WXV Discussion

[Nige]

Yeah, honestly, in 2017 onwards, Dublin and Mexico City should be banned from participating just so it's marginally interesting.

Maybe have a restriction of 2 players per team or something as well so that everyone actually gets to be involved.

[Ricochet]

Holz wont be coach next year anyway

[Holz]

Yeah, honestly, in 2017 onwards, Dublin and Mexico City should be banned from participating just so it's marginally interesting.

Maybe have a restriction of 2 players per team or something as well so that everyone actually gets to be involved.

I actually thinking a minimum of 2 players from each team must be on the list and perhaps a maximum of 4.

For the record i always liked the AAP Euroasia comp even when i was the wooden spoon team and had nobody on it. I like the history of it.

Im also stepping down as the head coach if i get it next year

Time to give it to somebody else.

[Holz]

Holz wont be coach next year anyway

your right but not for the reason you said

[Ricochet]

Holz wont be coach next year anyway

your right but not for the reason you said

haha


Yeh I also enjoy this round and really like the idea of min/max from each team

[DazBurg]

i like it as well nice to sit back a little and enjoy it

though a trade period sounds nice
and if that isn't viable even an open discussion towards what teams may or may not be looking for in trade time (i know early for that but instead of ppl starting early behind closed doors could all start a open discussion in a thread etc for that week only)

dunno probably don't need a thread but was a thought

[RaisyDaisy]

9 teams per alliance, 15 + 3 EMG = 18 which is 2 players per team, and the coach decides how to field the 18

Easy

Might not be the absolute best 18 from the alliance but it will be the best 18 from all teams

[RaisyDaisy]

And as for a mid season trade period there are pro's and cons

Obviously a team could jag a player that helps them improve a lot, but it could also mean that the 8 is still wide open all the way up to the final round so I'm for it, but with a maximum of say 2 trades per team to keep it small and not drag out/have a massive impact

[ossie85]

As Purps said, a lot of it depends on AFL fixturing, and unless you want an uneven draw, an early finish or extended finals, there's always going to be 21 Worlds weeks (17 rounds + 4 finals) and 22 AFL weeks.

I don't like a mid-season trade week. In the AFL, they could be doing a mini-draft mid-season, but that's entirely different to actual trading.

With a mid-season trade week, suddenly the fixture is compromised. Some team will trade an Ablett or a Pendlebury to a team on the cusp of making finals, and suddenly it matters (beyond luck) when you play a certain a team.

Could you imagine being a team who got beaten by another team who had Ablett as Captain score 170, only to face a team again with Ablett as Captain scoring 180 later in the year?

Or a team without a ruck all year, suddenly has one in the 2nd half of the year?

And as for a mid season trade period there are pro's and cons

Obviously a team could jag a player that helps them improve a lot, but it could also mean that the 8 is still wide open all the way up to the final round so I'm for it, but with a maximum of say 2 trades per team to keep it small and not drag out/have a massive impact

No real issue with that, and you could have the coaches selecting based on ladder position (i.e. Holz selects first, 2nd place selects 2nd, etc....)



But I have no say in this anymore anyway :P

[meow meow]

The trade period could be restricted to involve players averaging 75 or less to stop blatant abuse of the system. It would mainly be to help the teams who are playing an OOP.

[Purple 77]

I'd also shy away from a mid-season trade period, just because I like how the lists are locked in for the whole season, and where coach preparation and AFL luck determines your season success.

And for the reason oz says.

Also like the min/max for EurAsia/AAP clash :)

[Holz]

The trade period could be restricted to involve players averaging 75 or less to stop blatant abuse of the system. It would mainly be to help the teams who are playing an OOP.

how about older teams who have been hit by injuries and now want to rebuild. Their older players have alot more value now then then at the end of the year.

The team in question would be PNL. They have been masacered. If they wanted to move on someone like hodge to get a little younger they will get much more from him then they will at the end of the trade period.

or what about teams hit by injury in one line.

I have had yarran roughy miss for the whole of the year, if instead of yarran it was buddy that would basically end my hopes. Whereas I have defenders everywhere.

[ossie85]

The trade period could be restricted to involve players averaging 75 or less to stop blatant abuse of the system. It would mainly be to help the teams who are playing an OOP.

how about older teams who have been hit by injuries and now want to rebuild. Their older players have alot more value now then then at the end of the year.

The team in question would be PNL. They have been masacered. If they wanted to move on someone like hodge to get a little younger they will get much more from him then they will at the end of the trade period.

or what about teams hit by injury in one line.

I have had yarran roughy miss for the whole of the year, if instead of yarran it was buddy that would basically end my hopes. Whereas I have defenders everywhere.

But its not like the players suddenly aged, they were old to begin with at the start of the season. Older players have a greater odd of being injured, so it is a risk to be mitigated.

I have absolutely nothing against luck - good or bad. That's what makes these things fun. What I am against is bias, and I think that is what a mid-season trade period adds.

If depth is the chief concern, I think you should be able to call on your reserves. Players that aren't injured, but are selected to play in the VFL/WAFL/SANFL/NEAFL if you have no other person available in that position. How you determine what they score is a different conversation (i.e. score 75 points if named in the best for that game, 50 points if they play at all, score 20% lower than the lowest scorer in that line, kind of thing), but at least it doesn't add bias and would solve a lot of issues (and kind of be more realistic).

[Holz]

The trade period could be restricted to involve players averaging 75 or less to stop blatant abuse of the system. It would mainly be to help the teams who are playing an OOP.

how about older teams who have been hit by injuries and now want to rebuild. Their older players have alot more value now then then at the end of the year.

The team in question would be PNL. They have been masacered. If they wanted to move on someone like hodge to get a little younger they will get much more from him then they will at the end of the trade period.

or what about teams hit by injury in one line.

I have had yarran roughy miss for the whole of the year, if instead of yarran it was buddy that would basically end my hopes. Whereas I have defenders everywhere.

But its not like the players suddenly aged, they were old to begin with at the start of the season. Older players have a greater odd of being injured, so it is a risk to be mitigated.

I have absolutely nothing against luck - good or bad. That's what makes these things fun. What I am against is bias, and I think that is what a mid-season trade period adds.

If depth is the chief concern, I think you should be able to call on your reserves. Players that aren't injured, but are selected to play in the VFL/WAFL/SANFL/NEAFL if you have no other person available in that position. How you determine what they score is a different conversation (i.e. score 75 points if named in the best for that game, 50 points if they play at all, score 20% lower than the lowest scorer in that line, kind of thing), but at least it doesn't add bias and would solve a lot of issues (and kind of be more realistic).

its not necessarily the older players getting injured though. If you say have 3-4 older players in your squad and your pushing for a flag and your young guys go down, causing you no chance of a flag it makes sense to move on the older guys, especially if they are playing and on fire.

the value of older players (and really all players in general) is how many years left. So the perfect example is Luke Hodge.

PNL wants to move him on because

A. Lobbe has gone down (not an old guy)
B. Swan season long broken foot (Not an old guy injury)

now Hodge is/will be playing. He is 32 years old but an old 32. So lets say i think he will retire end of next year (which i do).

If i buy him next year im buying a guy who can help me in 1 finals series. If i buy him now I can buy a guy who will help me in 2 finals series. Essentially his value is double now then it is in the end of the year.

This is why lots of comps around the world have this system.

It works the other way round with Collins Weits Omac Jetta over peforming and then my forward line struggling with Roughy out for the year and then his backup in Schoey injured. I would like to have some forward cover.

[meow meow]

Holz wants it so it's probably a bad idea. No mid season trading it is.