2015 WXV Awards and 2015 Rules Discussion

[MajorLazer]

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?!?!?!?!?!

[meow meow]

Quitters :-*

[MajorLazer]

Quitters :-*

WE WIN!!!! WOOOOOOO!!!!!

[Holz]

Quitters :-*

WE WIN!!!! WOOOOOOO!!!!!

the question is who losers :P

sorry Toga I tried.

[MajorLazer]

NOT ME!

I WON!!!!!!!!!

8) 8) 8) 8)

[Toga]

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.

[meow meow]

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.

[Toga]

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.

[MajorLazer]

BRING IT ON! TAG ME IN MEOW! I GOT THIS!

[RaisyDaisy]

Would love to see the Cap rule not get passed and then all of this discussion is for nothing haha :P

[meow meow]

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.

[Memphistopheles]

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.

[Purple 77]

Also, been waiting on one coach for the last couple days for the final voting on rules. That coach can actually still decide things.

[Toga]

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.

[meow meow]

^ 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.

Would love to see the Cap rule not get passed and then all of this discussion is for nothing haha :P

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.