cap)
I'm slightly insulted that Libba and Gibbs were mentioned in the same sentence though.
Quote from: Holz on August 31, 2015, 06:07:38 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 31, 2015, 05:56:51 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 31, 2015, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 31, 2015, 04:57:41 PM
for the higher points across 2 seasons though
is that for every single player or for players who missed a certain amount (i.e like how SC discount for 10 or less)??
I was confused by this but it has to be everyone surely. If you miss 5 games and are cheap this year its completely unfair for you to be worth less points then a guy who missed the whole year.
e.g.
Player A 100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
85 points per game from 10 games in 2014 (average dropped as a red vest killed their average)
Player B 100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
0 games in 2014
completely unfair if player A is 850 points and player B is 1700.
Under my proposal they'd both be worth 1530. Player A is basically the same output as Gibbs. Player B is basically Libba. Making them worth the same amount in the cap isn't unreasonable.
I agree with you there is no way that Player B should cost more. i like the cap how it is (If we need a cap)
I'm slightly insulted that Libba and Gibbs were mentioned in the same sentence though.
You like it because Dublin can go out and get Libba and it'll cost you zero points. How is that right? That's like Hawthorn trading in Libba on a $0 contract.
Quote from: meow meow on August 31, 2015, 06:21:12 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 31, 2015, 06:07:38 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 31, 2015, 05:56:51 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 31, 2015, 05:06:49 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 31, 2015, 04:57:41 PM
for the higher points across 2 seasons though
is that for every single player or for players who missed a certain amount (i.e like how SC discount for 10 or less)??
I was confused by this but it has to be everyone surely. If you miss 5 games and are cheap this year its completely unfair for you to be worth less points then a guy who missed the whole year.
e.g.
Player A 100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
85 points per game from 10 games in 2014 (average dropped as a red vest killed their average)
Player B 100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
0 games in 2014
completely unfair if player A is 850 points and player B is 1700.
Under my proposal they'd both be worth 1530. Player A is basically the same output as Gibbs. Player B is basically Libba. Making them worth the same amount in the cap isn't unreasonable.
I agree with you there is no way that Player B should cost more. i like the cap how it is (If we need a cap)
I'm slightly insulted that Libba and Gibbs were mentioned in the same sentence though.
You like it because Dublin can go out and get Libba and it'll cost you zero points. How is that right? That's like Hawthorn trading in Libba on a $0 contract.
first up I want to on trade libba if the deal comes. Secondly in your anology its like hawthorn trading in libba for $0 one year contract then paying him $1million a year afterwards.
the reason i dont like the cap is it hurts decling older players far more then young improving players (who already have more value)
How is the below fair (note Im using the players average for the year divided by the number of world games as I dont have purps numbers)
Steve Johnson 2014: 1839.40 2015: 1438.20
even with the 10% discount its 1656.
Ollie Wines will be priced at the same cap as him which is completely unfair.
we can put holes in the cap from all angles.
1. Why is Hodge more expensive then Dustin Martin - we all know who has more value.
2. Why is Liam Shiels a mid worth more than Jack Gunston and Alex Rance
If you look at those factors and see who is most likely to get the injury discount its Old Players, Injury Prone Players or guys coming off major injuries.
Why shouldnt they get a discount for one year, if they return to form you pay for it next year. If they dont then your team suffers. If Shiels is worth more than Gunston every year, than surely libba being cheap for one year is less of a factor.
Maybe that would stop the top teams collecting all the old guys. They have to factor in the decline then decide if it is still worth it.
Umm, Shiels scores more than Gunston so that's why he costs more. Pretty simple stuff. Gunston may be ranked higher in his position but Shiels adds 10 WXV points while Gunston adds 9. That's what the game is about after all.
Quote from: meow meow on August 31, 2015, 06:50:29 PM
Maybe that would stop the top teams collecting all the old guys. They have to factor in the decline then decide if it is still worth it.
Umm, Shiels scores more than Gunston so that's why he costs more. Pretty simple stuff. Gunston may be ranked higher in his position but Shiels adds 10 WXV points while Gunston adds 9. That's what the game is about after all.
yes but I can find a shiels type player easy on the market. Guys like Gunston you just cant get.
The game is about scoring the most over 15 players.
So the top mids are cheap with the cap as the captain bonus needs to be taken into account.
a 130 mid is only 255 points more then a 150 mid despite getting 510 more points a year.
In the same way Gunston generates 255 more points than your standard 80 forward. While Shiels generates 102 more points then your standard 90 mid, despite costing more points in the cap.
your example was its unfair for the hawks to sign Libba for $0 for a year than $1m there onwards.
using that example is it fair for Shiels to be on a bigger contract then jack Gunston.
Or Stevie J to be on the same contract as Ollie Wines.
on that note Scott Thompson is on the market.
probably looking at someone like Nic Natinui for him.
my guy is worth more cap so surely better.
Quote from: Holz on August 31, 2015, 06:39:23 PM
Ollie Wines will be priced at the same cap as him which is completely unfair.
Because Ollie Wines is a gun.
Quote from: Holz on August 31, 2015, 06:39:23 PM
2. Why is Liam Shiels a mid worth more than Jack Gunston and Alex Rance
And because Liam Shiels is a gun.
Quote from: meow meow on August 31, 2015, 06:50:29 PM
Maybe that would stop the top teams collecting all the old guys. They have to factor in the decline then decide if it is still worth it.
Umm, Shiels scores more than Gunston so that's why he costs more. Pretty simple stuff. Gunston may be ranked higher in his position but Shiels adds 10 WXV points while Gunston adds 9. That's what the game is about after all.
but as holz pointed out
hodge is worth more then most defenders
priddis is worth more then most mids
but most will be unwilling to pay for there true vaule as they are older
WTF are you talking about Holz? Dusty vs Hodge is pretty similar under the points cap on a one year basis. I think you're confusing trading value with yearly points cap value.
Purps forgot a rule change.
Every team trades Holz their best 3 young players
or
Every team trades Holz their best 5 young players.
#theworldsrevolvesarounddublin
:P
Quote from: DazBurg on August 31, 2015, 07:18:16 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 31, 2015, 06:50:29 PM
Maybe that would stop the top teams collecting all the old guys. They have to factor in the decline then decide if it is still worth it.
Umm, Shiels scores more than Gunston so that's why he costs more. Pretty simple stuff. Gunston may be ranked higher in his position but Shiels adds 10 WXV points while Gunston adds 9. That's what the game is about after all.
but as holz pointed out
hodge is worth more then most defenders
priddis is worth more then most mids
but most will be unwilling to pay for there true vaule as they are older
Isn't that already the case? Doesn't have a whole lot to do with the points cap change. Plus you know, you could keep them and not do a Buenos Aires. It might mean you have to let go of one of your depth players who plays every week in the AFL but never for PNL. That's the whole point of the cap.
Popcorn is on me
Quote from: meow meow on August 31, 2015, 07:30:25 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on August 31, 2015, 07:18:16 PM
Quote from: meow meow on August 31, 2015, 06:50:29 PM
Maybe that would stop the top teams collecting all the old guys. They have to factor in the decline then decide if it is still worth it.
Umm, Shiels scores more than Gunston so that's why he costs more. Pretty simple stuff. Gunston may be ranked higher in his position but Shiels adds 10 WXV points while Gunston adds 9. That's what the game is about after all.
but as holz pointed out
hodge is worth more then most defenders
priddis is worth more then most mids
but most will be unwilling to pay for there true vaule as they are older
Isn't that already the case? Doesn't have a whole lot to do with the points cap change. Plus you know, you could keep them and not do a Buenos Aires. It might mean you have to let go of one of your depth players who plays every week in the AFL but never for PNL. That's the whole point of the cap.
was merely responding to you saying top sides should stop collecting the older guys
but my point is it just isn't worth us trading them and getting SFA back :P
Quote from: Nige on August 31, 2015, 07:20:37 PM
Purps forgot a rule change.
Every team trades Holz their best 3 young players
or
Every team trades Holz their best 5 young players.
#theworldsrevolvesarounddublin
:P
I wouldn't be suprised to see a every team can poach a Dublin player rule come in the way things are going
Quote from: Holz on August 31, 2015, 07:34:22 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 31, 2015, 07:20:37 PM
Purps forgot a rule change.
Every team trades Holz their best 3 young players
or
Every team trades Holz their best 5 young players.
#theworldsrevolvesarounddublin
:P
I wouldn't be suprised to see a every team can poach a Dublin player rule come in the way things are going
This isn't an anti-Dublin issue. It's trying to make the points cap actually work. Do you seriously think that Liberatore should be worth 0 points? It's a loophole that needs closing or we may as well get rid of the cap completely.
Loving the discussion.
Both sides have some valid points.
I agree that guys have 0 cap for missing a season with injury when they were a gun before that is not right.
But, if we're going to make them worth points we need a higher cap because otherwise no-one will be able to hold on to a semi decent team without having no depth.
I also agree that forwards, defenders and especially rucks are more valuable in the WXV than midfielders
However, I can't see any way in which you could work out an easy cap system to represent this. It would be far too complicated to try and work a system that reflects this accurately because of the fact that this isn't real life - it's a game.
In real life AFL teams have a salary cap and can pay players whatever they like to fit within this cap. However, if they don't offer a player enough then they can choose to walk and be traded to another club who offers them more money. And, other clubs can target out of contract players and offer them better deals or more money to leave their current club.
The key position players are the main exponent of this, like Tom Boyd last year, and being a rarer commodity they can demand higher prices.
But, in WXV players can't do this. They are not real and have no power so Goldstein can't got to Dublin and say give me more money or I leave for Mexico. Or meow can't say to Priddis come to Christchurch and we'll give you a three year deal instead of the one year deal PNL is offering.
So in the interests of making this game and the cap work as good as it can I think introducing a rule where players who don't play at all due to injury (or miss X games) is something we can achieve. But, creating that market where players have the power like in the AFL is not possible.
I have been agonising over this as well because of perceived unfairness. Even with players who miss big chunks with injury.
Feel free to discuss these ideas further,
If a player misses a whole season due to injury his previous years points value is decreased by 20% simillar to values in fantasy competitions.
For players missing large chunks of current season I propose
Those missing 5 - 10 games add 10% of this years total
Those missing 10 - 15 games add 15% of this years total
Those missing 15+ games add 20% of this years total.
% open for debate. Feel this will allow for those players who may decline in form from previous years or increase in previous years.
Cap would need to be revised though to accommodate.
Would it be possible to work out the amount of games every single player missed solely through injury though?
Actually, as I say these words, I could use this site
http://www.aflplayerratings.com.au/Search/CurrentPlayers
As it says where each player played, and whether they did or not due to injury or suspension I think.
If we were to go that way, I think coaches would need to say to me that "Hey Purps, this guy missed X amount of games this year and deserves a discount", and I'd look at this site, and confirm it. Then the discount would be awarded.
I'm not entirely sure I would go through each of the 819 AFL players on lists this year and determine their injury discount, so it would need to be the responsibility of the coaches to bring a player up to my attention.
Quote from: meow meow on August 31, 2015, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 31, 2015, 07:34:22 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 31, 2015, 07:20:37 PM
Purps forgot a rule change.
Every team trades Holz their best 3 young players
or
Every team trades Holz their best 5 young players.
#theworldsrevolvesarounddublin
:P
I wouldn't be suprised to see a every team can poach a Dublin player rule come in the way things are going
This isn't an anti-Dublin issue. It's trying to make the points cap actually work. Do you seriously think that Liberatore should be worth 0 points? It's a loophole that needs closing or we may as well get rid of the cap completely.
To be fair i have been saying that this should happen since its been introduced. unless you make it highly complex it causes lots of problems.
Issue is there is no simple fix. For example look at this one.
Player A:
2014: plays 8 games in worlds for 100 average then gets a major injury
2015: misses the start of the season with that injury and averages 100 in the last 8 games.
Player B:
2014: plays all 17 games of the worlds season gets the same injury after averaging 100
2015: misses the same amount of time as player A but as a result of when the injury happens plays no world games.
Player A costs 1700 or best case 1530 points
Player B costs 800 despite having the exact same average and scoring.
or maybe a guy like lids.
Plays 13/17 each year with small injuries. averages 100 lets say
1300 cap thats less then player A coming off a serious injury.
If we have to do it i think the cap should be much bigger.
Lets say a season is 17 games. with a 10% discount thats 15.3/17 games.
So anyone who missed 2 games and averaged the same gets their cap bumped up. People are saying its ridicolous for a player who missed the whole season to cost zero. Thats a valid point.
However why not have it like 30%.
so thats 11.9/17. So only players who have missed more then 5 games are affected. This will take out form drops in players. and a guy like Libba counts a good ammount of points.
Instead of the Full 1870 or the 10% 1683 he costs 1309 which yes isnt probably as much as he will score next year. But its not cheap by any means.
That way guys who miss 5 games in both season cost the same as someone who misses a whole season (seems more fair to me)
there are loads of guys like that. Rocky Sloane etc.. missed loads of games its unfair to have Rocky as a 130 average guy with
130*17*0.9 = 1989 thats a load of points still.
1547 with the 30% rules is far more fair for a guy who has been injured alot.
The smaller the cap the better for the comp.
In saying that it will obviously have to be adjusted slightly if we're bringing in this rule.
Quote from: Ricochet on September 01, 2015, 10:05:16 AM
The smaller the cap the better for the comp.
In saying that it will obviously have to be adjusted slightly if we're bringing in this rule.
how it heavily restricts trading and depth as it is. Its not like the top teams have 30 players playing each week and are hoarding all the talent. If you look the top teams typically struggle in the 2s so there is lack of depth as it is.
As it stands i could probably lose the grandfinal because my stars get rested and the cap has meant i cant have adequate cover. I cant even trade Sloane for two stars as thats worse for my cap. i know people will say spread the stars around but A. I have already said trading in two good players is worse for the cap and B. I need those players to push for a flag. I only just made it into the grandfinal.
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 10:07:35 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 01, 2015, 10:05:16 AM
The smaller the cap the better for the comp.
In saying that it will obviously have to be adjusted slightly if we're bringing in this rule.
how it heavily restricts trading and depth as it is. Its not like the top teams have 30 players playing each week and are hoarding all the talent. If you look the top teams typically struggle in the 2s so there is lack of depth as it is.
As it stands i could probably lose the grandfinal because my stars get rested and the cap has meant i cant have adequate cover. I cant even trade Sloane for two stars as thats worse for my cap.
Because it makes you trade proven performers for young players, or if you don't you suffer with lack of depth.
You can't deny it doesn't even out the comp
Quote from: Ricochet on September 01, 2015, 10:11:16 AM
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 10:07:35 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 01, 2015, 10:05:16 AM
The smaller the cap the better for the comp.
In saying that it will obviously have to be adjusted slightly if we're bringing in this rule.
how it heavily restricts trading and depth as it is. Its not like the top teams have 30 players playing each week and are hoarding all the talent. If you look the top teams typically struggle in the 2s so there is lack of depth as it is.
As it stands i could probably lose the grandfinal because my stars get rested and the cap has meant i cant have adequate cover. I cant even trade Sloane for two stars as thats worse for my cap.
Because it makes you trade proven performers for young players, or if you don't you suffer with lack of depth.
You can't deny it doesn't even out the comp
Holz does what he wants. :P
Quote from: Ricochet on September 01, 2015, 10:11:16 AM
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 10:07:35 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 01, 2015, 10:05:16 AM
The smaller the cap the better for the comp.
In saying that it will obviously have to be adjusted slightly if we're bringing in this rule.
how it heavily restricts trading and depth as it is. Its not like the top teams have 30 players playing each week and are hoarding all the talent. If you look the top teams typically struggle in the 2s so there is lack of depth as it is.
As it stands i could probably lose the grandfinal because my stars get rested and the cap has meant i cant have adequate cover. I cant even trade Sloane for two stars as thats worse for my cap.
Because it makes you trade proven performers for young players, or if you don't you suffer with lack of depth.
You can't deny it doesn't even out the comp
i can deny it. There are only a few teams who need help. I have stated numerous times that i would like to see lots and lots of draft concessions to solve the problem directly. The cap completely distorts the whole system as has been seen in the numerous issues with it.
Instead how about New Dehlie gets a priority pick in the first round and in the second round.I dont mind going down in the drafter order 3-4 spots if the teams in need get higher draft picks.
this is what I would do
1 New Delhi Tigers
2 New Delhi Tigers
3 Buenos Aires Armadillos
4 Buenos Aires Armadillos
5 Cairo Sands
6 Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
7 Seoul Magpies
8 Beijing Thunder
9 London Royals
10 Tokyo Samurai
11 Cape Town Cobras
12 Toronto Wolves
13 New York Revolution
14 Pacific Islanders
15 Berlin Brewers
16 Moscow Spetnaz
17 Christchurch Saints
18 Mexico City Suns
19 Paris Nice Lyon
20 Dublin Destroyers
21 Cairo Sands
22 New Dehli Tigers
23 Beunos Aires Dillos
24 Cairo Sands
25 New Delhi Tigers
26 Buenos Aires Armadillos
27 Cairo Sands
28 Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
29 Seoul Magpies
30 Beijing Thunder
31 London Royals
32 Tokyo Samurai
33 Cape Town Cobras
34 Toronto Wolves
35 New York Revolution
36 Pacific Islanders
37 Berlin Brewers
38 Moscow Spetnaz
39 Christchurch Saints
40 Mexico City Suns
41 Paris Nice Lyon
42 Dublin Destroyers
43 Rio de Janeiro Jaguars
44 Seoul Magpies
45 Beijing Thunder
46 London Royals
47 Tokyo Samura
Honestly if you cant rebuild with pick 1,2, 22 and 25 then your doing something wrong. I did with less and with no cap. In fact no cap i claim was one of the reasons i could rise. Dillos get 3 4 23 26 even Cairo get 5 21 24 27
heavy draft concessions and ensuring the coaches at the bottom are competent (they are) then there are no issues let it build naturally.
I dont have heavy restrictions on me and all that happens is i get 20 and 42 instead of 19 and 39. Im unaffected the bottom teams are helped massively. Just draft and trade well and you are fine.
The issue has been people have drafted poorly with their priorities If people arent going to research and pick the high drafted guy when they shouldnt why should others be punished.
For example sorry to pick on anyone here. But i just took 2013.
If you have the number 1 pick in the draft and you waste it on a KPF with the pick 1 then there isnt much you can do about that. That pick has currently done nothing in SC however Kade Kolodjashnij, Marcus Bontempell, Jack Billings and Luke McDonald have.
Billings and Shaz have been injured but still have massive Sc potential.
In that draft if you drafted SC players
The bottom 2 sides in my system could have
Billings KK Shaz Mcdonald (my top 4)
then with the 20-25 picks guys like Blake Acres Patrick Cripps Lewis Taylor Zach Merrett Marco Paparone Jake Kolodjashnij
Direct solution is always better than distorting the whole market with flaws.
Don't disagree with that at all, I've always said the best way to help struggling teams is through draft picks (giving them something valuable to trade or use to pick a young gun). But the cap is still pretty important because it means you can't build an unbeatable powerhouse team with great depth as well. The cap forces you to find a balance
Quote from: Ricochet on September 01, 2015, 10:49:03 AM
Don't disagree with that at all, I've always said the best way to help struggling teams is through draft picks (giving them something valuable to trade or use to pick a young gun). But the cap is still pretty important because it means you can't build an unbeatable powerhouse team with great depth as well. The cap forces you to find a balance
It forces you to have a powerhouse team with no depth and given I will have late draft picks from here on out. Unless the people ahead of me draft poorly and trade poorly then I cant keep my team strong forever.
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 10:58:10 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 01, 2015, 10:49:03 AM
Don't disagree with that at all, I've always said the best way to help struggling teams is through draft picks (giving them something valuable to trade or use to pick a young gun). But the cap is still pretty important because it means you can't build an unbeatable powerhouse team with great depth as well. The cap forces you to find a balance
It forces you to have a powerhouse team with no depth and given I will have late draft picks from here on out. Unless the people ahead of me draft poorly and trade poorly then I cant keep my team strong forever.
It doesn't force you to have 'a powerhouse team with no depth' - you were saying earlier today that you thought it was unfair if you had a lot of players rested this week. If you had depth, it would've been less of an issue. Your team was so dominate you likely could've afforded to have less top line players for more depth players
Quote from: ossie85 on September 01, 2015, 12:09:30 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 10:58:10 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 01, 2015, 10:49:03 AM
Don't disagree with that at all, I've always said the best way to help struggling teams is through draft picks (giving them something valuable to trade or use to pick a young gun). But the cap is still pretty important because it means you can't build an unbeatable powerhouse team with great depth as well. The cap forces you to find a balance
It forces you to have a powerhouse team with no depth and given I will have late draft picks from here on out. Unless the people ahead of me draft poorly and trade poorly then I cant keep my team strong forever.
It doesn't force you to have 'a powerhouse team with no depth' - you were saying earlier today that you thought it was unfair if you had a lot of players rested this week. If you had depth, it would've been less of an issue. Your team was so dominate you likely could've afforded to have less top line players for more depth players
If I had more depth players then I probably wouldn't make the grand final. PNL Mexico and the Saints are no joke. I lost to both the Suns and Saints this week despite being full strength.
The thing is
a 115 mid costs 1955 points
two 90 mids cost 3060 points.
do you see the issue in that.
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 12:17:13 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 01, 2015, 12:09:30 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 10:58:10 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 01, 2015, 10:49:03 AM
Don't disagree with that at all, I've always said the best way to help struggling teams is through draft picks (giving them something valuable to trade or use to pick a young gun). But the cap is still pretty important because it means you can't build an unbeatable powerhouse team with great depth as well. The cap forces you to find a balance
It forces you to have a powerhouse team with no depth and given I will have late draft picks from here on out. Unless the people ahead of me draft poorly and trade poorly then I cant keep my team strong forever.
It doesn't force you to have 'a powerhouse team with no depth' - you were saying earlier today that you thought it was unfair if you had a lot of players rested this week. If you had depth, it would've been less of an issue. Your team was so dominate you likely could've afforded to have less top line players for more depth players
If I had more depth players then I probably wouldn't make the grand final. PNL Mexico and the Saints are no joke. I lost to both the Suns and Saints this week despite being full strength.
The thing is
a 115 mid costs 1955 points
two 90 mids cost 3060 points.
do you see the issue in that.
2 Brent Stantons cost more than a Gary Ablett. Hell, Tom Boyd costs more than Gary Ablett.
Nobody ever said the cap was perfect Holz, no cap ever will be. We need two criteria for a cap
- Simple to implement
- Does what it is intended to do
My opinion is the current cap does that, but it can be improved because of the Liberatore players
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 12:17:13 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 01, 2015, 12:09:30 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 10:58:10 AM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 01, 2015, 10:49:03 AM
Don't disagree with that at all, I've always said the best way to help struggling teams is through draft picks (giving them something valuable to trade or use to pick a young gun). But the cap is still pretty important because it means you can't build an unbeatable powerhouse team with great depth as well. The cap forces you to find a balance
It forces you to have a powerhouse team with no depth and given I will have late draft picks from here on out. Unless the people ahead of me draft poorly and trade poorly then I cant keep my team strong forever.
It doesn't force you to have 'a powerhouse team with no depth' - you were saying earlier today that you thought it was unfair if you had a lot of players rested this week. If you had depth, it would've been less of an issue. Your team was so dominate you likely could've afforded to have less top line players for more depth players
If I had more depth players then I probably wouldn't make the grand final. PNL Mexico and the Saints are no joke. I lost to both the Suns and Saints this week despite being full strength.
The thing is
a 115 mid costs 1955 points
two 90 mids cost 3060 points.
do you see the issue in that.
That's the point man, you have to find a balance and nothing is guaranteed.
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 12:17:13 PM
The thing is
a 115 mid costs 1955 points
two 90 mids cost 3060 points.
do you see the issue in that.
I don't get what you're trying to say there?
And you need to add the second player with the 115mid if you're comparing 2 players with 2 players
Quote from: Ricochet on September 01, 2015, 12:26:48 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 12:17:13 PM
The thing is
a 115 mid costs 1955 points
two 90 mids cost 3060 points.
do you see the issue in that.
I don't get what you're trying to say there?
And you need to add the second player with the 115mid if you're comparing 2 players with 2 players
I thought it was pretty self explanatory. People say just go depth and give up your stars. I cant do that because of the cap.
Im already pushing it as it is. Trading a sloane for two 90 players might be a good move for me, to increase my depth and spread the stars around but i simply cant do that.
I wouldnt trade 2 90s mids for a 115 mid however the cap values the 2 90s mids 50% higher then the 115 mid.
its why im forced to get superstars. When I can have a 115 mid much much cheaper then two good mids why would I not.
Quote from: ossie85 on September 01, 2015, 12:20:24 PM
Nobody ever said the cap was perfect Holz, no cap ever will be. We need two criteria for a cap
- Simple to implement
- Does what it is intended to do
what is it intended to do? I just dont grasp what its for.
too equalize the comp or to stop players hoarding depth?
I dont think it has done either and infact has had far far more negative impacts and minimal if any positives. Perhaps if i had a clear idea what is was intended to do then I could be ok with it.
I bring up the euro and yes i Know 14 teams. however with no cap and heavy assistance to the weaker teams. We have by far the most equal comp with a good spread of players. Not only that but the rules are extremely simple and don't distort market prices at all. Its a shame im soo terrible with the scoring and the admin side of the game, as i think it should be the model worlds should use. If the Euro rules were used with work that you and purp did the comp would be beyond amazing.
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 12:31:31 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 01, 2015, 12:26:48 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 12:17:13 PM
The thing is
a 115 mid costs 1955 points
two 90 mids cost 3060 points.
do you see the issue in that.
I don't get what you're trying to say there?
And you need to add the second player with the 115mid if you're comparing 2 players with 2 players
I thought it was pretty self explanatory. People say just go depth and give up your stars. I cant do that because of the cap.
Im already pushing it as it is. Trading a sloane for two 90 players might be a good move for me, to increase my depth and spread the stars around but i simply cant do that.
I wouldnt trade 2 90s mids for a 115 mid however the cap values the 2 90s mids 50% higher then the 115 mid.
its why im forced to get superstars. When I can have a 115 mid much much cheaper then two good mids why would I not.
But you have a 115 mid AND another player.
115mid + 80mid = 3315pts
90mid + 90mid = 3060pts
It does stop teams from hoarding depth and it does it without stoping teams becoming dominant
Caps should ensure competitiveness not equality
IMO cap is perfectly fine as is. Simple enough to keep track of and does a fairly good job at stopping teams hoarding depth or trading out all scorers to become uncompetitive.
Quote from: Toga on September 01, 2015, 12:54:22 PM
IMO cap is perfectly fine as is. Simple enough to keep track of and does a fairly good job at stopping teams hoarding depth or trading out all scorers to become uncompetitive.
So you think DUBLIN trading in Liberatore for free (cap wise) isn't bad for the competition?
Quote from: meow meow on September 01, 2015, 12:57:25 PM
Quote from: Toga on September 01, 2015, 12:54:22 PM
IMO cap is perfectly fine as is. Simple enough to keep track of and does a fairly good job at stopping teams hoarding depth or trading out all scorers to become uncompetitive.
So you think DUBLIN trading in Liberatore for free (cap wise) isn't bad for the competition?
Think Toges just means in terms of the mx/min limits and actually having a cap in place
Yeah, I like the max/min cap boundaries and think it does a good job of what it is intended to do so far.
Obviously there are some loopholes like someone getting Liberatore for free, but generally I think it's good
I guess we have to start re-planning a particular trade ::)
Quote from: AaronKirk on September 01, 2015, 01:11:00 PM
I guess we have to start re-planning a particular trade ::)
Have fun.
I voted for the cap to stay the same just because as I said it's reasonably simple and does what it's meant to despite a few loopholes.
Quote from: AaronKirk on September 01, 2015, 01:11:00 PM
I guess we have to start re-planning a particular trade ::)
Hopefully you won't have to change your plans too much mate. Just need to make sure you are under/over by the end of the period which is easy enough to do, either via delisting or drafting points.
The max/min would be simple to replicate under the system I proposed.
Currently it's 3300 x9 (games a week) x17 (WXV rounds) /18 (teams) = 28040 points average per team.
All we'd have to do is find the new average with the extra scores added. If the new average is 30000 per team we would just have to lift the min/max by 2000 points so there is basically no change whatsoever.
Quote from: meow meow on September 01, 2015, 12:57:25 PM
Quote from: Toga on September 01, 2015, 12:54:22 PM
IMO cap is perfectly fine as is. Simple enough to keep track of and does a fairly good job at stopping teams hoarding depth or trading out all scorers to become uncompetitive.
So you think DUBLIN trading in Liberatore for free (cap wise) isn't bad for the competition?
the cap is irrelevant to the fairness of the competition. Whether i paid enough is completely relevant. its not like if i get Libba as a free agent. I'm trading for him.
Who cares what he costs in the cap, the reason why i like injuries not counting in the cap is it weakens the negative impact of the cap. Minimizing the damage of the cap is my main goal.
If you think im not paying enough for Libba then thats fair enough. But people should focus on the trade in the vacuum.
Hide the team names, hide the cap and look at Team A and Team B, the only time people should step in is if one team is destroying another in a trade. The only other time is if a team is struggling and you directly help them with giving them free picks. Everything else disorts the system.
Quote from: Nige on September 01, 2015, 01:12:43 PM
Quote from: AaronKirk on September 01, 2015, 01:11:00 PM
I guess we have to start re-planning a particular trade ::)
Have fun.
I'm sure we will.
Even if it is a fair trade (which I reckon it is) it will be blocked because it is Dublin.
Quote from: meow meow on September 01, 2015, 01:14:22 PM
The max/min would be simple to replicate under the system I proposed.
Currently it's 3300 x9 (games a week) x17 (WXV rounds) /18 (teams) = 28040 points average per team.
All we'd have to do is find the new average with the extra scores added. If the new average is 30000 per team we would just have to lift the min/max by 2000 points so there is basically no change whatsoever.
do you like my 30% rule instead? gets rid of the massive outliers and doesnt do too much to the cap at all.
Quote from: Toga on September 01, 2015, 01:13:12 PM
I voted for the cap to stay the same just because as I said it's reasonably simple and does what it's meant to despite a few loopholes.
Quote from: AaronKirk on September 01, 2015, 01:11:00 PM
I guess we have to start re-planning a particular trade ::)
Hopefully you won't have to change your plans too much mate. Just need to make sure you are under/over by the end of the period which is easy enough to do, either via delisting or drafting points.
I'm not worried about the cap. I don't care that much. Regardless of what changes with the cap everyone has to adapt.
Just seems people want to change the cap because Holz offered the most for Liberatore.
If he went anywhere else this wouldn't be an issue.
Quote from: AaronKirk on September 01, 2015, 02:16:23 PM
Quote from: Toga on September 01, 2015, 01:13:12 PM
I voted for the cap to stay the same just because as I said it's reasonably simple and does what it's meant to despite a few loopholes.
Quote from: AaronKirk on September 01, 2015, 01:11:00 PM
I guess we have to start re-planning a particular trade ::)
Hopefully you won't have to change your plans too much mate. Just need to make sure you are under/over by the end of the period which is easy enough to do, either via delisting or drafting points.
I'm not worried about the cap. I don't care that much. Regardless of what changes with the cap everyone has to adapt.
Just seems people want to change the cap because Holz offered the most for Liberatore.
If he went anywhere else this wouldn't be an issue.
It may seem that way AK, but we've been talking about this loophole since before Libba went down with his knee injury, and it was always the plan to implement any new rules BEFORE people have traded.
Quote from: ossie85 on September 01, 2015, 02:31:11 PM
Quote from: AaronKirk on September 01, 2015, 02:16:23 PM
Quote from: Toga on September 01, 2015, 01:13:12 PM
I voted for the cap to stay the same just because as I said it's reasonably simple and does what it's meant to despite a few loopholes.
Quote from: AaronKirk on September 01, 2015, 01:11:00 PM
I guess we have to start re-planning a particular trade ::)
Hopefully you won't have to change your plans too much mate. Just need to make sure you are under/over by the end of the period which is easy enough to do, either via delisting or drafting points.
I'm not worried about the cap. I don't care that much. Regardless of what changes with the cap everyone has to adapt.
Just seems people want to change the cap because Holz offered the most for Liberatore.
If he went anywhere else this wouldn't be an issue.
It may seem that way AK, but we've been talking about this loophole since before Libba went down with his knee injury, and it was always the plan to implement any new rules BEFORE people have traded.
shouldnt this has been done a few months ago though?
everyone knows that people talk lots about trading in the months leading up to the trade period. These are fundamental changes. If you dont talk before the trade period trades get done and you fall behind. even now I hear some people have been traded bascially already and i cant put in deals. Its not just Dublin, I just make it Public.
Quote from: ossie85 on September 01, 2015, 02:31:11 PM
Quote from: AaronKirk on September 01, 2015, 02:16:23 PM
Quote from: Toga on September 01, 2015, 01:13:12 PM
I voted for the cap to stay the same just because as I said it's reasonably simple and does what it's meant to despite a few loopholes.
Quote from: AaronKirk on September 01, 2015, 01:11:00 PM
I guess we have to start re-planning a particular trade ::)
Hopefully you won't have to change your plans too much mate. Just need to make sure you are under/over by the end of the period which is easy enough to do, either via delisting or drafting points.
I'm not worried about the cap. I don't care that much. Regardless of what changes with the cap everyone has to adapt.
Just seems people want to change the cap because Holz offered the most for Liberatore.
If he went anywhere else this wouldn't be an issue.
It may seem that way AK, but we've been talking about this loophole since before Libba went down with his knee injury, and it was always the plan to implement any new rules BEFORE people have traded.
I understand that.
As I said I don't have an issue if it changes or remains the same. Everyone will have to adapt.
We voted for the cap to stay as is. Don't understand why we need to change a million things
As for Libba, whatever change happens that deal will still go ahead - I'll make sure of it :)
Can always delist spuds if need be
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 02:33:46 PM
everyone knows that people talk lots about trading in the months leading up to the trade period. These are fundamental changes. If you dont talk before the trade period trades get done and you fall behind. even now I hear some people have been traded bascially already and i cant put in deals. Its not just Dublin, I just make it Public.
I don't agree with your logic at all Holz, we have MONTHS to trade, and people will trade for the best deals possible.
It is unfair for people to hold grudges against someone who has withdrawn a trade because of a rule change. Hell, I think everything is fair game until the actual trade period starts and people post and confirm the trade.
Quote from: ossie85 on September 01, 2015, 02:53:43 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 02:33:46 PM
everyone knows that people talk lots about trading in the months leading up to the trade period. These are fundamental changes. If you dont talk before the trade period trades get done and you fall behind. even now I hear some people have been traded bascially already and i cant put in deals. Its not just Dublin, I just make it Public.
I don't agree with your logic at all Holz, we have MONTHS to trade, and people will trade for the best deals possible.
It is unfair for people to hold grudges against someone who has withdrawn a trade because of a rule change. Hell, I think everything is fair game until the actual trade period starts and people post and confirm the trade.
This is why teams should be punished if they are caught discussing trades before the season ends ;)
Quote from: PowerBug on September 01, 2015, 03:02:40 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 01, 2015, 02:53:43 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 02:33:46 PM
everyone knows that people talk lots about trading in the months leading up to the trade period. These are fundamental changes. If you dont talk before the trade period trades get done and you fall behind. even now I hear some people have been traded bascially already and i cant put in deals. Its not just Dublin, I just make it Public.
I don't agree with your logic at all Holz, we have MONTHS to trade, and people will trade for the best deals possible.
It is unfair for people to hold grudges against someone who has withdrawn a trade because of a rule change. Hell, I think everything is fair game until the actual trade period starts and people post and confirm the trade.
This is why teams should be punished if they are caught discussing trades before the season ends ;)
Now that is the most bullshower thing I have ever heard....
Who doesn't discuss trades during the season ;)
Quote from: AaronKirk on September 01, 2015, 03:05:48 PM
Now that is the most bullshower thing I have ever heard....
Who doesn't discuss trades during the season ;)
Those that focus on the current season ;)
If you want to be more like the AFL (which is what the other rules are doing and what admin have stated they try to achieve), then you would introduce something to stop teams talking about trades during the season. ;)
Quote from: ossie85 on September 01, 2015, 02:53:43 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 02:33:46 PM
everyone knows that people talk lots about trading in the months leading up to the trade period. These are fundamental changes. If you dont talk before the trade period trades get done and you fall behind. even now I hear some people have been traded bascially already and i cant put in deals. Its not just Dublin, I just make it Public.
I don't agree with your logic at all Holz, we have MONTHS to trade, and people will trade for the best deals possible.
It is unfair for people to hold grudges against someone who has withdrawn a trade because of a rule change. Hell, I think everything is fair game until the actual trade period starts and people post and confirm the trade.
Its not about holding grudges. The number 1 thing that destroys teams is not having a plan and having trades that dont match up with your other trades. Soo many teams have worsened their team with no sense of direction, this takes months to do if your going to do it correctly. What I wanted my 2014 team to look like i started planning for before the first season even started. Its why i traded chappy nroo and burgoyne for Ward eski longer
Quote from: PowerBug on September 01, 2015, 03:12:05 PM
Quote from: AaronKirk on September 01, 2015, 03:05:48 PM
Now that is the most bullshower thing I have ever heard....
Who doesn't discuss trades during the season ;)
Those that focus on the current season ;)
If you want to be more like the AFL (which is what the other rules are doing and what admin have stated they try to achieve), then you would introduce something to stop teams talking about trades during the season. ;)
yeah but where would we stop. You could say that coaches get fired for not performing in the AFL perhaps we should do that.
Quote from: Holz on September 01, 2015, 03:14:23 PM
Quote from: PowerBug on September 01, 2015, 03:12:05 PM
Quote from: AaronKirk on September 01, 2015, 03:05:48 PM
Now that is the most bullshower thing I have ever heard....
Who doesn't discuss trades during the season ;)
Those that focus on the current season ;)
If you want to be more like the AFL (which is what the other rules are doing and what admin have stated they try to achieve), then you would introduce something to stop teams talking about trades during the season. ;)
yeah but where would we stop. You could say that coaches get fired for not performing in the AFL perhaps we should do that.
we have sacked coaches for under performing....
But we obviously can't stop people from talking!
On to more important matters.
who is pumped about the Jim Stynes night and the grand final.
Ill be cheering for anyone besides Fyfe to win the medal. but honestly now that Gaz cant win it should be great. Obviously going for my boy Goldy but I think Danger could do some serious damage.
You would think one of Goldy Fyfer Dangerman and Tornoto Pendles should take it home.
Quote from: ossie85 on September 01, 2015, 03:22:49 PM
we have sacked coaches for under performing....
But we obviously can't stop people from talking!
Probably not, most you could do is get people to report PMs about trades to the admin. People will find a way around it though.
Quote from: PowerBug on September 01, 2015, 03:40:57 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 01, 2015, 03:22:49 PM
we have sacked coaches for under performing....
But we obviously can't stop people from talking!
Probably not, most you could do is get people to report PMs about trades to the admin. People will find a way around it though.
if we want to be like the afl. The teams pushing for flags generally the older players take pay cuts to go for a flag. So maybe if you make a prelim guys over 28 take a 30% reduction in cap points.
While we are at it free agents typcially want to go to the top teams and they largely come from the bottom. So maybe 1-2 players come from the bottom teams each year and the teams can be compensated with first round picks.
I think Danger might want to come to Dublin to go for a flag. As long as i have the cap space all good right?
Seoul can have two first round picks as compo thats fine with me.
^ And this guy wonders why he and Dublin are so flowering disliked. ::) :P
This whole "be like the AFL" thing is starting to give me a headache
Quote from: Nige on September 01, 2015, 05:34:38 PM
^ And this guy wonders why he and Dublin are so flowering disliked. ::) :P
I obviously dont want it to happen, I just dont like the hypocrisy of picking out things that suit then saying its like the afl lets do it. I have been saying all along dont restrict things just heavily help the bottom teams. I want to give bottom teams more support then they are being given.
Remember under my system i wanted to give you 5, 21, 24, 27
instead of the 4, 21, 24 that your currently getting. I know you guys are good coaches and you can use that pick to get someone good. If you still struggle next year then you get helped even more.
Dillos are in trouble 3 20 and 23 is helpfull
however 3,4,23,23 is what they really need.
So Holz and NY, under this system you'd still be able to swap McDonald for Liberatore. This way you won't be swapping McDonald for Liberatore and 1600 points worth of cap space. Libba has a fair point value assigned to him now but it's not going to affect your ability to trade him if the trade itself is fair.
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 04:22:14 AM
So Holz and NY, under this system you'd still be able to swap McDonald for Liberatore. This way you won't be swapping McDonald for Liberatore and 1600 points worth of cap space. Libba has a fair point value assigned to him now but it's not going to affect your ability to trade him if the trade itself is fair.
thats fine but it was never really about libba. He was just the easiest example. By the way im under the cap with the old system or your new system. I know people think i only care about Dublin but I have always been thinking about the fairness of the comp. I wanted to reward guys with mass injuries in their team.
the biggest issue with the system though i have realised is not only older players but actually up and coming players. Beijing have climbed there way off the bottom of the ladder and now have much more points then the two teams in the grandfinal.
the flaw in the system is this
503 James Aish
562 Sam Mayes
738 Matt Jones
773 Matthew Jaensch
777 Danny Stanley
815 Aaron Black
845 Jared Polec
jaensch yes has been in jured but most of the other guys are fringe players and are down on their form. After climbing off the bottom they will have to trade or drop these kind of guys. The issue is nobody wants to trade them in and i can see that being incredibly annoying for Toga.
Top teams cant get packages of players for stars because they are already over the cap or close to it.
Bottom team dont want to lose their stars for a bunch of players either.
So what is Toga to do.
You say Beijing Cape Town have too many players but what are they to do, its not like they are top of the table. Who should beijing dump?
by the way love the effort going into these posts Meow, top stuff.
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 09:37:02 AM
I wanted to reward guys with mass injuries in their team.
Are you sure about that? It's not a case of getting the injury affected players like Libba, Daisy, Grimes and who knows how many others so you've got 2500+ points in your cap more than everyone else?
They'll be rewarded next year when their players return. I don't expect a 'reward' because Gibbs played half a season.
QuoteThe issue is nobody wants to trade them in and i can see that being incredibly annoying for Toga.
I'm sure there would be plenty of interest if Toga says they're available. A scenario of delisting Stanley, trading Black and Polec for picks isn't going to rip the guts out of their team.
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 11:29:01 AM
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 09:37:02 AM
I wanted to reward guys with mass injuries in their team.
Are you sure about that? It's not a case of getting the injury affected players like Libba, Daisy, Grimes and who knows how many others so you've got 2500+ points in your cap more than everyone else?
They'll be rewarded next year when their players return. I don't expect a 'reward' because Gibbs played half a season.
shouldn't the cap be about what actually happened. As i said why should I guy who missed a whole season by above a guy who missed 4 games each season with minor injuries. Thats why the 10% is too small.
Also what about fringe players like Black.
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 11:40:22 AM
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 11:29:01 AM
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 09:37:02 AM
I wanted to reward guys with mass injuries in their team.
Are you sure about that? It's not a case of getting the injury affected players like Libba, Daisy, Grimes and who knows how many others so you've got 2500+ points in your cap more than everyone else?
They'll be rewarded next year when their players return. I don't expect a 'reward' because Gibbs played half a season.
shouldn't the cap be about what actually happened. As i said why should I guy who missed a whole season by above a guy who missed 4 games each season with minor injuries. Thats why the 10% is too small.
Also what about fringe players like Black.
So you think valuing Liberatore at a 100 average instead of a 110 average is a warped assessment of his value? The cap should be about a players value.
What about Black? As you said, he's a fringe player. It's not like Beijing are low on players, so if they have to trade him for a pick then that's what they'll do. Draft picks turn into players too, you know?
Outstanding analysis meow, that has really cleared some air of uncertainty I feel.
I also think Holz, that not once in WXVs history has a player with some value, particularly a gun, would have attracted a premium or discount because of their cap impact. I severely doubt you would overpay for Liberatore because he has a zero cap... that's ludicrous.
Really, the reality is that a coach would go on about their business in regards to trades. Once a trade is agreed upon, THEN they would probably look at their cap impact. Then they'd say "Oh look, I'm over the cap by 2000 points if I do this trade... no matter, these naturally retired AFL players, coupled with me delisting a couple of VFL players from my list, will bring my cap under it again."
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 11:49:24 AM
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 11:40:22 AM
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 11:29:01 AM
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 09:37:02 AM
I wanted to reward guys with mass injuries in their team.
Are you sure about that? It's not a case of getting the injury affected players like Libba, Daisy, Grimes and who knows how many others so you've got 2500+ points in your cap more than everyone else?
They'll be rewarded next year when their players return. I don't expect a 'reward' because Gibbs played half a season.
shouldn't the cap be about what actually happened. As i said why should I guy who missed a whole season by above a guy who missed 4 games each season with minor injuries. Thats why the 10% is too small.
Also what about fringe players like Black.
So you think valuing Liberatore at a 100 average instead of a 110 average is a warped assessment of his value? The cap should be about a players value.
What about Black? As you said, he's a fringe player. It's not like Beijing are low on players, so if they have to trade him for a pick then that's what they'll do. Draft picks turn into players too, you know?
im interested to see what pick they will get for him.
Yes i think valuing libba as not only a 100 average player but a 100 average player who hasnt missed a game is unfair.
Michael Barlow 116 average (major injury) next year 84 average missed lots of games. 95 the year after
Taylor Walker 100 average (major injury) next year 69 average from 5 games, year after 80 from 15.
David Mundy 116 average if you remove his 6 injury game (major injury) 89 the next year.
so yes I think a 10% discount for a guy coming off a serious injury that had him out for the season is a warped sense.
By the way when people come to vote this injury should be taken into account. its not ohh he is back lock him in for 110 this year.
I didnt want to go in depth as I have considered on trading him (not for cap reasons) but basically forced to shoot that to pieces now.
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 11:54:56 AM
Outstanding analysis meow, that has really cleared some air of uncertainty I feel.
I also think Holz, that not once in WXVs history has a player with some value, particularly a gun, would have attracted a premium or discount because of their cap impact. I severely doubt you would overpay for Liberatore because he has a zero cap... that's ludicrous.
Really, the reality is that a coach would go on about their business in regards to trades. Once a trade is agreed upon, THEN they would probably look at their cap impact. Then they'd say "Oh look, I'm over the cap by 2000 points if I do this trade... no matter, these naturally retired AFL players, coupled with me delisting a couple of VFL players from my list, will bring my cap under it again."
I plan loads of moves in advance.
I can explain my reasoning easy.
I can squeeze under the cap with Libba not costing much in the cap for the one year. I think he could have a down year next year and bounce back in 2017.
In my potential team I have SJ, Scott Thompson and Robert Murphy all retiring the end of next year so that clears up cap space for 2017. Which alot of that will go to libba if he can reclaim his form or at least 95+
I dont have anyone retiring this year so my calculations had me under the cap if i pull all my moves and delist Sam Frost.
now im well over, have nobody to delist that I can and stuck in a situation. I dont want to delist SJ Thompson and Murphy as they are vital for my push next year. I have very very little depth and if i dont delist one of my old guys then I need to sack my younger cover, then when they do retire next year i have holes and I cant fix it as i have had to lose all my cover and ill get very late draft picks.
The point in red is potentially true but if coaches go about it that way with lack of planning then thats not a great reflection on the coach.
Holz just trade/delist Jetta, VB, Walker, Schoenmakers etc. There's nearly 3000 points there
^ It's called list management, every team has to do it. So what if Dublin can't afford ANOTHER premo player on their list? Deal with it.
Planning on how all of your players will perform in 2017, IN TWO YEARS TIME, is totally unrealistic and IMO is a colossal waste of time.
Planning for next year alone bears with it a great deal of uncertainty as it is.
Quote from: Ricochet on September 02, 2015, 12:17:39 PM
Holz just trade/delist Jetta, VB, Walker, Schoenmakers etc. There's nearly 3000 points there
as always I just use Dublin as an example.
I will be fine thats not the problem. However who it was a problem for was Dillos and its the reason they are in such a bad shape.
when SJ Grundy and Murphy potentially retire next year then those guys above are vital. Schoenemakers is my f6 and I have needed him this year.
when Murphy Grundy go Schoenemakers is potentially my D5
As i said i will be fine and work a way around it. Beijing is who im really worried about, I dont think a repeat of dublin is possible, its really hard for teams to climb up the ladder as seen by beijing, unless they package all those guys for a star. But i dont think they will be able to do it.
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 12:26:05 PM
Planning on how all of your players will perform in 2017, IN TWO YEARS TIME, is totally unrealistic and IMO is a colossal waste of time.
Planning for next year alone bears with it a great deal of uncertainty as it is.
its what i did in 2012/2013 for 2014/2015 and it got me into 2 grand finals and potentially two flags.
So trade the old guys for less than their 'value'??
This whole thing has been pretty funny btw.
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 12:27:04 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 02, 2015, 12:17:39 PM
Holz just trade/delist Jetta, VB, Walker, Schoenmakers etc. There's nearly 3000 points there
I will be fine thats not the problem. However who it was a problem for was Dillos and its the reason they are in such a bad shape.
Please elaborate. I'd like to hear your reasoning.
I've got Sandi, Mitchell, Boyd and Dempster who'll retire after next year. I want Naitanui, Laird, Parker and Dangerfield to replace them. LET ME HAVE THEM ALL THIS YEAR BECAUSE THE OLD GUYS WILL RETIRE SOON! They won't take up cap space in 2017 so why can't I have them now? :'(
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 12:30:14 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 12:27:04 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on September 02, 2015, 12:17:39 PM
Holz just trade/delist Jetta, VB, Walker, Schoenmakers etc. There's nearly 3000 points there
I will be fine thats not the problem. However who it was a problem for was Dillos and its the reason they are in such a bad shape.
Please elaborate. I'd like to hear your reasoning.
I have posted a big thing about it when it was happening but the post above pretty much sums it up
"So trade the old guys for less than their 'value'??"
thats what they did,
combined with this "trade/delist Jetta, VB, Walker, Schoenmakers etc. "
having a situation where depth has to be sacked combined with an inability to trade out older players as the only teams who want them have cap issues themselves, combined with not getting any youth coming through with picks. means when a team goes to push for a flag having 25 players or less is the correct move to go for it (with the cap) they get stuck unless extremely good list management and end up with a severe lack of talent on thier list and having to fire sale guys like Swan.
This isnt a dublin issue by the way Im under the cap so im all good. But thats because I have been trading in youth all the time and have a extremely strong list, which gives me an ability to do that. But its more i have got lucky with guys like Tmac.
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 12:38:54 PM
I've got Sandi, Mitchell, Boyd and Dempster who'll retire after next year. I want Naitanui, Laird, Parker and Dangerfield to replace them. LET ME HAVE THEM ALL THIS YEAR BECAUSE THE OLD GUYS WILL RETIRE SOON! They won't take up cap space in 2017 so why can't I have them now? :'(
to be fair I want schoenemakers, josh walker, nathan van berlo, sam frost to cover them not those guys.
Can we focus on Beijing not Dublin for once. I dont need it im sorted no matter the rule. Make it no discount and im still fine.
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 12:40:18 PM
I have posted a big thing about it when it was happening but the post above pretty much sums it up
I remember it well. Still going with that?
Nope, I can't bang my forehead on my desk any more, I'm out of this conversation.
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 12:41:44 PM
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 12:38:54 PM
I've got Sandi, Mitchell, Boyd and Dempster who'll retire after next year. I want Naitanui, Laird, Parker and Dangerfield to replace them. LET ME HAVE THEM ALL THIS YEAR BECAUSE THE OLD GUYS WILL RETIRE SOON! They won't take up cap space in 2017 so why can't I have them now? :'(
to be fair I want schoenemakers, josh walker, nathan van berlo, sam frost to cover them not those guys.
Can we focus on Beijing not Dublin for once. I dont need it im sorted no matter the rule. Make it no discount and im still fine.
I thought you said you wanted Liberatore too? Or am I just imagining things?
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 12:43:22 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 12:40:18 PM
I have posted a big thing about it when it was happening but the post above pretty much sums it up
I remember it well. Still going with that?
Nope, I can't bang my forehead on my desk any more, I'm out of this conversation.
I agree im pulling out of this conversation.
Dublin is fine, the rules help Dublin. Ill survive.
I got to stop looking out for other people, i get attacked for it so ill just step away and see how the rules pan out.
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 12:46:43 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 12:41:44 PM
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 12:38:54 PM
I've got Sandi, Mitchell, Boyd and Dempster who'll retire after next year. I want Naitanui, Laird, Parker and Dangerfield to replace them. LET ME HAVE THEM ALL THIS YEAR BECAUSE THE OLD GUYS WILL RETIRE SOON! They won't take up cap space in 2017 so why can't I have them now? :'(
to be fair I want schoenemakers, josh walker, nathan van berlo, sam frost to cover them not those guys.
Can we focus on Beijing not Dublin for once. I dont need it im sorted no matter the rule. Make it no discount and im still fine.
I thought you said you wanted Liberatore too? Or am I just imagining things?
last comment on this. I wanted libba to fill their cap space. Not cover, he is already starting 15. Scharenberg will hopefully cover murphy and schoenamekrs will hopefully cover the shaz.
Ok I'm not pulling out of this. It's funny and I love it. I don't understand any of it, but I like it a lot. Let's keep going. DRAMAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
DRAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMAMA!!!!!!!!
Won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!?!?!
Quitters :-*
NOT ME!
I WON!!!!!!!!!
8) 8) 8) 8)
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 09:37:02 AM
the biggest issue with the system though i have realised is not only older players but actually up and coming players. Beijing have climbed there way off the bottom of the ladder and now have much more points then the two teams in the grandfinal.
the flaw in the system is this
503 James Aish
562 Sam Mayes
738 Matt Jones
773 Matthew Jaensch
777 Danny Stanley
815 Aaron Black
845 Jared Polec
jaensch yes has been in jured but most of the other guys are fringe players and are down on their form. After climbing off the bottom they will have to trade or drop these kind of guys. The issue is nobody wants to trade them in and i can see that being incredibly annoying for Toga.
Top teams cant get packages of players for stars because they are already over the cap or close to it.
Bottom team dont want to lose their stars for a bunch of players either.
So what is Toga to do.
You say Beijing Cape Town have too many players but what are they to do, its not like they are top of the table. Who should beijing dump?
by the way love the effort going into these posts Meow, top stuff.
I gotta say this is my concern about the cap proposal being put forwards. I agree that guns that have had LTI's costing minimal points isn't really fair, however I don't think it's fair to have guys like Aish, Mayes, Black given the 'higher of two seasons' rule as it is not an accurate reflection of where they are at at the moment.
These guys are gonna be important future players for Beijing, but for one reason or another this year dropped in form. For Aish and Mayes it has been lack of opportunity or you could say a case of the 2nd year blues, for Black it was purely a lack of opportunity after NM recruited Waite. We paid a decent premium for these players too - high draft picks for Aish and Mayes, and an 84 avg midfielder for Black.
These guys are currently valued at their true value - who knows what next year could hold in store for them. They could have a big turnaround and cement themselves in our XV. They could replicate this year's form. But no one would be willing to pay a reasonable premium for them after this season I think it is safe to say.
However guys like Polec & Jaensch, who missed big chunks of the season, I think it'd be fair to include a higher value for them under the cap system given there is an obvious reason as to why they are undervalued. Whether that be the higher of two years system, or some multiplier, I'm not sure. But that seems fair to me - same deal with guys like Liberatore, Brad Crouch etc.
But I don't think it's fair that we get punished for guys like Black and Aish having down years.
My suggestion would be that any cap rule suggested be to correct the value of guys that have missed through injury, not for other reasons. Maybe those who have missed 10+ games for the year take last year's value or something.
A new challenger?!
Pretty sure it was only yesterday that Beijing were bragging about how many of their players got games this year. The cap is designed to ensure that teams don't have too many players playing in the two's while some teams can't field a XV.
Aaron Black is a spud who does literally nothing more than kick a goal every now and then. He's a showerter version of Josh Hill. Delist him.
You aren't getting punished for your players having a down year. You're having to abide by the rules about not collecting too many players.
Haha not a challenger - just voicing my opinion which I think is somewhere in the middle.
Yes, we are very proud of the fact that despite having virtually no depth in 2014 (being under the cap), we traded for depth last year and end up being in the reserves GF, and being over the cap.
More than happy to do our due diligence and get ourselves under the cap - depending on what trades we get done, we are more than happy to delist the required amount of points to abide by the rules!
Strong words on Black :'( We got him for a decent midfielder in Rosa, but we were in need of forwards (and still are!! hit us up!) Shown enough potential for us to persist with him, especially if he moves clubs which I think is a real possibility.
But what's the point of giving blokes like Aish, Mayes, Black an extra 500-800 points to their name for having an off season? It's giving us points that we haven't actually earned this year. Makes it more complicated than it needs to be, I think we should be restricting this penalisation of low-points players to guys that are undervalued due to injury.
BRING IT ON! TAG ME IN MEOW! I GOT THIS!
Would love to see the Cap rule not get passed and then all of this discussion is for nothing haha :P
Quote from: Toga on September 02, 2015, 01:20:50 PM
But what's the point of giving blokes like Aish, Mayes, Black an extra 500-800 points to their name for having an off season? It's giving us points that we haven't actually earned this year. Makes it more complicated than it needs to be, I think we should be restricting this penalisation of low-points players to guys that are undervalued due to injury.
It's a more accurate indication of their true value. Is Aish more likely to average 70 across 20 games or 50 across 10 games? I'm sure NDT would happily accept his 90% cap and take the punt on him if you don't think he's worth hanging onto with the 90% points.
I'm not sure I'm wholly in agreement with your proposal meow.
Teams that go down the youth path or try to get some squad depth to beat out the better teams with depth (being able to replace injured players with almost as good replacements makes them competitive when teams like Dublin/Mexico get hit with injuries) are disadvantaged a bit more under this system. They also suffer a bit under the current cap rules which is something I don't like as well.
Yes, I know Cape Town bias coming in here but, using us as the example - at the moment as our team stands we have no idea who will be our Best XV next season, let alone in the coming years.
All bar two or three of our players got AFL games this year but, the majority of them are developing kids/players who are yet to hit their prime, or even consistent form.
So we have 5-6 guns then 40 guys who are playing but, their development is at this stage unknown due to them being young. Because of being over the cap we can't just wait another season or two to see how they turn out and then keep the good ones - we have to guess whose going to be good (in very limited information in some cases like Lachie Plowman) and keep them and trade others.
Or we have to trade some of those guns (which is actually what we are doing) to reduce the cap. This will most likely make us less competitive next year but, if we can work it right we can distill the team into having the best younger prospects so all they good kids come on at the same time in one year and we can challenge then before having to trade all our depth away at the end of our season due to being well over the cap.
Beijing are in the same boat. Would they like to keep Aaron Black and see if he goes to a new club and how he gets on there? I bet they would. But, currently as he's taking up cap space he needs to be traded on so they can't wait and see on this.
Teams shouldn't be punished for having good depth imo. But, they should be encouraged to trade depth and some developing players for better starting XV players.
The way Worlds is set-up at the moment, to succeed and match the Dublin/Mexico City sides you need to keep refreshing and keeping your team young until you get an awesome core of players who haven't yet developed (in other words have a high cap) and then hold on to them as you rise up the ladder.
But, you'll have to trade away your depth as you do because as your players improve they'll burst your cap. You can't have 25 guns/improving good players on the list at the same time, probably the most you can have is 20.
Which means you then need a super lucky run with injuries/suspensions in your good season to go all the way. Even Dublin looks like coming undone because of this in the Grand Final purely because Mexico City will have more guns playing in teh grand final and Dublin's guys will be rested.
If this was Hawthorn then they would just bring in some more than adequate replacements (to quote Alistair Clarkson or Adam Simpson or Luke Beverige "another soldier") and would still be right to go and keep winning.
Or you can target injured premiums and hope they bounce back to their previous levels. Unless Dublin beats you to it and trades them in instead. In which case back to the drawing board and option A again.
For what it's worth meow I think your team is going to have the same problem as Beijing and Cape Town in a few seasons when all those 2014 draftees start to come on.
Also, been waiting on one coach for the last couple days for the final voting on rules. That coach can actually still decide things.
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 01:28:57 PM
Quote from: Toga on September 02, 2015, 01:20:50 PM
But what's the point of giving blokes like Aish, Mayes, Black an extra 500-800 points to their name for having an off season? It's giving us points that we haven't actually earned this year. Makes it more complicated than it needs to be, I think we should be restricting this penalisation of low-points players to guys that are undervalued due to injury.
It's a more accurate indication of their true value. Is Aish more likely to average 70 across 20 games or 50 across 10 games? I'm sure NDT would happily accept his 90% cap and take the punt on him if you don't think he's worth hanging onto with the 90% points.
But is it though? Who knows, it's too hard to say. That's why I think it's more important to focus on filling in the loopholes over
injured players rather than guesswork over second year blues etc.
I'm sure NDT would be happy to accept his 90% cap value as well. But would they offer us adequate compensation? Probably not. So it's not worth us trading him.
^ tl;dr
Haha just kidding. That is why I proposed the points reduction for players picked up in the national draft. The teams that hit the draft are generally the ones that are rebuilding.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on September 02, 2015, 01:23:48 PM
Would love to see the Cap rule not get passed and then all of this discussion is for nothing haha :P
Quote from: Vinny on September 01, 2015, 06:54:43 PM
You know this competition is the best when there is always something to read on the board, discussion/debate/generally talking shower makes this game.
I agree with Memph's post, I think he and I (and possibly Holz) are arguing for the same point.
The proposed cap is more likely to hurt middle-tier teams rather than top teams or help bottom teams I think.
As Memph says as well, depth is important in improving teams - look at Beijing improving a bit this year despite important players like Wines, Kreuzer, Jaensch, Petracca missing a chunk of games. We were still able to cover them and have a much better season than last year. Now that we have that good depth, it is up to lesser teams to try the same thing, and recruit similar depth. I've said multiple times I'm happy to trade two or three depth players for a better quality depth player or starter - but that's out of our hands.
But for the time being
1. Preseason Training (Rejected)
2. Getting up for a match (Rejected)
3. Salary Cap Change (No change)
4. Flood/Attack Changes (In dispute)
5. Tag (Rejected)
6. Sub Rule (In dispute)
7. Ruck OOP (In dispute)
8. Leadership Group (Accepted)
9. Trading Future Draft Picks (Rejected)
10. Form Confidence (Rejected)
11. Loyalty Cap Bonus (In dispute)
12. Reserve Finals Eligibility (Accepted)
Also, seeing as we will likely have time, will send a "clarification" vote on some rules. :)
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 01:48:47 PM
But for the time being
1. Preseason Training (Rejected)
2. Getting up for a match (Rejected)
3. Salary Cap Change (No change)
4. Flood/Attack Changes (In dispute)
5. Tag (Rejected)
6. Sub Rule (In dispute)
7. Ruck OOP (In dispute)
8. Leadership Group (Accepted)
9. Trading Future Draft Picks (Rejected)
10. Form Confidence (Rejected)
11. Loyalty Cap Bonus (In dispute)
12. Reserve Finals Eligibility (Accepted)
Very happy with that overall. I'm all for new ideas and being innovative, but at the same time love the simplicity of Worlds so it's good to see we're not going to have a million changes
Loyalty Cap Bonus in dispute - whoever is left to vote, vote no! :P
I can't remember what we voted for but vote yes. Just cos. No particular reason.
Oh well, time to organise some trades that make a mockery of the points cap.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on September 02, 2015, 01:54:18 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 01:48:47 PM
But for the time being
1. Preseason Training (Rejected)
2. Getting up for a match (Rejected)
3. Salary Cap Change (No change)
4. Flood/Attack Changes (In dispute)
5. Tag (Rejected)
6. Sub Rule (In dispute)
7. Ruck OOP (In dispute)
8. Leadership Group (Accepted)
9. Trading Future Draft Picks (Rejected)
10. Form Confidence (Rejected)
11. Loyalty Cap Bonus (In dispute)
12. Reserve Finals Eligibility (Accepted)
Very happy with that overall. I'm all for new ideas and being innovative, but at the same time love the simplicity of Worlds so it's good to see we're not going to have a million changes
Loyalty Cap Bonus in dispute - whoever is left to vote, vote no! :P
Don't you mean yes! :P
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 01:48:47 PM
But for the time being
3. Salary Cap Change (No change)
:(
Reserves finals criteria is a bad idea :(
What is the point of the points cap?
1. to stop teams hoarding players. One team had 40 players to get senior games this year and they're only 200 points over the cap. Fail.
2. To stop teams from trading out all their players and turning themselves into an uncompetitive team. Fail.
3. To stop top teams becoming unbeatable. Mexico City can trade in O'Meara, D.Swallow and Gibbs if they cut Stokes. Fail.
May as well get rid of it since it serves no real purpose.
Pumped for a big awards night.
Very interested to see who gets all the side awards.
Roberton has the coaches award in the bag, surely!
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 02:30:26 PM
Roberton has the coaches award in the bag, surely!
been amazing, could go to anyone really. Lots of guys came from knowhere. Certainly a front runner though.
I guess the only factor is he did average 75 in 2013.
but anyway great pickup. I did look at him last year, a little annoyed didnt go any further.
Good chance Meow, but I reckon guys like Laird and Blicavs are good chances to win it too
Don't look past Tommy Bell >:D
Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 09:37:02 AM
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 04:22:14 AM
So Holz and NY, under this system you'd still be able to swap McDonald for Liberatore. This way you won't be swapping McDonald for Liberatore and 1600 points worth of cap space. Libba has a fair point value assigned to him now but it's not going to affect your ability to trade him if the trade itself is fair.
thats fine but it was never really about libba. He was just the easiest example. By the way im under the cap with the old system or your new system. I know people think i only care about Dublin but I have always been thinking about the fairness of the comp. I wanted to reward guys with mass injuries in their team.
the biggest issue with the system though i have realised is not only older players but actually up and coming players. Beijing have climbed there way off the bottom of the ladder and now have much more points then the two teams in the grandfinal.
the flaw in the system is this
503 James Aish
562 Sam Mayes
738 Matt Jones
773 Matthew Jaensch
777 Danny Stanley
815 Aaron Black
845 Jared Polec
jaensch yes has been in jured but most of the other guys are fringe players and are down on their form. After climbing off the bottom they will have to trade or drop these kind of guys. The issue is nobody wants to trade them in and i can see that being incredibly annoying for Toga.
It's not a flaw in the system because the higher points for these players has been taken into account when lifting the cap by 4000 points. If we left it at 30000 and still counted the higher value it would be outrageous but I have accounted for that when working out the rise in the cap. My system is flawless, and just like William Wallace when he's about to cop it, I shall never give up. FREEDOM!
Quote from: ossie85 on September 02, 2015, 02:43:10 PM
Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals
How so?
If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 02, 2015, 02:43:10 PM
Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals
How so?
If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.
just clarification lets say Ryan Schoenamkers has played 10 games in the reserves and as im hit with restings this week Im forced to play him in my senior team. Does that mean he would play for my Reserves as well?
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 04:15:34 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 02, 2015, 02:43:10 PM
Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals
How so?
If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.
just clarification lets say Ryan Schoenamkers has played 10 games in the reserves and as im hit with restings this week Im forced to play him in my senior team. Does that mean he would play for my Reserves as well?
This isn't a good sign.
I hope that was what everyone was thinking when they were voting?
But yes.
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:17:34 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 04:15:34 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 02, 2015, 02:43:10 PM
Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals
How so?
If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.
just clarification lets say Ryan Schoenamkers has played 10 games in the reserves and as im hit with restings this week Im forced to play him in my senior team. Does that mean he would play for my Reserves as well?
This isn't a good sign.
I hope that was what everyone was thinking when they were voting?
But yes.
If anything it would make more coaches vote yes, wouldnt it?
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:17:34 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 04:15:34 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 02, 2015, 02:43:10 PM
Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals
How so?
If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.
just clarification lets say Ryan Schoenamkers has played 10 games in the reserves and as im hit with restings this week Im forced to play him in my senior team. Does that mean he would play for my Reserves as well?
This isn't a good sign.
I hope that was what everyone was thinking when they were voting?
But yes.
Hate it even more now! I don't think that's how it reads sorry bro
And that's everyone.
1. Preseason Training (Rejected)
2. Getting up for a match (Rejected)
3. Salary Cap Change (No change)
4. Flood/Attack Changes No Change
5. Tag (Rejected)
6. Sub Rule (In dispute)
7. Ruck OOP (In dispute)
8. Leadership Group (Accepted)
9. Trading Future Draft Picks (Rejected)
10. Form Confidence (Rejected)
11. Loyalty Cap Bonus Rejected
12. Reserve Finals Eligibility (Accepted)
So the
Sub Rule, we had:
6. Sub Rule Vote A, B, C or D
A) Remove the sub rule and go back to the days of bad luck (3)
B) Retain the sub rule for players injured in first half (6)
C) Players that play less than or equal to 50% game time (FF stats) are subbed out (5)
D) (2)
QuoteIF you have a player who is injured and doesn't return after half time, an emergency is activiated and comes in at HALF points and you keep the score that player has already scored.
I.e. if Chad Wingard is injured 5 minutes into the 2nd quarter and gets a score of 33, Zac O'Brien comes in as a sub from the emergency list at half points (so if he scores 60 only 30 counts). So you basically get Wingard's 33 + O'Brien's 60/2 = 63
I see this as 13 people wanting a sub rule, and 3 didn't. So there will be a sub rule next year.
Also, seeing as that option D was unpopular, I will be removing that option as well. Even if those 3 people changed their vote to it, it still wouldn't get the majority.
Ruck OOP7. Ruck OOP
A) If you name a player OOP in the ruck you still lose 50% of the score (as has always been the case). BUT, if that player is less than 190cm, not only do you lose 50% of your score, the opposition ruck gains 25%. (4)
B) Keep as is. (8 )
C) Receive 75% of a Ruck OOP instead of 50% (4)
So half wanted a change, the other half didn't.
But, there were options omitted the first time, so will give it another go with those options included. This kinda wasn't the indication I was hoping for FWIW (i.e. a balanced opinion).
I'll send another vote out tonight, and will also include the 3 new coaches. I'll also include the clarification on the reserves finals eligibility.
Pretty sure that coaches didn't understand the cap rule either. Must have been why it didn't pass.
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 04:30:55 PM
Pretty sure that coaches didn't understand the cap rule either. Must have been why it didn't pass.
it was clear, i think people just want the cap to have the least amount of say as possible. I would guess that if there was a vote on the cap removing it would probably win. But i accept that its staying and not up to vote.
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 02:30:26 PM
Roberton has the coaches award in the bag, surely!
Sorry meow but, surely Blicavs has to get the gig.
In terms of a SC improvement he beat all comers...
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:29:20 PM
Ruck OOP
7. Ruck OOP
A) If you name a player OOP in the ruck you still lose 50% of the score (as has always been the case). BUT, if that player is less than 190cm, not only do you lose 50% of your score, the opposition ruck gains 25%. (4)
B) Keep as is. (8 )
C) Receive 75% of a Ruck OOP instead of 50% (4)
So half wanted a change, the other half didn't.
But, there were options omitted the first time, so will give it another go with those options included. This kinda wasn't the indication I was hoping for FWIW (i.e. a balanced opinion).
I think that voting gives a clear indication on what should happen.
A. basically means rucks should be more valuable
B. is no change
C. basically means rucks become less valuable.
so given its an even split the it should be B no change. with half wanting no change, a quarter wanting stronger rucks and a quarter wanting weaker rucks then it should be keep the rucks as valuable.
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 04:47:29 PM
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 04:30:55 PM
Pretty sure that coaches didn't understand the cap rule either. Must have been why it didn't pass.
it was clear, i think people just want the cap to have the least amount of say as possible. I would guess that if there was a vote on the cap removing it would probably win. But i accept that its staying and not up to vote.
Wasn't that clear. Didn't say anything about raising the max cap or nothin'
Quote from: ossie85 on September 02, 2015, 04:28:01 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:17:34 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 04:15:34 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 02, 2015, 02:43:10 PM
Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals
How so?
If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.
just clarification lets say Ryan Schoenamkers has played 10 games in the reserves and as im hit with restings this week Im forced to play him in my senior team. Does that mean he would play for my Reserves as well?
This isn't a good sign.
I hope that was what everyone was thinking when they were voting?
But yes.
Hate it even more now! I don't think that's how it reads sorry bro
Schoenmakers played almost every game in the reserves this year for Dublin though. I don't think he got a senior game did he?
He should play in the reserves finals in this case - it doesn't make sense for him to not line up in the reserves finals because of shock restings in the last round.
I probably might have lifted the criteria from 10 games to 15 games to be honest. So they literally do have to have play most of the season in the reserves.
But, otherwise the reserve finals are pretty much pointless. It's just whoever has the most players playing who will win most of the time.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 02, 2015, 04:56:08 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 02, 2015, 04:28:01 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:17:34 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 04:15:34 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 02, 2015, 02:43:10 PM
Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals
How so?
If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.
just clarification lets say Ryan Schoenamkers has played 10 games in the reserves and as im hit with restings this week Im forced to play him in my senior team. Does that mean he would play for my Reserves as well?
This isn't a good sign.
I hope that was what everyone was thinking when they were voting?
But yes.
Hate it even more now! I don't think that's how it reads sorry bro
Schoenmakers played almost every game in the reserves this year for Dublin though. I don't think he got a senior game did he?
He should play in the reserves finals in this case - it doesn't make sense for him to not line up in the reserves finals because of shock restings in the last round.
I probably might have lifted the criteria from 10 games to 15 games to be honest. So they literally do have to have play most of the season in the reserves.
But, otherwise the reserve finals are pretty much pointless. It's just whoever has the most players playing who will win most of the time.
You misunderstand.
If you had to play Schoenmakers in your seniors this week, that means he can't play for the reserves can he; the comp where he has played all of his games in.
The rule allows him to play in reserves as well as seniors.
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:59:16 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 02, 2015, 04:56:08 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 02, 2015, 04:28:01 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:17:34 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 04:15:34 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 02, 2015, 02:43:10 PM
Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals
How so?
If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.
just clarification lets say Ryan Schoenamkers has played 10 games in the reserves and as im hit with restings this week Im forced to play him in my senior team. Does that mean he would play for my Reserves as well?
This isn't a good sign.
I hope that was what everyone was thinking when they were voting?
But yes.
Hate it even more now! I don't think that's how it reads sorry bro
Schoenmakers played almost every game in the reserves this year for Dublin though. I don't think he got a senior game did he?
He should play in the reserves finals in this case - it doesn't make sense for him to not line up in the reserves finals because of shock restings in the last round.
I probably might have lifted the criteria from 10 games to 15 games to be honest. So they literally do have to have play most of the season in the reserves.
But, otherwise the reserve finals are pretty much pointless. It's just whoever has the most players playing who will win most of the time.
You misunderstand.
If you had to play Schoenmakers in your seniors this week, that means he can't play for the reserves can he; the comp where he has played all of his games in.
The rule allows him to play in reserves as well as seniors.
No I understand perfectly and this is why I voted for the rule.
I think it makes the reserve finals more competitive and I am all for this.
Even if some players essentially play two games/scores count twice. But, unlike the AFL we don't have actual reserve players we can count on in the WAFL/VFL etc so this is a good solution.
Tony Armstrong is the only player who should be allowed to do that.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 02, 2015, 04:56:08 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 02, 2015, 04:28:01 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:17:34 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 04:15:34 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 02, 2015, 02:43:10 PM
Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals
How so?
If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.
just clarification lets say Ryan Schoenamkers has played 10 games in the reserves and as im hit with restings this week Im forced to play him in my senior team. Does that mean he would play for my Reserves as well?
This isn't a good sign.
I hope that was what everyone was thinking when they were voting?
But yes.
Hate it even more now! I don't think that's how it reads sorry bro
Schoenmakers played almost every game in the reserves this year for Dublin though. I don't think he got a senior game did he?
He should play in the reserves finals in this case - it doesn't make sense for him to not line up in the reserves finals because of shock restings in the last round.
I probably might have lifted the criteria from 10 games to 15 games to be honest. So they literally do have to have play most of the season in the reserves.
But, otherwise the reserve finals are pretty much pointless. It's just whoever has the most players playing who will win most of the time.
The reserves competition has always been about who had the most depth (doesn't matter whether it is the regular season or the finals, it is the same, you have more players, you have a greater advantage). So I don't agree with the 'otherwise' sorry Memph, the current rules mean the scoring system is the same for both the regular season and the finals. The method you are suggesting means that scoring system suddenly changes.
The resting issue is a different topic IMO.
Memph - it doesn't make it more competitive in the finals at all. I don't understand that logic one bit.
Just another point...
Memph you raise the fact that restings impacts the reserves score. BUT if there is a resting it basically means that another player who wouldn't normally be playing is playing, shouldn't those players be excluded because of the same logic? If so, how do you determine which players are the players that normally wouldn't be playing?
Well said Holz, I didn't realise you felt that way about the cap, thanks for adding that to a completely different topic.
If anyone else said it, it would make them look petty and whiny, but when you say it, it really rings true.
The point of the cap is to try to get players like Libba, Daisy and JOM so in reality you have a 34000 cap vs everyone else's 30000. Obviously.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 02, 2015, 05:01:34 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:59:16 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 02, 2015, 04:56:08 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 02, 2015, 04:28:01 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:17:34 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 02, 2015, 04:15:34 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 02, 2015, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 02, 2015, 02:43:10 PM
Really hate the reserves final rule btw, not that many players actually play 9 reserves games and it heavily favours teams whose seniors aren't playing finals. Now we have two rules - one for regular season one for finals
How so?
If your team was playing in finals, and you had to play Zac Dawson who played 10 games in the reserves up until that point, he would also play in the reserves... same advantage for all teams.
just clarification lets say Ryan Schoenamkers has played 10 games in the reserves and as im hit with restings this week Im forced to play him in my senior team. Does that mean he would play for my Reserves as well?
This isn't a good sign.
I hope that was what everyone was thinking when they were voting?
But yes.
Hate it even more now! I don't think that's how it reads sorry bro
Schoenmakers played almost every game in the reserves this year for Dublin though. I don't think he got a senior game did he?
He should play in the reserves finals in this case - it doesn't make sense for him to not line up in the reserves finals because of shock restings in the last round.
I probably might have lifted the criteria from 10 games to 15 games to be honest. So they literally do have to have play most of the season in the reserves.
But, otherwise the reserve finals are pretty much pointless. It's just whoever has the most players playing who will win most of the time.
You misunderstand.
If you had to play Schoenmakers in your seniors this week, that means he can't play for the reserves can he; the comp where he has played all of his games in.
The rule allows him to play in reserves as well as seniors.
No I understand perfectly and this is why I voted for the rule.
I think it makes the reserve finals more competitive and I am all for this.
Even if some players essentially play two games/scores count twice. But, unlike the AFL we don't have actual reserve players we can count on in the WAFL/VFL etc so this is a good solution.
Ah ooops, totally misread. My apologies.
I feel like a bit of an a$$hole after reading a lot of this discussion, because personally I couldn't give two showers about Reserves :-X
Just looking at the PM Purps sent about the 3 rules left
In regards to the Ruck OOP rule - I'm sure it goes without saying but because it wasn't specifically said I want to check
Teams who have a playing ruck cannot use it can they? Say you have Ayce Cordy as your only ruck and he is named for the Dogs, but you decide you would rather field another player and get 75% of their score, or field a 190cm+ player and get their adjusted score
You cant do that can you? Ruck OOP can only be used if you physically don't have a ruck playing right?
If I play Yao Ming would I get 50% + 117%?
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 06:57:58 PM
If I play Yao Ming would I get 50% + 117%?
Haha sure thing.
But, the tallest player in the AFL who isn't a ruck and was on a list in 2015 was Lachie Keeffe I believe who was 211cm. So the best you could get was an 86% OOP ruck.
Roughead and Daniher at 200cm are genuine options then who would score 83% as your OOP ruck.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on September 02, 2015, 06:42:09 PM
Just looking at the PM Purps sent about the 3 rules left
In regards to the Ruck OOP rule - I'm sure it goes without saying but because it wasn't specifically said I want to check
Teams who have a playing ruck cannot use it can they? Say you have Ayce Cordy as your only ruck and he is named for the Dogs, but you decide you would rather field another player and get 75% of their score, or field a 190cm+ player and get their adjusted score
You cant do that can you? Ruck OOP can only be used if you physically don't have a ruck playing right?
Correct.
Applies to other positions as well as I'm fairly sure there is a rule that you cannot play a guy out of position if you have a guy playing who is that position.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 02, 2015, 07:02:55 PM
Quote from: meow meow on September 02, 2015, 06:57:58 PM
If I play Yao Ming would I get 50% + 117%?
Haha sure thing.
But, the tallest player in the AFL who isn't a ruck and was on a list in 2015 was Lachie Keeffe I believe who was 211cm. So the best you could get was an 86% OOP ruck.
Roughead and Daniher at 200cm are genuine options then who would score 83% as your OOP ruck.
Keefe is a mere 204. Only big Sandi and Mason Cox have breached the 211 barrier.
Also, I think you need to have a word to your maths teacher.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 02, 2015, 07:04:12 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on September 02, 2015, 06:42:09 PM
Just looking at the PM Purps sent about the 3 rules left
In regards to the Ruck OOP rule - I'm sure it goes without saying but because it wasn't specifically said I want to check
Teams who have a playing ruck cannot use it can they? Say you have Ayce Cordy as your only ruck and he is named for the Dogs, but you decide you would rather field another player and get 75% of their score, or field a 190cm+ player and get their adjusted score
You cant do that can you? Ruck OOP can only be used if you physically don't have a ruck playing right?
Correct.
Applies to other positions as well as I'm fairly sure there is a rule that you cannot play a guy out of position if you have a guy playing who is that position.
I'm lost.
Can anyone think of a solution for restings. Perhaps start a round earlier?
A player getting 90% of their average if a clear resting?
not sure it just seems abit silly to have one team all year then 5-6 guys out who arent injured just because its round 23.
I know most people will say deal with it, but its something to think about.
Mexico could have mass restings as well and it just doesnt feel like a grandfinal with Dublin B against Mexcio B
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 11:16:04 AM
Can anyone think of a solution for restings. Perhaps start a round earlier?
A player getting 90% of their average if a clear resting?
not sure it just seems abit silly to have one team all year then 5-6 guys out who arent injured just because its round 23.
I know most people will say deal with it, but its something to think about.
Mexico could have mass restings as well and it just doesnt feel like a grandfinal with Dublin B against Mexcio B
Might struggle to start in round zero, assuming same fixture the only way around it is two matches across bye rounds. Which would syck a lot and be confusing (would be 2 games running concurrently)
Quote from: ossie85 on September 03, 2015, 11:42:36 AM
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 11:16:04 AM
Can anyone think of a solution for restings. Perhaps start a round earlier?
A player getting 90% of their average if a clear resting?
not sure it just seems abit silly to have one team all year then 5-6 guys out who arent injured just because its round 23.
I know most people will say deal with it, but its something to think about.
Mexico could have mass restings as well and it just doesnt feel like a grandfinal with Dublin B against Mexcio B
Might struggle to start in round zero, assuming same fixture the only way around it is two matches across bye rounds. Which would syck a lot and be confusing (would be 2 games running concurrently)
it would be complicated but possible.
was quite annoying seeing a guy go 150 and not counting for my team. missing the last round only affects two teams not 18. So probably a more fair representation of the season.
Of course if the AFL didn't let teams tank that'd be dandy.North deliberately trying to lose to gain an advantage
Quote from: ossie85 on September 03, 2015, 11:48:27 AM
Of course if the AFL didn't let teams tank that'd be dandy.North deliberately trying to lose to gain an advantage
I dont think we are losing on purposes. I think its more we dont care if we win or lose, that different to trying to lose.
We have nothing to gain by winning and something to gain be resting (not losing)
agreed the AFL shouldnt let it happen as the outcome does matter to Tigers Crows Dogs, just not North
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 11:50:11 AM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 03, 2015, 11:48:27 AM
Of course if the AFL didn't let teams tank that'd be dandy.North deliberately trying to lose to gain an advantage
I dont think we are losing on purposes. I think its more we dont care if we win or lose, that different to trying to lose.
We have nothing to gain by winning and something to gain be resting (not losing)
agreed the AFL shouldnt let it happen as the outcome does matter to Tigers Crows Dogs, just not North
lose stay in Melbourne, win might go to South Australia
shocking decision by AFL, Freo was bad enough
Quote from: ossie85 on September 03, 2015, 11:48:27 AM
Of course if the AFL didn't let teams tank that'd be dandy.North deliberately trying to lose to gain an advantage
Yep, really stupid. They don't want to travel to Adelaide and so they're ensuring it doens't happen.
Honestly, even though some other comps had their grand final last week, I think it's tough luck if you have players being rested. You should have depth to cover the issue, same with injuries and suspensions.
Holz, I'd be surprised if you'd be caring so much if teams like the Giants and the Suns were resting because you don't even have any best XV players from those teams.
JROO's clearly not that fussed about it, but you're up in arms because the fantasy world isn't perfect for Dublin to win and stroke your ego some more.
Quote from: Nige on September 03, 2015, 11:56:32 AM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 03, 2015, 11:48:27 AM
Of course if the AFL didn't let teams tank that'd be dandy.North deliberately trying to lose to gain an advantage
Yep, really stupid. They don't want to travel to Adelaide and so they're ensuring it doens't happen.
Honestly, even though some other comps had their grand final last week, I think it's tough luck if you have players being rested. You should have depth to cover the issue, same with injuries and suspensions.
Holz, I'd be surprised if you'd be caring so much if teams like the Giants and the Suns were resting because you don't even have any best XV players from those teams.
JROO's clearly not that fussed about it, but you're up in arms because the fantasy world isn't perfect for Dublin to win and stroke your ego some more.
I cant even say anything with out getting attacked.
try to say something to help Beijing, people just focus on Dublin
mention the biggest issue in the afl this week and people focus on Dublin.
Honestly, even though some other comps had their grand final last week, I think it's tough luck if you have players being rested. You should have depth to cover the issue, same with injuries and suspensions. No i should not have depth to cover 5-6 starters in my team, if i did people would have a go saying im stocking up on all these guys on the bench.
Holz, I'd be surprised if you'd be caring so much if teams like the Giants and the Suns were resting because you don't even have any best XV players from those teams. JROO's clearly not that fussed about it, but you're up in arms because the fantasy world isn't perfect for Dublin to win and stroke your ego some more.im talking about the future and i think that GWS actually could be in serious finals contention next year so they could be resting players aswell.
Im going to address it in the Euro and already had people saying perhaps we should start the season earlier. As you know I didnt even make the finals in the Euro and probably wont next year either. Yet im still planning to make the grand final round 22 or even round 21.
We dont know if my players are resting or Mexico's for that matter. I tell you this is Christchurch made the grandfinal I would be unhappy about Sandi getting rested for them. I would want to face a full strengh team and beat them, just like Christchurch did to me in the champs. I had almost my best team on the park and lost. Thats the way a grand final should be played.
I cant speak for Jroo but if i was him i would want Dublin as strong as possible. He can still beat me full strengh so for me it would be a dampner beating a weak Dublin when you have the team to beat a full strength Dublin.
Yep, really stupid. They don't want to travel to Adelaide and so they're ensuring it doens't happen.Are you trying to tell me you think the lions can beat the Dogs?
we are playing Richmond or Dogs next week in Melbourne, you can have a issue with what north did if Crows beat Geelong and Lions beat Dogs.
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 12:04:44 PM
I tell you this is Christchurch made the grandfinal I would be unhappy about Sandi getting rested for them. I would want to face a full strengh team and beat them, just like Christchurch did to me in the champs. I had almost my best team on the park and lost. Thats the way a grand final should be played.
You had your best team in and lost? I had Bryce Gibbs, Sam Mitchell and Tom Scully out of my best XV. Their replacements in Vandenberg, Clay Smith and Ryan Lester were also out injured.
If it was this week I'd lose Sandi but get Mitchell back so basically no difference. It doesn't matter what round the grand final is in, you need to plan for this shower every week of the year.
You chose to stack your team with stars and limited depth. Your choice. Your consequences. It's a list management decision that every team needs to consider. Do I make my best XV almost unbeatable but vulnerable to injury/suspension/restings, or do I slightly weaken by best XV and have some cover? Your chose the former. Deal with it :P
Still pretty unlucky
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 12:24:22 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 12:04:44 PM
I tell you this is Christchurch made the grandfinal I would be unhappy about Sandi getting rested for them. I would want to face a full strengh team and beat them, just like Christchurch did to me in the champs. I had almost my best team on the park and lost. Thats the way a grand final should be played.
You had your best team in and lost? I had Bryce Gibbs, Sam Mitchell and Tom Scully out of my best XV. Their replacements in Vandenberg, Clay Smith and Ryan Lester were also out injured.
If it was this week I'd lose Sandi but get Mitchell back so basically no difference. It doesn't matter what round the grand final is in, you need to plan for this shower every week of the year.
You chose to stack your team with stars and limited depth. Your choice. Your consequences. It's a list management decision that every team needs to consider. Do I make my best XV almost unbeatable but vulnerable to injury/suspension/restings, or do I slightly weaken by best XV and have some cover? Your chose the former. Deal with it :P
I had my best team (minus injuries) and lost, so your victory was completely earned.
there is a difference between Gibbs Mitchell, Smith, Vanderberg, Lester and Scully being injured and Mundy Goldy NDS being rested.
As always people need to stop focusing on Dublin, you guys seem to care more about Dublin then I do. Im talking a general rule discussion. I might not make the grandfinal next year, if im watching it and its Mexico v Christchurch (which could have happened this year) i would hate to see teams depleted by resting.
I have cover to deal with it so dont worry about Dublin. i worry about it going forward for the comp though. Im addressing it in the Euro.
for once can people think about the comp and not Dublin.
Quote from: ossie85 on September 03, 2015, 12:27:35 PM
Still pretty unlucky
Any more unlucky than Sam Mitchell getting sick on the friday morning last week? Any more unlucky than having 6 mids injured? Bad luck is a part of this game, always will be.
Quote from: Nige on September 03, 2015, 11:56:32 AM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 03, 2015, 11:48:27 AM
Of course if the AFL didn't let teams tank that'd be dandy.North deliberately trying to lose to gain an advantage
Yep, really stupid. They don't want to travel to Adelaide and so they're ensuring it doens't happen.
Honestly, even though some other comps had their grand final last week, I think it's tough luck if you have players being rested. You should have depth to cover the issue, same with injuries and suspensions.
Holz, I'd be surprised if you'd be caring so much if teams like the Giants and the Suns were resting because you don't even have any best XV players from those teams.
JROO's clearly not that fussed about it, but you're up in arms because the fantasy world isn't perfect for Dublin to win and stroke your ego some more.
Yeah I'm not fussed because I actually have depth :P
But yes agree with Holz, it's the GF so obviously everyone would love to see the best two teams at full strength
Quote from: JROO8 on September 03, 2015, 01:08:28 PM
Quote from: Nige on September 03, 2015, 11:56:32 AM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 03, 2015, 11:48:27 AM
Of course if the AFL didn't let teams tank that'd be dandy.North deliberately trying to lose to gain an advantage
Yep, really stupid. They don't want to travel to Adelaide and so they're ensuring it doens't happen.
Honestly, even though some other comps had their grand final last week, I think it's tough luck if you have players being rested. You should have depth to cover the issue, same with injuries and suspensions.
Holz, I'd be surprised if you'd be caring so much if teams like the Giants and the Suns were resting because you don't even have any best XV players from those teams.
JROO's clearly not that fussed about it, but you're up in arms because the fantasy world isn't perfect for Dublin to win and stroke your ego some more.
Yeah I'm not fussed because I actually have depth :P
But yes agree with Holz, it's the GF so obviously everyone would love to see the best two teams at full strength
Posted this in the other thread but, there is a really easy solution.
WXV Grand Final in Round 22.
Play the Rep games in Round 23 where the coaches have an unlimited pool of unrested players to pick from.
It means we play an extra game over the bye rounds which can work like how British did this year. Some player scores from Week 11 and 12 count for one game, scores from 12 and 13 count for the second game and scores from 13 and 14 (not bye round) count for the third game.
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 12:30:18 PM
for once can people think about the comp and not Dublin.
That's a bit rich. I was thinking of the competition when I suggested that since teams like Dublin, Mexico City, Christchurch and PNL have maxed out caps that they shouldn't be able to trade in Liberatore and O'Meara without having to give up equal points. You tried to direct the attention towards another team but we're onto you. It shows that you're a good coach for taking advantage of the rule, but the rule is wrong in terms of what is good for the competition.
Under an effective points cap how can TMac and Selwood be worth as much as Fyfe, Beams, Liberatore and JOM?
Dublin can trade TMac for Libba and then go out and get Fyfe too and it'll fit under the cap.
Then you can trade Selwood for JOM and you can get Dayne Beams in as well and it'll all fit under the cap.
Swap a 75 averaging player for Daisy who has limited points and you're laughing.
Do all that and it basically gives you a 34000 cap vs everyone elses 30000.
Obviously you won't get Fyfe but you'll collect depth players like Grundy who you shouldn't be able to afford but can because you've got Libba's 0 points.
Dublin (or Mexico City, or PNL or Christchurch) being unbeatable due to an inequal cap hurts Beijing more than them having to trade Aaron Black would.
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 01:47:36 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 12:30:18 PM
for once can people think about the comp and not Dublin.
That's a bit rich. I was thinking of the competition when I suggested that since teams like Dublin, Mexico City, Christchurch and PNL have maxed out caps that they shouldn't be able to trade in Liberatore and O'Meara without having to give up equal points. You tried to direct the attention towards another team but we're onto you. It shows that you're a good coach for taking advantage of the rule, but the rule is wrong in terms of what is good for the competition.
Under an effective points cap how can TMac and Selwood be worth as much as Fyfe, Beams, Liberatore and JOM?
Dublin can trade TMac for Libba and then go out and get Fyfe too and it'll fit under the cap.
Then you can trade Selwood for JOM and you can get Dayne Beams in as well and it'll all fit under the cap.
Swap a 75 averaging player for Daisy who has limited points and you're laughing.
Do all that and it basically gives you a 34000 cap vs everyone elses 30000.
Obviously you won't get Fyfe but you'll collect depth players like Grundy who you shouldn't be able to afford but can because you've got Libba's 0 points.
Dublin (or Mexico City, or PNL or Christchurch) being unbeatable due to an inequal cap hurts Beijing more than them having to trade Aaron Black would.
im under the cap with libba at 1600 or 0. Yes I could go out and get fyfe, but i still need to trade him in. I can afford Grundy as i said with libba at 1600 with list management.
Beijing cant though.
The thing is Meow we actually fundamentally agree on the issue. I dont think injury players should be focussed on because there are much bigger flaws with the cap. Its like worrying about a tail light on your car being out when you have no steering wheel.
no idea where that analogy is going.
I said i would stop talking about it, so I will.
the injury thing is like 1% of the in-equal cap issue. Lets say I dont trade for Libba or trade him for a guy who has played all year.
Am I then allowed to voice my opinion without bias?
There is way too much to read on this issue, but players like Libba shouldn't be on zero for the cap. Using their average of the previous year, a number should be reached. Both of your proposed ideas have been lost in the thread so I don't whose idea I like. :P
Quote from: Vinny on September 03, 2015, 02:03:42 PM
There is way too much to read on this issue, but players like Libba shouldn't be on zero for the cap. Using their average of the previous year, a number should be reached.
Quote from: Vinny on September 03, 2015, 02:03:42 PM
There is way too much to read on this issue, but players like Libba shouldn't be on zero for the cap. Using their average of the previous year, a number should be reached. Both of your proposed ideas have been lost in the thread so I don't whose idea I like. :P
mine is 30% of the higher year. Which equates to about 5 games missed. the reason is guys coming off mass injuries often dont bounce back 100% and there should be some discount (much like in real SC)
the negative effect of guys like Aaron Black is reduced as young players often are on the fringe and it lets teams have those speculative picks on the bench.
with the 10% rule guys who miss 2 games each year are priced as much as guys who miss a whole year and thats unfair. 5 a year seems a better number.
it bumps up guys like libba 70% and doesnt do too much damage on older player and fringe guys.
whats not to like?
Haha Holz you're always allowed to voice your opinion. I'm just using Dublin as an example since they're already ridiculously strong an it accentuates my point. I would use maxed out points capped Christchurch but nobody rates us.
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 02:11:18 PM
Haha Holz you're always allowed to voice your opinion. I'm just using Dublin as an example since they're already ridiculously strong an it accentuates my point. I would use maxed out points capped Christchurch but nobody rates us.
to be fair your unbias as you have alot of injured players so would be pushed up with the rule. I agree with your fundamentals just not the 10%. I think 30% is a good number that minimizes the negatives of having 100% and 10% deductions. Both made some really good points and i think this is a good middle ground. I would happily change my vote to a yes if it was 30%
Dublin is the posterboy for all discussions.
However I just want to shine a light on Mexico.
3 grand finals 2 championships and finishing 1,2,3,1
something has to be done to stop them :P
With all this talk about points cap and how injured players like Libba shouldn't be able to have a zero value for the year - not once has anyone recognized the fact that the teams who have these players have had to go a long time without them in their side, and that has had big impacts on their teams performance so letting them keep them without points to the cap seems like a bloody fair trade off considering they didn't get to play for the team all year
It's crippling enough that we didn't have Libba all year. To be penalized further by having BS points added on top is a joke
I'm just using Libba as he seems to be the prime example. but this applies to all injured players
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on September 03, 2015, 02:16:14 PM
With all this talk about points cap and how injured players like Libba shouldn't be able to have a zero value for the year - not once has anyone recognized the fact that the teams who have these players have had to go a long time without them in their side, and that has had big impacts on their teams performance so letting them keep them without points to the cap seems like a bloody fair trade off considering they didn't get to play for the team all year
It's crippling enough that we didn't have Libba all year. To be penalized further by having BS points added on top is a joke
(http://www.cliparthut.com/clip-arts/646/raising-hand-clip-art-646026.png)
Me Me Me
I reckon if we are to keep a points cap which seems to be the general opinion then each year Admin allocates a point value to all players including a realistic value for injured players at end of the season and that we have to stick with this. Know all the argument is about Libba but there are others as well that can be argued as well. JOM for one and using Tom Rockliff as an example now surely he is worth more than 1066 of the cap. Hence why I say although more work for Admin he should assign values rather than complicating it with averages past % etc.
I'll change the 90% to 70% and have a look at what it does for all players/caps.
30% would have Liberatore at a 74 average across 17 games.
20% has him at 85 across 17 games.
Would you settle for 20% Holz?
@RD
You aren't being penalised, it is bad luck that the player got injured. The cap is there to ensure equality in the competition when trading, not about the literal points that they got that effected the teams performance. Libba is a premium player and his share in the cap should reflect that.
Probably the wrong thread to discuss this btw.
Meow"I'll change the 90% to 70% and have a look at what it does for all players/caps.
30% would have Liberatore at a 74 average across 17 games.
20% has him at 85 across 17 games.
Would you settle for 20% Holz?"
I think we need to look at guys like Aaron Black too.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 03, 2015, 01:17:08 PM
Quote from: JROO8 on September 03, 2015, 01:08:28 PM
Quote from: Nige on September 03, 2015, 11:56:32 AM
Quote from: ossie85 on September 03, 2015, 11:48:27 AM
Of course if the AFL didn't let teams tank that'd be dandy.North deliberately trying to lose to gain an advantage
Yep, really stupid. They don't want to travel to Adelaide and so they're ensuring it doens't happen.
Honestly, even though some other comps had their grand final last week, I think it's tough luck if you have players being rested. You should have depth to cover the issue, same with injuries and suspensions.
Holz, I'd be surprised if you'd be caring so much if teams like the Giants and the Suns were resting because you don't even have any best XV players from those teams.
JROO's clearly not that fussed about it, but you're up in arms because the fantasy world isn't perfect for Dublin to win and stroke your ego some more.
Yeah I'm not fussed because I actually have depth :P
But yes agree with Holz, it's the GF so obviously everyone would love to see the best two teams at full strength
Posted this in the other thread but, there is a really easy solution.
WXV Grand Final in Round 22.
Play the Rep games in Round 23 where the coaches have an unlimited pool of unrested players to pick from.
It means we play an extra game over the bye rounds which can work like how British did this year. Some player scores from Week 11 and 12 count for one game, scores from 12 and 13 count for the second game and scores from 13 and 14 (not bye round) count for the third game.
that method is attrocious. Why bring round 14 into it? Just play 2 rounds over the 3 bye rounds, the only way it would work.
Quote from: Ringo on September 03, 2015, 02:19:04 PM
I reckon if we are to keep a points cap which seems to be the general opinion then each year Admin allocates a point value to all players including a realistic value for injured players at end of the season and that we have to stick with this. Know all the argument is about Libba but there are others as well that can be argued as well. JOM for one and using Tom Rockliff as an example now surely he is worth more than 1066 of the cap. Hence why I say although more work for Admin he should assign values rather than complicating it with averages past % etc.
That's why we apply the 70/80/90% to all players. Rockliff would be worth whatever % we decide on, based on his previous output instead of a made up figure to be decided on by admin. All it takes is an extra column in a spreadsheet.
Rocky 2015 = 1006 points = 59 average over 17 rounds
Or 2014 scores
Rocky @ 90% = 1720 = 102.2
Rocky @ 80% = 1529 = 89.9
Rocky @ 70% = 1338 = 78.8
Which one is a more accurate pricing?
20% looks good to me.
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 03, 2015, 02:42:22 PM
Probably the wrong thread to discuss this btw.
That won't stop anybody. :P
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 02:43:44 PM
Meow"I'll change the 90% to 70% and have a look at what it does for all players/caps.
30% would have Liberatore at a 74 average across 17 games.
20% has him at 85 across 17 games.
Would you settle for 20% Holz?"
I think we need to look at guys like Aaron Black too.
Aaron Black would cost more points for sure. BUT THAT'S WHY WE LIFT THE MAX CAP. It takes all that into account.
25% sounds good to me :P
but ill support 20%
there you go Purp that was relatively painless wasnt it.
"A camel looks like a horse that was planned by a committee." Sir Alexander Arnold Constantine Issigonis
another quote to come from Holz.
re-vote on the proposed cap rule?
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 03:19:50 PM
"A camel looks like a horse that was planned by a committee." Sir Alexander Arnold Constantine Issigonis
another quote to come from Holz.
Haha you are one weird guy Holz
Quote from: Vinny on September 03, 2015, 03:26:07 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 03:19:50 PM
"A camel looks like a horse that was planned by a committee." Sir Alexander Arnold Constantine Issigonis
another quote to come from Holz.
Haha you are one weird guy Holz
I think the word you were searching for was learned
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 03:30:58 PM
Quote from: Vinny on September 03, 2015, 03:26:07 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 03:19:50 PM
"A camel looks like a horse that was planned by a committee." Sir Alexander Arnold Constantine Issigonis
another quote to come from Holz.
Haha you are one weird guy Holz
I think the word you were searching for was learned
Nope, weird was the one. :P
Haven't read any of the recent cap discussion.
But yeah, vote is done. Let's move on. The time for this discussion was meant to be before the first vote was sent.
Quote from: ossie85 on September 03, 2015, 02:44:45 PM
that method is attrocious. Why bring round 14 into it? Just play 2 rounds over the 3 bye rounds, the only way it would work.
In AXV we play 3 rounds across the three bye rounds. Bad luck for those that have half their squad missing. How many WXV teams are there because with 16 AXV sides there is on average 16.5 named players available to each side per bye round, when we need to name 15. Obviously this number fluctuates wildly between teams and between rounds.
If you have 18 WXV sides though then that leaves 14.6666 players available to each team (on average) per week so that method probably isn't best.
Quote from: Purple 77 on September 03, 2015, 03:59:56 PM
Haven't read any of the recent cap discussion.
But yeah, vote is done. Let's move on. The time for this discussion was meant to be before the first vote was sent.
To be fair it wasn't explained very well.
Like if we counted the best of 2015 vs 90% of 2014 the average for each team would be 33070 points but I didn't see anything in the vote about raising the max cap.
Oh well, I'll ramble on about it for the next 50 weeks until next years vote.
Before and after
The current average for WXV teams is 27863. We have a 30000 cap.
If we go at 80% of 2014 the average would be 31899. A 33000 cap would be the right amount
If we go at 90% of 2014 the average would be 33070. A 34000 cap would be the right amount
There's not much change to most teams, but the teams that change are for the right reasons
With the new caps the difference between the average and max doesn't have to be as a high because all player's higher averages are the one that is factored in to the team average. It assumes that JOM has been playing all year at 90% of his 2014 average. It assumes that Aaron Black has been scoring at 90% of his 2014 average.
80% 90% 2015
34842 36200 30271 Beijing - over because they had 37 players score, not including Petracca. Too many
33120 34235 27303 Berlin - JPOD 1093 & Fletcher 438 extra points distort this. Daisy/Crouch cost more
27293 28062 24923 Buenos Aires
26173 27454 21339 Cairo - still heaps under despite Prestia, Hanley and McKenzie gaining points
34099 35289 31194 Cape Town - too many players
33398 34240 30681 Christchurch - Gibbs & Minson gain plenty
33448 34488 30770 Dublin - NDS/Sloane/Hansen too cheap
32494 33433 30153 London - go from being over to under, will cut 1200 from Reily and Winderlich
33323 34588 30729 Mexico City - Bartel & Rocky too cheap
34665 35960 29366 Moscow - JOM and Greenwood gain heaps, have lots of scorers
23017 24160 17850 NDT
33108 34637 28853 New York - Libba and Duncan priced correctly
33155 34229 29049 Pacific - Mohr, M.Thomas and Otten account for 1800 points
35917 37066 31478 PNL - too many players, Myers costs more than 1 point, Patton more than 38
33071 34667 26652 Rio - HMac, Chappy, Kornes cost 2800, GAJ gains 1085 points
28113 29008 24081 Seoul - Swallow gains 1086, still well under
34149 35420 30167 Tokyo - too many players
30795 32124 26676 Toronto - L.Adams + Grima = 1500 points
As you can see, the shower teams are still shower and the hoarders are the ones who cop it. The way a cap should work.
Common sense says that GAJ is worth more than 693 points but that's all he costs under the current system.
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 09:44:12 PM
Before and after
The current average for WXV teams is 27863. We have a 30000 cap.
If we go at 80% of 2014 the average would be 31899. A 33000 cap would be the right amount
If we go at 90% of 2014 the average would be 33070. A 34000 cap would be the right amount
There's not much change to most teams, but the teams that change are for the right reasons
With the new caps the difference between the average and max doesn't have to be as a high because all player's higher averages are the one that is factored in to the team average. It assumes that JOM has been playing all year at 90% of his 2014 average. It assumes that Aaron Black has been scoring at 90% of his 2014 average.
80% 90% 2015
34842 36200 30271 Beijing - over because they had 37 players score, not including Petracca. Too many
33120 34235 27303 Berlin - JPOD 1093 & Fletcher 438 extra points distort this. Daisy/Crouch cost more
27293 28062 24923 Buenos Aires
26173 27454 21339 Cairo - still heaps under despite Prestia, Hanley and McKenzie gaining points
34099 35289 31194 Cape Town - too many players
33398 34240 30681 Christchurch - Gibbs & Minson gain plenty
33448 34488 30770 Dublin - NDS/Sloane/Hansen too cheap
32494 33433 30153 London - go from being over to under, will cut 1200 from Reily and Winderlich
33323 34588 30729 Mexico City - Bartel & Rocky too cheap
34665 35960 29366 Moscow - JOM and Greenwood gain heaps, have lots of scorers
23017 24160 17850 NDT
33108 34637 28853 New York - Libba and Duncan priced correctly
33155 34229 29049 Pacific - Mohr, M.Thomas and Otten account for 1800 points
35917 37066 31478 PNL - too many players, Myers costs more than 1 point, Patton more than 38
33071 34667 26652 Rio - HMac, Chappy, Kornes cost 2800, GAJ gains 1085 points
28113 29008 24081 Seoul - Swallow gains 1086, still well under
34149 35420 30167 Tokyo - too many players
30795 32124 26676 Toronto - L.Adams + Grima = 1500 points
As you can see, the shower teams are still shower and the hoarders are the ones who cop it. The way a cap should work.
Common sense says that GAJ is worth more than 693 points but that's all he costs under the current system.
my problem with that is
we have been #1 over 2 year straight
so last year we traded a lot of depth out because of it and got in some we hoped would score better (eski springs to mind)
but as toga/holz/memph was trying to say
we end up what 3000 over in the 90% one and almost the same in the 80%
it is hard to trade depth out not a lot looking for depth
(i should say not many looking to offer a lot for a heap of depth)
so like toga said we'd rather back in our judgement and let them step up into good players
for PNL we also have a few older ones so our choices are trade what we are waiting to improve or trade our older ones for deals that we'd be better off keeping said older ones
as fair as trades go PNL probably do almost the least amount of teams (i'm sure there are some who do less London springs to mind)
but we should not be punished for keeping our list together rather then making wholesale changes every 2 minutes either
(not complaining at those that do a lot of trade you enjoy it and deserve too so do the way you like)
we like to keep the ones we have as we like them and grow attached so do not want to have to trade heaps just for the sake of it
(i.e that is why i liked the idea of the loyalty bonus as we are that type but i also think if we were going to do a loyalty bonus then it is unfair to those who trade a lot to suddenly have to pay for injured players)
we cannot reward one and punish the other imo
TBH i at first agreed injured players shouldn't cost more (even though we gain from it too (with eski, patton, shiel etc)
but the more this goes ont he more i think we should leave it alone
(i know your point MM about it being unfair for say Dublin to get JOM, Libba etc)
but in saying that you can always better his deal and beat him
it is everyone's choice not to make a better offer to NY and ofc they will take the best offer be it from Dublin, New Delhi, Tokyo or PNL
but my point is we cannot reward one and punish the other (loyalty/injured players)
now i know ppl will say we already reward traders with injured players but it has always been like that so that is what we all signed up for
and we all do gain benefit cap wise from it as well (weather trading or staying under cap or going over less like PNL)
i love worlds the way it is and love the discussion to try to keep evolving and improving but also if it ain't broke don't fix it ;)
Berlin are a prime example. They are one of the better teams in the competition and should be right on the max level of the cap. They'd be spot on after they chop JPod and Fletcher, but as it stands they can go out and spend big. According to the current cap they're the 13th best team.
The fact that PNL have forwards in their reserves that would get a game at half of the other clubs, some who can't even field a XV indicates that something is in fact broke. If this was the AFL those players would do a Membrey and walk.
I'm sure Hawthorn would have liked to keep Lance but sometimes teams have to give up a star to stay under the cap and keep their current list together. Saying "we like to keep the ones we have as we like them and grow attached so do not want to have to trade heaps just for the sake of it" is all well and good but I'm pretty sure that Hawthorn were pretty fond of Bud too.
PNL could drop 900+ points by trading someone like Patton to NDT for one of their first two picks. You wouldn't be getting ripped off, and NDT would be able to get competitive.
It's so good having you in Worlds Meow - hard to argue with everything you've presented
Just a shame all this has come out after the vote
Great work
Yep, difficult to argue with that proposal. I think people fail to see that this is not about rewarding or punishing a particular team. Meow has figured a solution for an issue in the cap that should be addressed. It just ensures that the cap is doing what it has been made to do correctly.
Completely understand that our depth has got to the point that it's overboard and we need to shed some of it so as to share it around a bit. So can sympathise with what you're now saying meow and I don't mind that proposal.
Although the best way to improve your depth by getting the 'better' depth players is via trade - there's only so much talent that can be delisted.
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 10:01:14 PM
Berlin are a prime example. They are one of the better teams in the competition and should be right on the max level of the cap. They'd be spot on after they chop JPod and Fletcher, but as it stands they can go out and spend big. According to the current cap they're the 13th best team.
The injury rules very slightly improves the system. But the cap with 80% does this.
1. PNL 3rd
2. Beijing 14th
3. Moscow 8th
4. Tokyo 10th
5. Capetown 11th
6. Dublin 1st -2nd
I don't understand how that is fair.
ok so we need the cap to help even the comp. Clearly Beijing Moscow Tokyo and Capetown are overpowered and need to be stopped.
Basically dont make good draft picks and keep your list together (PNL) or try and climb up the ladder by investing in youth that pan out.
The reason the team down the bottom is simple. Remember how I said the cap helps Dublin and everyone just laughed and said im acting in self interest. This list proves my point Beijing, Moscow, Tokyo, Capetown will struggle to compete with me as they are getting held back by the cap despite having teams that struggle to come within 200-300 points of me.
Dillos: Went way too old, traded too late and couldnt get value because of the cap. (Solution good coaches and draft picks fix it and time)
NDT: did horrible horrible trades (Rocky) which were allowed and then wasted early round draft picks. (Solution good coaches and draft pick fix it and time
Cairo: Actually have a good list, just got destroyed with injuries like no team ever has. They will bounce back. (just time as they have a good list)
the other teams are fine, unless they are not allowed to grow.
If you have speculative players you just need more. its plain and simple, beijing had the most players play and they finished 14th.
PNL havent been going around taking players from teams they have drafted them, its not their fault they do a good job.
A few years of top 5 picks and competent coaching is all you need.
The only way I was aloud to rebuild was by having guys like Tom Mcdonald, Arron Black, Shuan Atley on my list. How unfortunate would it be if Beijing were forced to drop the next Tom Mcdonald as they struggle in 14th spot.
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 10:03:59 PM
The fact that PNL have forwards in their reserves that would get a game at half of the other clubs, some who can't even field a XV indicates that something is in fact broke. If this was the AFL those players would do a Membrey and walk.
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 10:06:27 PM
PNL could drop 900+ points by trading someone like Patton to NDT for one of their first two picks. You wouldn't be getting ripped off, and NDT would be able to get competitive.
yeah but we also have to take into account DPP changes
2 fwds will lose it and be mids only and a well known defender will lose Def and be mids only
so if we lose those 2 fwds we suddenly have
wingard, rioli, westy, lynch
(billings, patton, Casboult,)
now bare in mind 2 of those benches have failed to play over 9 games
and Cyril this season has tied for his most ever in a season atm
which also brings me back to the point about being one of the least amount of traders
players of those we traded for
Patton
Westhoff
rest were drafted by PNL
anyway point was we never said we would not trade one just ppl need to stop thinking they can get lynch or billings for a 90 -95 ave mid or an old player as we clearly have enough of those
what we want if we were to move one on if a gun mid (ofc packaged with other items)
but we see no point trading out say lynch for we don't need
i mean for us anyway with Cap it is more likely not going to affect fwds with Mcpharln possibly retiring and enright as well that saves a lot of Cap
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 10:24:45 PM
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 10:01:14 PM
Berlin are a prime example. They are one of the better teams in the competition and should be right on the max level of the cap. They'd be spot on after they chop JPod and Fletcher, but as it stands they can go out and spend big. According to the current cap they're the 13th best team.
The injury rules very slightly improves the system. But the cap with 80% does this.
1. PNL 3rd
2. Beijing 14th
3. Moscow 8th
4. Tokyo 10th
5. Capetown 11th
6. Dublin 1st -2nd
I don't understand how that is fair.
ok so we need the cap to help even the comp. Clearly Beijing Moscow Tokyo and Capetown are overpowered and need to be stopped.
Clearly they have the most players.
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 10:32:44 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 10:24:45 PM
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 10:01:14 PM
Berlin are a prime example. They are one of the better teams in the competition and should be right on the max level of the cap. They'd be spot on after they chop JPod and Fletcher, but as it stands they can go out and spend big. According to the current cap they're the 13th best team.
The injury rules very slightly improves the system. But the cap with 80% does this.
1. PNL 3rd
2. Beijing 14th
3. Moscow 8th
4. Tokyo 10th
5. Capetown 11th
6. Dublin 1st -2nd
I don't understand how that is fair.
ok so we need the cap to help even the comp. Clearly Beijing Moscow Tokyo and Capetown are overpowered and need to be stopped.
Clearly they have the most players.
so they need them, they have speculative players.
I dont need speculative players as im in the fortunate postions of being completely stacked with Premos. Much like Mexico and we are in the grandfinal not Beijing. Beijing probably never will be if they cant keep their list together and wait on stars to pop up like Tmac.
I was able to keep guys like tmac as I have superstars getting games every week.
If Enright and McPharlin retire you'll lose 2500 points anyway so you'd only lose one player at most under my proposed cap. Don't worry, nobody is going to steal all your players. Being forced to give up one player for a draft pick isn't going to send you to the bottom of the ladder. A fit Billings will go a long way to make up for the loss of Enright to retirement.
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 10:39:04 PM
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 10:32:44 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 10:24:45 PM
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 10:01:14 PM
Berlin are a prime example. They are one of the better teams in the competition and should be right on the max level of the cap. They'd be spot on after they chop JPod and Fletcher, but as it stands they can go out and spend big. According to the current cap they're the 13th best team.
The injury rules very slightly improves the system. But the cap with 80% does this.
1. PNL 3rd
2. Beijing 14th
3. Moscow 8th
4. Tokyo 10th
5. Capetown 11th
6. Dublin 1st -2nd
I don't understand how that is fair.
ok so we need the cap to help even the comp. Clearly Beijing Moscow Tokyo and Capetown are overpowered and need to be stopped.
Clearly they have the most players.
so they need them, they have speculative players.
I dont need speculative players as im in the fortunate postions of being completely stacked with Premos. Much like Mexico and we are in the grandfinal not Beijing. Beijing probably never will be if they cant keep their list together and wait on stars to pop up like Tmac.
I was able to keep guys like tmac as I have superstars getting games every week.
So Beijing will surge up the ladder if they're able to keep players like Ted Richards, Alipate Carlile, Danny Stanley and Matt Jones will they? They don't have to delist their whole fricking team. Those 4 would almost be enough.
*Edit* they'd be 447 points under the 100/90% cap if they did that.
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 10:44:16 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 10:39:04 PM
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 10:32:44 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 03, 2015, 10:24:45 PM
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 10:01:14 PM
Berlin are a prime example. They are one of the better teams in the competition and should be right on the max level of the cap. They'd be spot on after they chop JPod and Fletcher, but as it stands they can go out and spend big. According to the current cap they're the 13th best team.
The injury rules very slightly improves the system. But the cap with 80% does this.
1. PNL 3rd
2. Beijing 14th
3. Moscow 8th
4. Tokyo 10th
5. Capetown 11th
6. Dublin 1st -2nd
I don't understand how that is fair.
ok so we need the cap to help even the comp. Clearly Beijing Moscow Tokyo and Capetown are overpowered and need to be stopped.
Clearly they have the most players.
so they need them, they have speculative players.
I dont need speculative players as im in the fortunate postions of being completely stacked with Premos. Much like Mexico and we are in the grandfinal not Beijing. Beijing probably never will be if they cant keep their list together and wait on stars to pop up like Tmac.
I was able to keep guys like tmac as I have superstars getting games every week.
So Beijing will surge up the ladder if they're able to keep players like Ted Richards, Alipate Carlile, Danny Stanley and Matt Jones will they? They don't have to delist their whole fricking team. Those 4 would almost be enough.
Okay use us as the example then.
Look at our list and tell me who we drop to get under the cap? All bar a couple of guys are under 30 and as Holz said most are developing.
Bearing in mind that Toohey has retired and Wagner won't cut so we already have two empty spots on our list. We don't want to have to draft too many kids in this draft.
Shane Savage
Shaun Higgins
Nick Haynes
Cameron O'Shea
Jasper Pittard
Gary Rohan
Sam Reid (D/F)
Lachie Plowman
James Gwilt
Will Schofield
Matthew Dick*
Jake Kelly*
James Toohey*
Trent Cotchin
Josh P. Kennedy
Scott Selwood
Dom Tyson
Adam Cooney
Craig Bird
Edward Curnow
George Horlin-Smith
Jimmy Toumpas
Darcy Lang
Trent Dumont
Nathan Drummond
Nick O'Brien*
Johann Wagner*
Tom Hawkins
Jeremy Cameron
Andrejs Everitt
Lachie Hunter
Stewart Crameri
Cameron McCarthy
Mitch Honeychurch
Sam Reid (F/D)
Peter Wright
Dean Kent
Brandon Jack
Brant Colledge
Billie Smedts
Jaden McGrath
Stefan Martin
Billy Longer
Mark Blicavs
Trent West
Anyone we dropped/traded away to reduce our cap we would be guessing/gambling on to not turn into a good player. Aside from Trent West :P but, he's a ruck back-up
But, if you let us keep this list together for another two season I think the cream would rise to the top and we would be very, very competitive. Especially as no-one bar perhaps Adam Cooney and James Gwilt would have retired.
What's better for the competition, Beijing having to delist 4 spuds or Christchurch being able to go and collect 10 players with 500 missing points each and effectively give myself a 35000 point cap vs everyone else's 30000?
That's up to Cape Town to organise two for one trades or trades for draft picks to bring the cap down. It's called list management and that's what this whole game is about, is it not? I'm going to have to do a heap of it when Lever, Steele and all those guys come good.
I know who I'd trade from that list, but it's up to you to decide who to trade/keep.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on September 03, 2015, 10:14:06 PM
It's so good having you in Worlds Meow - hard to argue with everything you've presented
Just a shame all this has come out after the vote
Great work
TBH it shouldn't have even gone to a vote, or it should have been worded like "do you want a points cap that actually does something?"
I'm actually quite pleased with the before and after of Cape Town's list since I arrived at the Cobras.
On the left is the before and the right is the after. We had a lot of dead wood to cull in Bock, O'Keefe, Brennan, Hunt, Heath, Schroder, Hall, Evans, Pierce.
Probably my mistake was trying to get someone with potential in every spot on the list. Because now they've all started to deliver a little bit and bust our cap :P
Should have kept some spuds and tried harder to get a better XV together.
(http://i1343.photobucket.com/albums/o793/TimDCarrier/sFSDFDGF_zpsxjswczsa.jpg)
Quote from: meow meow on September 03, 2015, 10:40:21 PM
If Enright and McPharlin retire you'll lose 2500 points anyway so you'd only lose one player at most under my proposed cap. Don't worry, nobody is going to steal all your players. Being forced to give up one player for a draft pick isn't going to send you to the bottom of the ladder. A fit Billings will go a long way to make up for the loss of Enright to retirement.
Yep, always the plan as I figure McPharlin is set to leave, but if he doesn't, disposal for our cap. If Enright goes on, we'd make the room for him somehow, we rarely have a problem getting under the cap, doubt this season will be any different.
And I don't mind picks, we traded out Jaensch last year for a high pick, could possibly do something like that again, although not looking too likely at this stage.
Roight.
Sub Rule
A) Players injured in first half are subbed out (12)
B) Players that play less than or equal to 50% game time (using FF stats) are subbed out (6)
So A wins! We have a new sub rule :)
Reserve Finalists Eligibility
8 Yes
10 No
So we won't be having this rule next year
Now, the tricky one.
Ruck OOP
A) If you name a player OOP in the ruck you still lose 50% of the score (as has always been the case). BUT, if that player is less than 190cm, not only do you lose 50% of your score, the opposition ruck gains 25%. (2)
B) Receive 75% of a Ruck OOP instead of 50% (2)
C) 50% OOP ruck rule stays, but if you have a player who was formerly listed as a ruck (e.g. Vickery) but has lost ruck status, they score 75% as an OOP ruck, not 50%. E.g. someone like Caleb Daniel would still score 50%. (3)
D)Players get a certain % of their score which is higher the taller the OOP listed player is. (4)
E) Keep as is. (7)
Reckon time for an Admin decision Purps :)
Quote from: ossie85 on September 06, 2015, 05:50:07 PM
Reckon time for an Admin decision Purps :)
Option E wins!
No Ruck OOP rule next year.
Let's move on.
This leadership rule is a pain.
No clear captain option.
Goldy Selwood Sloane Martin xxxx
I guess
Quote from: Holz on September 06, 2015, 06:17:46 PM
This leadership rule is a pain.
No clear captain option.
Goldy Selwood Sloane Martin xxxx
I guess
pfft you think you have problems.
Try picking between Jesse White or Jarrad Grant each week
Love the leadership group :)
Simple to implement, and makes real world sense. None of this Max Gawn suddenly being Captaincy material
Another thing I didn't think about with the leadership group is that it will really restrict loopholing! Which is not a bad thing :)
Quote from: ossie85 on September 06, 2015, 06:24:05 PM
Love the leadership group :)
Simple to implement, and makes real world sense.
I too am a fan of the leadership group even though I won't be able to captain Shaun McKernan any more.
But "real world sense" doesn't belong in this thread. Does Tom Liberatore's $500,000 2016 salary fall outside the salary cap because he didn't play in 2015? Only 49 more weeks of this to go :)
Quote from: meow meow on September 06, 2015, 07:14:03 PM
I too am a fan of the leadership group even though I won't be able to captain Shaun McKernan any more.
But "real world sense" doesn't belong in this thread. Does Tom Liberatore's $500,000 2016 salary fall outside the salary cap because he didn't play in 2015? Only 49 more weeks of this to go :)
true
also does trading half your list for draft picks =- make real world sense?
hell does trading so much really make real world sense?...- no - but it is bloody fun :D
Quote from: DazBurg on September 06, 2015, 07:16:38 PM
Quote from: meow meow on September 06, 2015, 07:14:03 PM
I too am a fan of the leadership group even though I won't be able to captain Shaun McKernan any more.
But "real world sense" doesn't belong in this thread. Does Tom Liberatore's $500,000 2016 salary fall outside the salary cap because he didn't play in 2015? Only 49 more weeks of this to go :)
true
also does trading half your list for draft picks =- make real world sense?
hell does trading so much really make real world sense?...- no - but it is bloody fun :D
Brisbane Lions say yes.
Quote from: meow meow on September 06, 2015, 07:18:06 PM
Quote from: DazBurg on September 06, 2015, 07:16:38 PM
Quote from: meow meow on September 06, 2015, 07:14:03 PM
I too am a fan of the leadership group even though I won't be able to captain Shaun McKernan any more.
But "real world sense" doesn't belong in this thread. Does Tom Liberatore's $500,000 2016 salary fall outside the salary cap because he didn't play in 2015? Only 49 more weeks of this to go :)
true
also does trading half your list for draft picks =- make real world sense?
hell does trading so much really make real world sense?...- no - but it is bloody fun :D
Brisbane Lions say yes.
lol
actually Brisbane Lions say we had no choice ...lol
Quote from: meow meow on September 06, 2015, 07:14:03 PM
But "real world sense" doesn't belong in this thread. Does Tom Liberatore's $500,000 2016 salary fall outside the salary cap because he didn't play in 2015? Only 49 more weeks of this to go :)
*yawn* :P
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on September 06, 2015, 07:26:22 PM
Quote from: meow meow on September 06, 2015, 07:14:03 PM
But "real world sense" doesn't belong in this thread. Does Tom Liberatore's $500,000 2016 salary fall outside the salary cap because he didn't play in 2015? Only 49 more weeks of this to go :)
*yawn* :P
in the same world Tom Boyd is worth two of Tom Liberatores apparently
Nope.
Stop.
NOT AGAIN! :P
Quote from: meow meow on September 06, 2015, 07:14:03 PM
I too am a fan of the leadership group even though I won't be able to captain Shaun McKernan any more.
Thank goodness ;D.
We at Cairo believe everyone in our XV has the capacity to be captain and are outraged that you're depriving them of such an opportunity. >:( :P
But nah, I guess it makes things interesting, particular if injuries/suspensions hit.
Quote from: Nige on September 07, 2015, 09:16:20 AM
We at Cairo believe everyone in our XV has the capacity to be captain and are outraged that you're depriving them of such an opportunity. >:( :P
But nah, I guess it makes things interesting, particular if injuries/suspensions hit.
If an LTI occurs to a leader, can someone else be elevated to the leadership group mid season?
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on September 07, 2015, 09:19:41 AM
Quote from: Nige on September 07, 2015, 09:16:20 AM
We at Cairo believe everyone in our XV has the capacity to be captain and are outraged that you're depriving them of such an opportunity. >:( :P
But nah, I guess it makes things interesting, particular if injuries/suspensions hit.
If an LTI occurs to a leader, can someone else be elevated to the leadership group mid season?
I'd probably think no.
I might give some leniency though if say, you have one fit person in your leadership group, and he's been terrible this year. It will be case by case, but I might allow a CC or something.
Also, will get everyone to decide leadership groups after the 2nd Trade Period, so yonks from now.
Raises an interesting point if nominating co-captains must both be in leadership group. Suspect yes but just clarifying early.
Quote from: Ringo on September 07, 2015, 09:52:18 AM
Raises an interesting point if nominating co-captains must both be in leadership group. Suspect yes but just clarifying early.
Yes :)
Would have liked to see the reserves rule implemented but, otherwise happy with the results of the votes.
I think the Leadership group thing needs to be flexible. I think you should be able to elevate someone if there is a LTI for sure. And, maybe add one new guy to it at the halfway mark of the season?
So if someone has been killing in the first half of the year (say Blicavs) then they can be considered as a captain in the run home/finals
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 07, 2015, 01:56:08 PM
Would have liked to see the reserves rule implemented but, otherwise happy with the results of the votes.
I think the Leadership group thing needs to be flexible. I think you should be able to elevate someone if there is a LTI for sure. And, maybe add one new guy to it at the halfway mark of the season?
So if someone has been killing in the first half of the year (say Blicavs) then they can be considered as a captain in the run home/finals
I'm fine with a mid-season change... people get promoted during the season IRL, so why not us?
How many players will be in the leadership group?