British XV's - 2015 Discussion Thread

[nostradamus]

I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?

However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with

[GoLions]

I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?

What criteria is used when deciding on new positions?

There are several factors used to determine whether a player should gain position eligibility. A player must be deemed to meet all of them in order to successfully be awarded a new position.

1. The player must have played "primarily" in the new position over the last 3 rounds.

Primarily means at least 70% of game time and does not apply to players who may split duties between two positions. For example in 2012 Cox and Naitinui were ruck-eligible only despite sharing ruck and forward duties in a 50-50 split. Since neither played the majority of their games forward neither qualified for a change.

2. The player must be expected to continue to "primarily" play in this position on an ongoing basis.

Not only do they need to have been playing in a new position, they need to be expected to continue playing this position for the foreseeable future. Players playing out of position temporarily to cover injuries do not qualify under this condition.

3. There must be clear and obvious evidence of the player playing primarily in a new position.

We try to gather as much visual evidence as possible but also check several statistical measures to support any changes. Statistics such as inside 50's, rebound 50's, centre clearances, "score-rate" (percentage of disposals that result in a score) and hitouts are all looked at to provide further evidence of a players role.

If there are any doubts around the points above we may opt to wait another 3 weeks before making a change in order to gather more evidence.

What factors are NOT considered when determining changes?

There are also several factors we do not consider when making a change, such as:

Players are assessed individually and not relative to any other players. So even if player X is a Centre and plays more time forward than player Y who is a Centre/Forward this is not grounds to make a change.
Positions players are eligible in other fantasy games. Initial positions are set independently from any other competitions and so are any changes that are made.
These factors do not necessarily mean a player is eligible as per the above criteria so are not considered.

That seems more relevant to during the season. I'm talking more for the start of the season (i.e. these extra ones)

[GoLions]

I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?

However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with

Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.

[iZander]

I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?

What criteria is used when deciding on new positions?

There are several factors used to determine whether a player should gain position eligibility. A player must be deemed to meet all of them in order to successfully be awarded a new position.

1. The player must have played "primarily" in the new position over the last 3 rounds.

Primarily means at least 70% of game time and does not apply to players who may split duties between two positions. For example in 2012 Cox and Naitinui were ruck-eligible only despite sharing ruck and forward duties in a 50-50 split. Since neither played the majority of their games forward neither qualified for a change.

2. The player must be expected to continue to "primarily" play in this position on an ongoing basis.

Not only do they need to have been playing in a new position, they need to be expected to continue playing this position for the foreseeable future. Players playing out of position temporarily to cover injuries do not qualify under this condition.

3. There must be clear and obvious evidence of the player playing primarily in a new position.

We try to gather as much visual evidence as possible but also check several statistical measures to support any changes. Statistics such as inside 50's, rebound 50's, centre clearances, "score-rate" (percentage of disposals that result in a score) and hitouts are all looked at to provide further evidence of a players role.

If there are any doubts around the points above we may opt to wait another 3 weeks before making a change in order to gather more evidence.

What factors are NOT considered when determining changes?

There are also several factors we do not consider when making a change, such as:

Players are assessed individually and not relative to any other players. So even if player X is a Centre and plays more time forward than player Y who is a Centre/Forward this is not grounds to make a change.
Positions players are eligible in other fantasy games. Initial positions are set independently from any other competitions and so are any changes that are made.
These factors do not necessarily mean a player is eligible as per the above criteria so are not considered.

That seems more relevant to during the season. I'm talking more for the start of the season (i.e. these extra ones)

Cant help you there mate, not sure :P Cant be that bad, not many on that list surprised me at all

[Spite]

I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?

However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with

Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.

Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it

[Rids]

Goddard plays behind the ball a lot. I would argue that Goddard plays more behind the ball than what Montagna did in front of the ball in 2015  ;)

[iZander]

I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?

However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with

Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.

Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it

So you're against the changes because of 1 change, despite thinking the other 12 are good changes? Never going to get 100% of the calls correct in everyones opinion :)

[Spite]

I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?

However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with

Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.

Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it

So you're against the changes because of 1 change, despite thinking the other 12 are good changes? Never going to get 100% of the calls correct in everyones opinion :)

I had previously asked for the full list of changes, I only got to view them now for the first time. Wasn't that obvious? Have I said anything against the changes after agreeing with 12 of the changes?

Or did you mean "are you" instead of the accusatory, "you are"?

[iZander]

I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?

However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with

Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.

Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it

So you're against the changes because of 1 change, despite thinking the other 12 are good changes? Never going to get 100% of the calls correct in everyones opinion :)

I had previously asked for the full list of changes, I only got to view them now for the first time. Wasn't that obvious? Have I said anything against the changes after agreeing with 12 of the changes?

Or did you mean "are you" instead of the accusatory, "you are"?

After the last 5 pages of discussion is largely you, id assume you had read the actual changes. To argue for that long about it without seeing the changes seems strange to me. My apologies i did not realise.

[Rids]

I did a podcast about 10 days ago where we had Matt James from Footy Prophet. We were discussing the likely DPP additions for Ultimate Footy prior to them being released. The link is below. Matt is on at the start of the pod and explains it. Matt and I also speak about Goddard and we both agreed that he would be likely to gain Back status.

https://soundcloud.com/coachespanel/what-to-do-with-essendon-ultimatefooty-dpp?in=coachespanel/sets/preseason-2016


At the end of the day though I would say it is a redundant point. There will always be someone that is lucky or unlucky to gain/or not to gain DPP.

[Spite]

Goddard plays behind the ball a lot. I would argue that Goddard plays more behind the ball than what Montagna did in front of the ball in 2015  ;)

If that is your reasoning, that is how CD choose their positions and didn't give it to him :P But whatever, one or two "mistakes" are ok, 13 would not be all-right.

I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?

However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with

Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.

Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it

So you're against the changes because of 1 change, despite thinking the other 12 are good changes? Never going to get 100% of the calls correct in everyones opinion :)

I had previously asked for the full list of changes, I only got to view them now for the first time. Wasn't that obvious? Have I said anything against the changes after agreeing with 12 of the changes?

Or did you mean "are you" instead of the accusatory, "you are"?

After the last 5 pages of discussion is largely you, id assume you had read the actual changes. To argue for that long about it without seeing the changes seems strange to me. My apologies i did not realise.

And some of you guys were willing to argue back without also seeing the list? If they were incredibly odd choices, it would have been the same situation

[iZander]

Goddard plays behind the ball a lot. I would argue that Goddard plays more behind the ball than what Montagna did in front of the ball in 2015  ;)

If that is your reasoning, that is how CD choose their positions and didn't give it to him :P But whatever, one or two "mistakes" are ok, 13 would not be all-right.

I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?

However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with

Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.

Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it

So you're against the changes because of 1 change, despite thinking the other 12 are good changes? Never going to get 100% of the calls correct in everyones opinion :)

I had previously asked for the full list of changes, I only got to view them now for the first time. Wasn't that obvious? Have I said anything against the changes after agreeing with 12 of the changes?

Or did you mean "are you" instead of the accusatory, "you are"?

After the last 5 pages of discussion is largely you, id assume you had read the actual changes. To argue for that long about it without seeing the changes seems strange to me. My apologies i did not realise.

And some of you guys were willing to argue back without also seeing the list? If they were incredibly odd choices, it would have been the same situation

Cant image there were too many people who didn't read the list before debating about them, think you might be alone there :)

[nostradamus]

I did a podcast about 10 days ago where we had Matt James from Footy Prophet. We were discussing the likely DPP additions for Ultimate Footy prior to them being released. The link is below. Matt is on at the start of the pod and explains it. Matt and I also speak about Goddard and we both agreed that he would be likely to gain Back status.

https://soundcloud.com/coachespanel/what-to-do-with-essendon-ultimatefooty-dpp?in=coachespanel/sets/preseason-2016


At the end of the day though I would say it is a redundant point. There will always be someone that is lucky or unlucky to gain/or not to gain DPP.

This is a great link .............. also kind of ironic that yourself and Matt James called Goddards DPP early, with Matt being from Footy Prophet he's really living up to the name :P

[Spite]

Goddard plays behind the ball a lot. I would argue that Goddard plays more behind the ball than what Montagna did in front of the ball in 2015  ;)

If that is your reasoning, that is how CD choose their positions and didn't give it to him :P But whatever, one or two "mistakes" are ok, 13 would not be all-right.

I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?

However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with

Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.

Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it

So you're against the changes because of 1 change, despite thinking the other 12 are good changes? Never going to get 100% of the calls correct in everyones opinion :)

I had previously asked for the full list of changes, I only got to view them now for the first time. Wasn't that obvious? Have I said anything against the changes after agreeing with 12 of the changes?

Or did you mean "are you" instead of the accusatory, "you are"?

After the last 5 pages of discussion is largely you, id assume you had read the actual changes. To argue for that long about it without seeing the changes seems strange to me. My apologies i did not realise.

And some of you guys were willing to argue back without also seeing the list? If they were incredibly odd choices, it would have been the same situation

Cant image there were too many people who didn't read the list before debating about them, think you might be alone there :)

Haha you're full of it mate. There were plenty of times when discussing that someone could have brought it up and no one did. If they could have used that to end an argument they would have, so I'm sure I wasn't the single only person to not view the list.
GL just said before that he agreed with all except for Goddard, so he hadn't read it either. And there will be others.

Do you feel better about yourself now? :)

[Ringo]

Hey guys keep it civil please.  I will just confirm though that link was posted in my initial post on this issue so it could invoke comment.