Round 8 Lodgement Threads

[ossie85]

so you would rather try and field a team somehow with just this rounds players?

Yes.

That option would basically mean teams would win on luck

Exactly, and I don't like that. AXVs are doing in this way and a number of teams have incomplete XVs.

Bad luck. Depth teams to get rewarded.

not about depth. You could have 30 players play every week and 25 of them have the bye one week, compared to a side who have 10 players play every week and all of them play.  How is that rewarding depth?

The chances of that is unlikely.

It wil also be extremely unlikely that one team won't be advantaged over the other,  which has nothing to do with depth

[Justin Bieber]

so you would rather try and field a team somehow with just this rounds players?

Yes.

That option would basically mean teams would win on luck

Exactly, and I don't like that. AXVs are doing in this way and a number of teams have incomplete XVs.

Bad luck. Depth teams to get rewarded.

not about depth. You could have 30 players play every week and 25 of them have the bye one week, compared to a side who have 10 players play every week and all of them play.  How is that rewarding depth?

The chances of that is unlikely.

It wil also be extremely unlikely that one team won't be advantaged over the other,  which has nothing to do with depth

My point is why some players play both weeks, but only one week counts. I see that silly.

[ossie85]

so you would rather try and field a team somehow with just this rounds players?

Yes.

That option would basically mean teams would win on luck

Exactly, and I don't like that. AXVs are doing in this way and a number of teams have incomplete XVs.

Bad luck. Depth teams to get rewarded.

not about depth. You could have 30 players play every week and 25 of them have the bye one week, compared to a side who have 10 players play every week and all of them play.  How is that rewarding depth?

The chances of that is unlikely.

It wil also be extremely unlikely that one team won't be advantaged over the other,  which has nothing to do with depth

My point is why some players play both weeks, but only one week counts. I see that silly.

over the 3 weeks, each player plays twice, the first score counts. The other is a bye. Not silly at all

[Justin Bieber]

so you would rather try and field a team somehow with just this rounds players?

Yes.

That option would basically mean teams would win on luck

Exactly, and I don't like that. AXVs are doing in this way and a number of teams have incomplete XVs.

Bad luck. Depth teams to get rewarded.

not about depth. You could have 30 players play every week and 25 of them have the bye one week, compared to a side who have 10 players play every week and all of them play.  How is that rewarding depth?

The chances of that is unlikely.

It wil also be extremely unlikely that one team won't be advantaged over the other,  which has nothing to do with depth

My point is why some players play both weeks, but only one week counts. I see that silly.

over the 3 weeks, each player plays twice, the first score counts. The other is a bye. Not silly at all

Week 3 is North vs South so I'm not sure what you just said.

[Nige]

Liverpool Rams - 688/5 with C

B: J.Gibson 75, B.Houli, S.Thompson, M.Firrito
M: D.Heppell 168x2=336(c), L.Dunstan, H.Bennell, M.Hallahan 123
R: T.Goldstein
F: J.Billings, T.Cloke, B.Harvey, H.Crozier 56
I: T.Varcoe, L.Taylor 98

E: T.Curren (M - sub), L.Thomas (F), L.Casboult (R - OOP), J.Saunders (D - OOP)

Players in italics to be confirmed next week (AFL Round 9)[/

[kilbluff1985]

Birmingham

D: Suckling 66, Dempsey 106                                                          =171
M: Rockliff 320(C), Zaharakis 76, Hartlett 109                                     =505
R: Clarke 67                                                                                 =67 
F: Schulz 40, Lamb                                                                        =40
I/C: Burgoyne 131(VC), M Jones 98                                                  =295

Emg Sutcliffe 102(Def), Gleeson 32 (Mid)(Sub), Ambrose 39 (Fwd)

1078/9

doing ok actually

[Spite]

Hebdenbridge Hedgehogs

DEF Jarrad McVeigh (VC) 150 , Aaron Mullett, Paul Duffield 53, Jack Watts 79

MID Scott Selwood(EVC), Brent Stanton 123*2=246 (C), Toby Greene, Danyle Pearce 69

UTIL Lachie Neale 121, Josh Thomas

RUCK Nic Naitanui

FWD Dustin Martin, Luke Parker 140, Matthew DeBoer 117, Craig Bird 114

EMG: Jarred Rivers (B), Mark Hutchings, (M - sub), Michael Rischitelli (OOP RUCK), Jack Riewoldt (F)

Great start by the hedgies, 404/3 :)

1089/9 - C played.

[kilbluff1985]

hey Ringo if i want to take Sutcliffe's score do i just not name a defender or do i have to name one not playing next week?

[Vinny]

Time to rape the loophole.

[LF]

Time to rape the loophole.

This is what we hope to do  :P

[Ringo]

For those wishing to take advantage of loopholes you must name a non playing player on the field.  As players from the round 8 games have been locked you can only replace players from  Adelaide, North Melbourne, Gold Coast, Richmond, Collingwood and Geelong  with players from the same group. eg Replace Joel Selwood with say with another player from any of the 6 Round 9 teams.

Will also apply for any teams working a VC Loophole.

Remember there is the early game this week so any changes involving Round 9 Players must be lodged prior to bounce of Crows v Pies game on Thursday.

[Torpedo10]

Loophole? What a copout. Libba Captain all the way.  :P

[Nige]

Captain Heppell worked out fairly well (although he was my only option).

[nrich102]

JJK  8)

[JBs-Hawks]

Def: Frawley 77 - Broadbent 58 - CPearce 50

Mid

ruck Phillips 49

FWDS: Riewoldt - Breust 71 - wingard 112

int  Scully 110 Simpkin 94

emg ellis 37 sub cheney 82