The Bargin Ruck Theory

[nick1408]

As posted on another forum by me:

This season I have decided to not waste money on a ruck because lets face it, unless you have the $450,000+ to spend on the top ones they struggle to get 70 points. This season I have used this money to help my backs and midfielders out. So far my team looks like this:

B: J.Bowden, C.Cornes, N.Malceski, L.Hodge, A.Raines, J.W.Smith, R.Pettard
Subs: S.Hill, J.Grimes

M: J.Bartel, G.Ablett, J.Corey (c), D.Swan, B.Cousins, T.Boak
Subs: D.Rich, T.Swift

R: B.Renouf, T.West
Subs: M.Pyke, A.Graham

F: M.Pavlich, B.Harvey (vc), S.Lucas, S.Higgins, T.Hentnchel, C.Yarran, S.Sidebottom
Subs: S.Gumbleton, H.Ballentyne

As you can see I have gone for the forwards who are coming back from injury, as well as some highly rated rookies. I see forwards as generally good scorers and if the likes of Hentnchel and say Lucas or Higgins can start well then there may be an early trade to get a better forward in. the second ruck spot behind Renouf is a bit of a worry and will go to whoever actually plays (well, this is the theory for all the rucks. I need to wait untill round one teams come out before the final decision is made.) The team above was given a potential score from FanFooty of 1740. Lets discuss this.

With this theory, you can pretty much gaurantee 100+ points from Pavlich, Harvey, Bartel, Ablett, Corey, Swan, Cornes, Bowden and Hodge with your 60-70 points coming from Lucas, Higgins, Boak, Cousins and Malceski. So far this equates to 1200-1250, not including the captain bonus. that leaves 8 players to score the last 800 to crack the magical 2000 points. Now, we know this won't happen but neither will Ablett getting 100 flat each week. some weeks he will get 120 (likely) others may only be 90 (not likely).

I will now post the maths of the players who played games last year to give a bit more of an indication why i have sacrificed the rucks.

Player (2008 DT Ave.):
Swan (102.5) 22 Games
Lucas (50.2) 9 Games
Pavlich (99.3) 19 Games
Hodge (96.3) 17 Games
Pettard (45.5) 2 Games
Higgins (47.7) 4 Games
Ablett (111.7) 18 Games
Bartel (113.2) 22 Games
Corey (109.3) 22 Games
Grimes (42) 1 Game
Harvey (94.6) 22 Games
Smith (55.5) 2 Games
Cornes (85.5) 13 Games
Bowden (98.3) 18 Games
Raines (53) 2 Games
Malceski (57.3) 9 Games
Boak (83.1) 17 Games

This gives us a score of 1345 from 17 players. Not good but lets take out players who played less than 12 games. this now gives us a score of 994 from 10 players. Looking much better now. Now lets take into consideration the rucks:

West (33.3) 6 Games
Renouf (47) 5 Games

Both offer nothing but can give you 70 vital points and a now total score of 1064 from 12 players. This is a potential combined cost of $356,400 for 70 points isn't too bad but not too good either. Let's remember we are effectively playing with only 21 good players here but the upside is we have potentially saveed $400,000-$500,000 to spend elsewhere.

If we were to consider the injured players and say they will play 30% better without injury the scores will now equate to 1451 from 16 players. Definately respectable and competitive. 30% is a bit consertive but for the sake of this post it will be acceptable.

Of course there are some players like Hentchel, Gumbleton and Cousins that we are not sure about. If we were to say Cousins was to average 80 and Hentchel 60 then this gives us 1591 from 19 players. Add in the 70 form the rucks and it is 1660 from 20 players. Now, this doesn't look really good but you must realise that this system does rely on injury players and doesn't take into account players who will raise or fall in score. If the last two players were to score 120-150 between them this now raises us to 1780-1810. To bank an 1800 points each week would be a pretty good start I would think.


This system does take some guts, a gamblers instinct and the hope that some players will both come back from injury and rookies that will play. There is also questions over some players. there is obvisually more money to be saved from not taking the likes of Hill and instead picking Suban (saving $56,000), Rich for Beams, Zaharakis, Shuey or Andrew Collins (saving $40,000), Cousins for Lockyer (saving $4000) or either Pettard or Grimes for Hurley (saving $67,300 and $51,800 respectively) or Mat Maguire ($56,600 and $41,100) or either Suban or Trengove ($115,300 and $99,800), and finally Yarran for Robin Nahas (saving $46,300). At the most this can release a possible maximum of $362,000. Now, you may be saying "Why not use this spare money to buy a good ruck?" Well, why have a theory if you go against it to make yourself feel better? Here is another team that I have drawn together with the spare money:

B: J.Bowden, C.Cornes, N.Malceski, L.Hodge, B.Goddard, J.W.Smith, A.Raines
Subs: N.Suban, J.Trengove

M: J.Bartel, G.Ablett, J.Corey (c), D.Swan, A.Cooney, T.Boak
Subs: A.Collins, T.Swift

R: B.Renouf, T.West
Subs: D.Currie, J.Giles

F: M.Pavlich, B.Harvey (vc), S.Lucas, S.Higgins, T.Hentnchel, A.Nahas, S.Sidebottom
Subs: S.Gumbleton, H.Ballentyne

There is still some cash to save but for a team you need 22 on the ground. I have tried to get 30 players that will most likely play. FanFooty gives me an 1800 for this side. You may ask "Why not just take in this team? It's 60 points better off." Well, remember the cash cows? They are the ones I will trade later in the season to upgrade the forward line. Is this side really a 60 point better side? well that is debatable. It really depends on what the rookies do and I tend to have faith in players like Pettard who have been in the system for a while moreso that the highly rated rookies like Yarran and Sidebottom. I am also a fan of injury-return players. Everyone loves them. Murphy from last year was a revelation and this year I think it will be Higgins and Lucas. Hopefully Malceski can get back his form from two years ago and Jesse Smith is ready to explode. Like any DT side though questions will be asked about Raines, Hentnchel and Cousins but I have faith in both this system I have developed and my team.

[love4thegame]

not my cup of tea

[SpeedMeades]

foolish but good luck.

remember you only pay for what they averaged last year. so cox is no more overpriced than swan...

there is some good value in the midfield at brent renouf price that pose much better value than renouf.... and guaranteed to play 22 games as well.

you definitely haven't thought this through properly.

[mog_dog00]

that is probably one of the longest posts i've seen.  i don't think ur plan is risky - i'd say stupid. really why the hell wouldn't u want cox??? m8 there are some things u can take from the real game to fantasy land. the 1st bloke u pencil in on the team sheet is your ruckmen.. think about it. anyway good big man is better than good small man!

[Salad Fingers]

I reckon its a good theory, too much money is wasted on average ruckmen, as only Cox and Hille were really worth their value last year.

I am also not investing heavily on my rucks, I have Hille and Jesse White with 2 Sydney ruckmen on bench. This way I will always fill a side and I can spend the extra 170k I would have spent on a McIntosh or Maric to upgrade a Matty Campbell to a Simon Goodwin and a Robinson to a Rich, or similar trades.

As ruckmen can be really inconsistent I think its better to wait til seasons end to finalise them, afterall you can save a trade later in the season by trading, say, a Rich to another rookie, making maybe 200k and then upgrading a White to a Cox if he is travelling well, or to a Simmonds or Fraser. However, if you have Cox and he gets injured, rested or isn't performing (very unlikely) you will have to downgrade dramatically your ruckmen and although you will make plenty of coin, when you are planning on upgrading your rookies, you may be left with plenty of coin and no trades.

My point is, I believe its easier to upgrade to a performing ruckmen later in the year than trying to pick the best performing ruckmen from the start and risking coin and trades on a line where flexibility is limited and trades are wasted.

Any comments?

[BU1101]

For a start, you added the 70 for the rucks twice (at 994 and after cousins and henchtel at 1591)... so it is 1730 every week, not so pretty. Upgrading each of your rucks later in the year will cost you a total of 4 trades, it is getting uglier... An extra 30-50 points each week for +120000 on your (356,400) and 0 trades.... ok, so you would still need a second ruck +300000 for a competent ruckman who gets ~70. That is +100-120 a week for 420,000 (better than any player of that price) and 0 trades (maybe one).... Much better. Much. Plus you are relying on coachs and selectors every week to avoid zeros. Not my cup of tea either.

[kickittome]

I can't imagine not having Cox in my team. I'm prepared to consider a mid priced ruckman in the 2nd spot. But every team should have a BIG COX.

[nambo]

i like your midfield, they will compensate DT points for your weak Defence / Ruck & Forward.





And thats my two cents worth.

[BU1101]

I dont think that Nahas can play until much later in the season because they have richo and bowden (veterans) and so they cant promote him to teh senior list. I dont think his backs are weak either (6 and a half cents worth).

[Salad Fingers]

My point is that a 2nd good ruckmen is not needed, therefore only 1 trade is needed, not that no good ruckmen are required at all. Also 4 trades arent needed, the good teams dont usually have 2 backup ruckmen that are playing, let alone 1.
No doubt Cox is by far the best ruckmen, but I am being ultra cautious with my trades this year and I feel with all the travel that WCE do, he is more likely to get injured/rested than say a Hille who has limited back up (Laycock injured compared to a seasoned Seaby as 2nd ruck). Also because Cox is so much more expensive than the rest, I find it easier to trade for him rather than to trade him should he get injured as I have enough money making trades to be made through rookies.

[EZY]

I don't understand a theory where you waste 2 or even 1 of your starting 22. Fair enough you want to avoid inconsistant rucks which  most of them are  but by splashing out on a combination of cox is the equivilent of are premium midfielder, hille and sandilands are solid and gambling on a HMac is no different than gampling on say a lockyer or a lucas which everyone is doing.

Rookies and cheapies are vital to any team and they are less likely to play in the ruck that any other position and if they do play they will get fairly limited time and points. Why not play both rookie who will score well and rucks who will contribute good numbers every week?

[Scratchy]

I think you should do it, because it is unique and I bet virtually no other team will have this structure. It is the kind of team that might win you the weekly prize, and that's $1000 better off than about 22 other teams this year.
I would expect a strong start from you, but then weaken as the season progresses because you may need to use trades, and might find you didnt have enough cash cows. But just GO for it. If it doesn't work out then you'll have learned something extremely valuable. And hell, as I said you might finish 10000th overall but still pick up a grand in the early rounds.

[BU1101]

You will still need 2 trades to upgrade one to hille, including a +150000 cash cow (thats 86k-236k player, tough to find). And then you'll have hille and a rubbish ruckman, giving you 120-130 points a week compared to 160-70+ of any combination and cox. Cox played with a broken foot last year, I doubt they are going to rest him more now. It is unique for a reason, but good luck 

[Hawks_1976]

I thought I was obsessed!!!

You take the cake, mate!!

How long did this post take to write, 2 hours?

Try this for a really simple theory.
I think most sides can be structured initally to fit 10-12 premiums; the balance made up with mid priced and cheap/rookie players.
Q: Which 10-12 players do you think will finish top 10-12 in DT in 2009?
Pick those players then build the rest of your team.
When I did this Cox was in my top 10.

[nick1408]

Well, I knew this was going to be rather contraversial as a lot of people don't want to take the risk of not playing Cox.  I am taking the above team into round one albeit with a couple of changes which I will list later.

In all honesty I really didn't foresee so much negative feedback.  The original forum that I posted this on also recieved majority negative feedback too.  I must thank Scratchy for his positive comments and I will be replying to keep everyone updated on the progress.

The team now looks like this:

Backs: Bowden, C.Cornes, Malceski, Hodge, Pettard, Raines, J.W.Smith (Grimes, Hill)

Mids: Ablett, Bartel, Corey, Cousins, Swan, Boak (Rich, Beams)

Rucks: Bellchambers, Graham (Meeson, Pyke)

Forwards: Pavlich, B.Harvey, Higgins, Skipworth, Ziebell, Hentschel, Houlahan (Gumbleton, Ballentyne)

I know Ballentyne is injured so I will need a replacement there and I am also considering the change of Houlahan down to Sidebottom and Belchambers up to a ruck like Charman, P.Johnson or Koschitzke.  This steers a bit away from the plan if I go this way and with Laycock out at Essendon it does leave Bellchambers to rise in price as I also expect Houlahan to do as well