Common players seem to be bobbing up in every nuff-nuff’s Dream Teams at this stage of the season. First, we look at the backs.
The teams posted in the comments of the second editions of the Rate My Team threads, posted after the NAB Cup started, have been a lot more vanilla than those in the first threads, which were largely done before the preseason kicked off. This is not a new phenomenon, of course, but there is an increasingly large amount of complaints about it from the fantasy football public. So I thought I’d go through the most generic team possible and try to attack it from all sides, offering structural critique as well as a raft of uncommon or unique options to take the place of the nuffie’s favourites.
First we will start with the backs, where my early message has been to go cheap, cheap, cheap. The mob seems not to have heeded my advice quite as much as they could have, though, because the most common structure includes four keepers and only three mid-pricers.
#1 back: Brendon Goddard, the rolled gold premium
It’s understandable that you’d want the highest-scoring player in each position, and that’s pretty much how the teams have worked out, apart from Cox in the rucks. It’s hard to argue with Goddard given that he’s got more than 10 points in average over his nearest rival based on 2009 scoring. The only query is whether he will be rested in the forward line as has been mooted in the press and by coach Ross Lyon – a position in which he has provided some good scores in past games, but has also gone missing sometimes as well, which he almost never does in midfield. This is probably the most defensible consensus pick, nonetheless.
#2 back: Corey Enright, the top 7 lock
There’s no question that Enright has had an excellent preseason, and there’s strong supporting evidence that the loss of Tom Harley will mean more points for other players in the Cat defence. With a settled tall back structure of Matthew Scarlett and Harry Taylor down the spine, and Andrew Mackie seemingly being the one asked to do more defensive jobs than Enright, this looks like a no-brainer premium pick with subtle upside flavour. However, consideration should also be given to Ryan Hargrave who is in just about exactly the same position in the Bulldog structure, and arguably has more upside given the Dogs are set to lift their averages across the board this season. There is nothing holding back Paul Duffield at the same price, plus Jason Gram and Simon Goodwin haven’t put a foot wrong in preseason either. This is a price bracket where you probably can’t go wrong (barring injury), so going unique will not hurt you at all.
#3 back: Luke Hodge, the underpriced comeback premium
The received wisdom is that Hodge has had a far better preseason and is cherry ripe for a much stronger run in 2010. As I said on the Coaches Box yesterday, I have been trying out teams without Hodge in them this week, and I’m not missing him all that terribly. He still represents a downside risk, due to the Hawks being so cruelled with injury this year and thus not being able to support him as much when the inevitable tags are laid. I don’t like how his kick-to-handball ratio went down last year and his possession-to-mark ratio went up. He has been “guilty” in the past of sacrificing his own game to help the team and burning fantasy coaches in the process. Yes, last year’s average was his worst in five years, but I don’t see the trends at Hawthorn ticking up all that quickly, especially early in the season with a tough draw. At around the same price you can choose Rhyce Shaw, Heath Scotland, Lindsay Gilbee, Andrew Mackie and even Chris Newman to go unique.
#4 back: Heath Shaw, the redemption pick
I think this is the least defensible of all the nuffie picks, both in terms of the individual player and the team structure. Sure, Shaw had a solid pre-season in numerical terms, with 109 in the televised game against the Saints followed by 64 and 80 against Adelaide and Port away from the cameras. He’s back in the leadership group at Collingwood, though that doesn’t earn you any DT or SC points. He is underpriced for a reason, people: it’s because he can’t handle a tag, and his coach refuses to help him out. Guess what: Mick Malthouse is still the coach of Collingwood. Nothing has changed. I don’t think Heater has changed. He will deliver 100s but then he’ll throw in the odd 40 once a month when he gets a decent forward tag on him and gets isolated in the defensive goalsquare. It has happened many times before, and there are no signs that it won’t happen again in 2010.
Apart from the individual, there’s also the problem of structure, and this is where I think nuffie teams will get it wrong. There are many more possible cheap and mid-priced backs who are startable well below Shaw’s price, and it would be a mistake to spend this much money on your #4 back. If you’re still looking for a little more stability in this slot, you can go just a little cheaper with Shannon Hurn, Xavier Ellis or Joel Macdonald.
#5 back: Tadhg Kennelly, the prodigal son from Donegal (actually he’s from County Kerry, but that doesn’t rhyme 
)
#6 back: Nick Malceski, the forgotten keeper
I have few qualms about these picks, actually. There are a few concerns about fitness both long-term and short-term with both of them, especially with Malceski being a late withdrawal on the weekend with a muscle problem, but he has returned to full training this week so that seems a furphy. The old dynamic with the flag-era Swans team was that two of its three halfback runners would have good fantasy days while the one to miss out happened at random, so who knows what the share will be like with four of them when you chuck in Rhyce Shaw and Martin Mattner. It’s pretty hard to go past the upside of these two, nonetheless.
#7 back: Josh Hunt, the LTI comeback cheapie
While Hunt has edged him out for popularity all pre-season, Beau Waters is knocking on the door for this spot with his two late scores of 87 and 70. I think Hunt should stay ahead of Waters due to superior job security and fitness concerns, though I would be completely fine with having both as your #7 and #8 backs. Other valid candidates for this slot include Levi Greenwood (despite the two-to-three-week broken toe he got by pulling on his trackie dacks), Lachie Henderson (though probably only for SC), David Myers (though he pretty much exhausts your injury allowance all by himself), Rick Ladson and Matt Suckling (but only if Suckling is picked in R1).
#8 back: Matt Maguire, the Houdini act at CHB
The flogs have got this one right. There really is no other option at the #8 slot, as Maguire ticks all the boxes to be the Zac Dawson of 2010 in fantasy terms: a slow burner on the cash cow front who will provide solid if unspectacular coverage against the near-inevitable donut-flavoured carnage of fantasy backlines.
#9 back: Phil Davis, the early bolter
I was surprised to note that even at this late stage, a lot of fantasy teams are being created with Davis as back coverage. I get the fact that he might be bought purely because he has FWD and BAC eligilibility as part of a wider multipositional support system, but that doesn’t explain why he’s still so popular given that it has become abundantly clear that Scott Stevens is taking the spot vacated by Andy Otten, and Davis will spend most if not all of the year in the SANFL continuing to learn his craft. Davis should have been replaced in your side by now by either Mitch Farmer, Jordan Lisle, Ben Nason or Alex Silvagni.
Next up, of course, are the midfielders.
Monty,the writing is on the wall,you go cheap cheap cheap with your backs thier is no return.Your not gonna have enough trades to upgrade the likes of Mcdonald,Malceski.Greenwood,Hunt or Waters.
Then you have the upgrades of Martin and Barlow to consider.
Sorry cannot agree with you.
Go hard in the backs or go home.
koray
18 Mar 10 at 7:06 pm
Where do you attack then, koray? The forwards? Too much is being expected of flawed players like Gray and Hall, I reckon.
m0nty
18 Mar 10 at 7:19 pm
Hmmm, I’ve got six of the nine. Nuff nuff it is then.
I see very few exciting prospects in the back line this year. This is why I’ll start five keepers plus Malceski and Waters. Hunt has never been a premium, Ladson never came on in the preseason and Kennelly isn’t the absolute bargain we all hoped he’d be priced at. You could mount an argument for Greenwood I suppose.
I have been 50/50 on Shaw vs Hargrave however….
As you mentioned Monty, forward line poses the same issues. For this reason I think Hall has to be a lock at #5 and I look forward to your synopsis on Podsiadly and Rockliff
Wilkopolis
18 Mar 10 at 8:07 pm
Monty, I’m with Koray. Once you get to your 5th back the only name listed that MAY become a keeper is Malceski. You may squeeze 100k from both waters and hunt. Kenelly is only going to make about 60k so what do you do with that? I think you have to be prepared to spend more in the backs.
elroy67
18 Mar 10 at 8:20 pm
I feel like this is going to have the opposite effect to the one intended. You will get people changing their teams to include these guys and make things lack even more variety.
Going with the crowd isnt always win though: otten was on of the best last year barely anyone had him, swallow rised 300k, just because everyone is on them doesn’t mean instant win.
Picking popular players though kind of shelters you from repercussions if Ablett goes down everyone’s pretty much in the same condition if one of your points of difference goes down you lose out.
toodledock
18 Mar 10 at 8:37 pm
monty i think you are wrong here too..i agree with koray spend money on your backs because the value just is not in them like the mids and forwards..i have pick strong backs and looked to make money and upgrades in mids and forward because of the vale you get .. look at a mid/forward for 300-350 then look at a back if you discount the 3 broken ones (ladson, malceski and hunt) there is much quality and those three have a high risk attached to them..
bootsdog
18 Mar 10 at 8:41 pm
My backs are as follows:
Goddard-Enright-Duffield-Hodge-Shaw-Kennelly-Waters. Locked and loaded
The backs are where this thing is going to be decided.
koray
18 Mar 10 at 8:43 pm
MONTY I think the main complaint follows the issue of spoon feeding of DreamTeam hints, there has to be a limit to the amount of tips handed out.
al stars
18 Mar 10 at 8:55 pm
thats the issue
we spend all this time, watched, reading, researching, herald sun, gives away all the good prospects we researched multiple times for free in the paper. The games doesn’t reward your own decisions or research, thats kind of my issue.
You could come here, copy a decent team from blogs and do equal or possibly even better than someone who has thought out their team
toodledock
18 Mar 10 at 9:01 pm
Monty is on the rag again_ excuse my political incorrectness.
Damn there is some horrible advice in there…and the rest is downright garbage.
Love your work normally bud, but this….fail.
jut18
18 Mar 10 at 9:30 pm
do this for SC…the same playersyou have listed for DT i already had in my supercoach except shaw in which i had duffield or hurn still undecided
kyle9600
18 Mar 10 at 9:33 pm
al stars: if you hadn’t figured it out by now, my agenda with this blog includes a lot of work trying to mix up people’s selections, so that they don’t end up so samey. I have tried different types of blog features to achieve this, and some work better than others. The Structure posts are probably the least successful.
From the amount of blowback I’m getting in the comments here, at least I’m making people think and causing some robust discussion.
m0nty
18 Mar 10 at 9:35 pm
Woohoooo i’ve only got 1 of those mentioned. Team UNIQUE. should be my name. Watch me win….. Broughton, Carazzo, Duffy, Kelly, Greenwood, going to BEAT YOU ALL!
Shit… now my team isn’t unique…
Don’t copy/paste losers!
yogibbear
18 Mar 10 at 9:55 pm
I think threads like this are awesome. Sure I’ve put in stacks of research hours and then cringe when I see Monty posting 95% of my selections. But that just means we’re on the right track. It’s that remainding 5% (unique selections) that makes the difference. Good Luck All
GC-Tiprats
18 Mar 10 at 9:59 pm
Nice post Monty,conducive to your aim of this being a ‘thinking mans’ DT site.However your early crows on players such as Waters,Tippett,Gray,NicNat et al were pure sensationalism.
woofta
18 Mar 10 at 10:21 pm
yuck broughtton are u serious
Gilbee is better then carrazo
I have hurn instead of duffield…hurn is only 21 and still has much more room to imporve…and if you look kelly is mentioned and so is greenwood.
Big loss without goddard
kyle9600
18 Mar 10 at 10:22 pm
Some interesting thoughts. Hodge was clearly overpriced last year m0nty for a guy who was at best an inconsistently big scorer as a defender, but you were one of many to call him a lock. I never considered getting him for a second, but this year I think the upside is a lot greater.
He finished the year in the midfield, which is a good sign, and you’d expect him to get some time there this year. After all, like Shaw, he has proven he has difficulty down back when required to really man up (or be manned up on by a decent tagger).
There’s a risk involved, but you know the upside is he could turn into a gold premium for the year. At just over 350, that’s a risk probably worth taking.
Vegas15Mag
18 Mar 10 at 10:29 pm
great post Monty but I’m with the others on this, I think the cheap forwards are far better than the cheap backs.
Even with the mid-priced strategy I’m favouring I’m struggling to go with less than 4 premium backs especially if I put waters on the bench as no.8. Hunt, Kenelly and Malceski pretty much exhausts the good cheap options IMO.
In forwards on the other hand you have: Gray, Hall, Ziebell, Medhurst, Dangerfield, Mayne, Ballantyne, Westhoff, Betts and even Tippett all under 330k.
Now i know you can throw criticisms at every one of those players (i certainly have) but they are probably as good as the back options except there are 3 times as many and better bench backup.
I think if you go with less than 4 premium backs your going to be copping doughnuts left right and center.
But thanks for the post Monty and your right, its certainly promoting intelligent discussion for a change.
DT=Life
18 Mar 10 at 10:45 pm
hahaha Monty I love how you give good advice but people are so pig headed that they do there own thing anyway, like your trying to sabatage them in some way.
Great job as usual thankfully for me it looks like im on the right track
grum88
18 Mar 10 at 10:53 pm
“Gray, Hall, Ziebell, Medhurst, Dangerfield, Mayne, Ballantyne, Westhoff, Betts and even Tippett all under 330k”.
They can’t all be top 7 material! My concern is that you’re not shooting high enough if you’re expecting the likes of Ziebell or Medhurst to be a keeper. They’re mediocre keepers at best. Their ceiling does not reach high enough for you to get enough points to win the comp if you’ve got four of them.
m0nty
18 Mar 10 at 10:59 pm
Well I agree with Monty here, i would rather spend the coin on the centre and forwards where you can get genuine premiums than waste a whole lot of cash on this list of backs, bigger gamble to me…One thing i will say though is that I think beau waters is a gun, from memory (i havent checked this) it was his elbow that kept him out most of last year, so its not like hes coming back from a knee reconstruction.. he will dominate hunt imo.
Go cheez.
cheez79
18 Mar 10 at 11:17 pm
I say I have to agree with the comments much more than Monty’s blog post.
My current team is super strong in the backs – check this out: Goodwin, Enright, Shaw, Hodge, Gram, Kennelly, Greenwood (Maguire, Nason)
Yet I still have 4 midfield (including Goddard), 1 ruck and 3 forward keepers. I like my time a lot at the moment.
Zan5hin
18 Mar 10 at 11:48 pm
super strong in the backs? greenwoods out for a couple of weeks and will not be much chop anyway, kennelly’s best average ever is 65.9 add to that he hasnt played for a year, Goodwin is old, shaw and gram are super inconsistent. enright and hodge ill give you them.. maguire and nason not great backups (not much to choose from). Just my opinion, i envy you though, i wish i liked my team a lot.
cheez79
18 Mar 10 at 11:59 pm
I am resigned to being a bore as far as the backline goes. There is good reason why Goddard, Enright, Hodge etc are so popular. And I’m sorry, but your arguments for alternatives aren’t very convincing.
skystyler
18 Mar 10 at 11:59 pm
this is a bit fuuny.. 1st your cheapest positional premium players are in your back line $400,000.00 your forwards and mid’s are way more than that isnt cheaper to later trade up a back than a mid or forward.the money you save going straight to guns straight of the bat,this year we have been blessed with a bumper crop of cash cows so make your money then upgrade a mid or fwd then finsh of your back line, by the way ur back line will not score as much as your mid or fwd and yes people might say what about your ruck well thats just 2 positions out of 22
dabulli
19 Mar 10 at 12:01 am
> “Gray, Hall, Ziebell, Medhurst, Dangerfield, Mayne, Ballantyne, Westhoff, Betts and even Tippett all under 330k”.
> They can’t all be top 7 material! My concern is that you’re not shooting high enough if you’re expecting the likes of Ziebell or Medhurst to be a keeper. They’re mediocre keepers at best. Their ceiling does not reach high enough for you to get enough points to win the comp if you’ve got four of them.
Yes, you would be silly to think any of these players would become keepers. Maybe Gray or Hall, but that would be pushing it in a BIG way.
The one thing you need to consider though is how many of these will go up in value enough to swap to a slow starting premium for less than 100K around round 7…… Like what you would do if you were running a mid price strategy….? Goodes and Brown etc should be looking pretty tasty by then. And lets face it, you cant have premiums everywhere.
And by the way, I really don’t know why people are so aanally retentive about unique and non unique players, along with ’nuffies’ copying teams/information they see posted on forums etc. Number one, if you are that worried, why let the cat out of the bag? Dont post secrets on forums to start with!!!
And don’t help out every crap team you see posted on a forum!! (Don’t worry, the next team you see posted will display the same flaws, and will expect to be told exactly how to fix them just as the one prior…. Don’t expect a thankyou either) Just look at the 10/10 blogs…… “I promise to rate every team”…. Bet you regret saying that haha.
‘Non unique’ players are generally so for a pretty damn good reason (think Porplyzia from a couple of years ago………………………) But there are always a couple that don’t deserve the hype at all (Think Ricky Dyson from the same year, or Raines maybe). I wonder who will fit that category over the dreamteam Waters this year…. (my tip for the 2010 award)
The trick is to be able to distinguish the two sorts of ‘non uniques’. Oh and there is all that trading business as well….
MORAL OF THE STORY PEOPLE: Pick the best team you can, Unique or not. You need to score the most points possible every week. NEVER LOSE SIGHT OF THIS, THAT IS WHAT WINS THIS COMP.
If you think a ‘unique’ will outscore ‘non unique’, then select him, otherwise take the unique. It is all about points after all. That is all.
mightyhawk
19 Mar 10 at 12:15 am
hmmmm i agree with monty,,,,, i have gone 4 premiums(one unique from the above) and 3 mid pricers. and then gone 4 keepers up forward banking on gray and tippet to become keepers and a rookie for 7th.
I think everyone under 300k up forward(except for hall) like zieball, ballantyne medhurst and some more cats like that are going to be the difference between a lot of sides.
spend less in backs i think is the way to go
juddthejet
19 Mar 10 at 12:36 am
I spoke with Chris Knights the other day (saw him at the movies) and asked him about Phil Davis. With a bit of a laugh he said, “i wouldn’t pick him. Maybe Patrenko”.
I thought to myself two things. 1. Wow, straight from the horses mouth. First hand info!!!! 2. There’s no way in hell im picking patrenko. Thanks anyway Knights!
Chipper
19 Mar 10 at 1:05 am
Mate you contradict yourself all the time, every player you bagged you suggested previously. Now I am aware that blogs are primarily to create debate but how can you reasonably say one thing in one post then completely turn 180 in the next. I read this blog for research sake, consider your POV but now I struggle to take you seriously. An English teacher of mine once wrote on a submission of mine “please don’t waste my time with material of this nature” I think it is applicable to you here. Better luck in the mids!
djmckf
19 Mar 10 at 1:40 am
Just take it on board everyone, its not gospel.
There’s no one method of picking a team. Last years winner had a pretty stock team and the person before that had mid price improvers. It just depends year-to-year on the players available and the style of footy played and you balance your team around that.
Disco DB
19 Mar 10 at 2:05 am
Moreover……… on Goddard as the rock solid pick or “most defensible”. No one can ensure he will be as good as last year. Probability has it he won’t be. Certainly not 10 points clear of any other player, someone else will be (hopefully someone I have picked:). Also he has some of his worst 2009 rivals first up Syd, Nth, Coll, Frem who he scored 99, 46, 116 and 104 for an average of 91.3 which is over 12 points below his average for last year = drop in value. Not to mention the fact that the saints are chokers and will probably drop off the pace this year as they historically have after a half decent year. Anyhow as they say IMO…..
djmckf
19 Mar 10 at 2:08 am
Hey Monty.
Fair comments on the “consensus backs” (no love for Nathan Bock or Jack Grimes, though?) but you’re right on the edge of the Great Structural Divide of DT 2010 without getting there.
There’s two types of teams being posted…
The most common type is going cheap forward and back and IMO asking way too much of guys like Kennelly and Hunt (neither of whom have ever even averaged 70 in their careers), and Ziebell and Dangerfield and Ballantyne(10-15 point improvements maybe, but potential keepers? Really?) and needs too many trades to upgrade all those midprice players.
The other type loads up on midfield rookies, goes heavily premium on every other line, and prays to God the rookies keep getting games.
The extreme lack of rookies who look like getting a game in the forwards and backs is really cutting down the variety of teams we see this year, since people don’t even have the option of loading in a few forward rooks or back rooks… there’s so few, it’s pretty much play lots of midfield rooks or try to get away with lots of midprices instead of rooks (which reduces the number of premiums you can start with).
Arky
19 Mar 10 at 2:13 am
I agree with Arky. Options in the backline are limited after you have chosen the premiums.
And for those that load the midfield with rookies- those that live by the sword die by the sword. You can’t take advantage of cash cows unless you trade. Upgrading all those rookies will bleed you of trades later in the season and leave you with potentially lousy replacments as well.
Manikato1
19 Mar 10 at 2:28 am
Arky, that’s a good point about the two types of teams. However, I’m talking here about the most popular structure, which is the conservative mid-pricer one.
m0nty
19 Mar 10 at 3:22 am
Monty where do you actually pose any compelling arguments that the “boring squad” shouldn’t be taken? Let’s take a look here.
Goddard – “It’s understandable that you’d want the highest-scoring player”
Enright – “this looks like a no-brainer premium pick with subtle upside flavour.”
Hodge – a damn sight cheaper than last year when i paid 632k SC (it’s a known fact i am a nuff – nuff BTW)
“…. there’s also the problem of structure, and this is where I think nuffie teams will get it wrong. There are many more possible cheap and mid-priced backs who are startable well below Shaw’s price, and it would be a mistake to spend this much money on your #4 back. If you’re still looking for a little more stability in this slot, you can go just a little cheaper….”
Agreed Monty!
Kennelly & Malceski – “I have few qualms about these picks, actually.”
So we all know numbers 7,8 and 9 will all be rather similar due to paucity of options.
Really though Mont boiled down this blog isn’t really giving us any compelling evidence not to go with “the flow”. As your suggested points of difference don’t really stack up against the ’nuff-nuff’ squad.
In reality the ’nuff-nuff’ squad is far smarter and likely to succeed than the alternative!
Deep down you recognise this Mont – don’t you – of course you do!
lozza63
19 Mar 10 at 4:02 am
Fair enough Monty, and I think you’re right that people are too sheeplike on the premium backs (although if you’re going the midprice structure and only taking 4 premium backs at most, Goddard, Enright and Hodge are far and away the easiest to justify… It’s those of us loading in the backs who get the chance to look at the merits of Hargrave, Duffield, Grimes, Bock, Goodwin etc
Theres not really many options for midpricers in the back other than the guys everyone is picking, so naturally all those teams have the same guys in those slots
Arky
19 Mar 10 at 9:03 am
Love the way you are making the term nuff-nuff part of fantasy landscape like keeper and cash cow.
Keep up the good work!
Resch
19 Mar 10 at 11:11 am
Thanks monty, brilliant post and the critics don’t understand the work you’re putting into this. Looking forward to the rest of the series.
FWIW, my backline has Hodge, Gilbee, Carrazzo, Maguire, Kennelly, and Nason all mentioned above. I had Enright last year and don’t see that he has much more upside; my theory is that you pick on price first. Goddard I’ve placed in the midfield for flexibility. My uniques are Johncock & McPhee who are all upside, and the ninth is currently Polak, but I’ll probably ditch that risk before Thursday.
Rourke
19 Mar 10 at 12:05 pm
Maybe the problem is that sites like this are too quick to rate players as either being “locks” or write-offs.
Suggesting that someone would be a “nuff-nuff” if they do or don’t select a particular player is more likely to create conformity to standardised choices than it is to diversify it. Not that I want to come across as being critical, but I often feel that blog posts and comments on them come across as being critical of those who have different opinions on the prospects of various players. Well, what do you expect as a result, then?
This site has a lot of good information on it and a lot of consideration put into it by the people who run it and contribute to it. But if you are going to have a site that offers advice and critique, then the obvious side effect is that people will take this advise and that there will be a greater consensus in the players being picked.
TheBaron
19 Mar 10 at 12:53 pm
Taking advice from a guy who finishes 10000th every year…not a good idea. m0nty defines the term nuff nuff
montyhom
19 Mar 10 at 1:41 pm
I have always tried to offer a wide array of selections and criticised the most popular players, TheBaron. I give advice with the open admission that I am biased: I have a dislike for West Coast and Essendon while I tend to overrate Hawks and Dockers, people know this.
I don’t think you’ll find too many other sites with such strong stances against popular players like Waters and Naitanui, plus talking up lesser-known players like Greenwood and Broadbent. If you follow all my advice you won’t have a BigFooty team, and vice versa if you are a BF follower.
m0nty
19 Mar 10 at 2:03 pm
Yeah I don’t disagree with that, Monty. I think you do offer a great variety of analysis of a wide range of players. Perhaps it might just be what I perceive to be an overuse comments like “all the nuff-nuffs have this player”, “all the flogs have him” or “you can leave out Ablett/Riewoldt/Pavlich/Hodge/Sandilands, but don’t think you’ll have a chance of winning” (and the like). I’m not limiting my observation to your comments or site here either, Monty. I think it’s a trend across a number of sites that discuss DT and SC. I think comments like this only serve to make less experienced/expert SC/DT players choose uniformly, rather than more uniquely.
You might disagree with me on this point, which is fair enough, but just thought I’d offer up an opinion about why I think there seems to be a fair degree of uniformity amongst some teams. Once again, I’m not limiting my observation to just your site, but more of an observation of sites like this as a whole.
For what it’s worth, I find the advice here very useful – I hope I’m not straying into too much uniformity in applying it though!
TheBaron
19 Mar 10 at 2:25 pm
You make some interesting points monty, I agree that it would be a stretch to expect any of them to become keepers but how is that any different to waters, hunt, kenelly and malceski? I don’t think any of them are any more likely to become keepers (malceski si about as likely as hall, tippett or gray perhaps) is why not go for the forward mid-prices where there are more options and guys like Ballantyne and Warren who could potentially make more money than a kenelly averaging 65.
I should also say that I am pursuing a mid-price strategy so the lack of keepers is not a concern for me which does bias me somewhat but either way I think the forwards provide better options than the backs for mid-prices even if none of them will be premiums.
Great post though, really getting some intelligent conversation going.
DT=Life
19 Mar 10 at 2:49 pm
And incidentally I’m against picking Goddard because I think the only reason to go for a ‘rolled-gold’ premium who is more likely to go down in price than up is if you really need the captaincy option and there is no alternative. Now goddard isn’t necessary for captaincy and I think he’s more likely to go down than up so why not picks premiums with a bit of upside (like enright, carazzo, hodge, shas or grimes even) and wait for goddard to come down.
People who say ‘but your missing out on that extra 10 points while you don’t have him’ should realise that this isn’t the case as the extra money will be spent elsewhere on a player who is priced 10 points higher. There is never any justification for picking an overpriced player unless you need a captain or you absolutely must for structural reasons. For this reason I think goddard is actually the least defensible of those picks.
DT=Life
19 Mar 10 at 3:15 pm
Wait, so I’m insulting people by calling them nuff-nuffs if they pick a certain player, yet somehow that’s an argument that I’m encouraging the picking of that player? I don’t get it.
I must admit, though, that the point someone made earlier about contradicting myself is accurate. I spent a lot of time in those Rate My Team threads berating people for picking different players, yet now I’m attacking the players I was spruiking in those threads. I guess the reason is that I’ve realised after looking at the teams in the v2 RMT posts that teams are too samey now. I probably shouldn’t have spent all that energy in the v1 threads making people conform. Mea culpa.
m0nty
19 Mar 10 at 3:24 pm
Monty, I don’t recall saying that you were “insulting” anyone by making the comments. That’s not my point at all, nor was I limiting my comments to just this one blog post or yours (nor just this site). As I said in my previous replies, if respected sites like this are going to talk players up (and others down) and imply that people would be foolish to leave them out (or put them in), then you can expect that a lot of people will most likely take the advice, which will create less variety in selections. The same goes for the rating of teams, which no doubt encourages people to choose some players in preference to others on the virtue of someone else’s opinion, as opposed to the uniqueness of selection of the individual. Do you get my point?
Anyway, if you don’t appreciate my feedback, then I’m happy to leave it, but just thought I’d add my thoughts to why the “phenomenon” of similar selections may be occurring.
TheBaron
19 Mar 10 at 4:14 pm
Monty i too have read 100s of RMT posts and yes with the generosity of advice given by you and others most teams are now somewhat the same.
Good luck to all, happy days are only a few sleeps away.
koray
19 Mar 10 at 4:17 pm
I’m not saying by any means that I don’t appreciate your feedback, TheBaron. Keep it coming.
As I said earlier, the conformity of teams changed a lot once the NAB started. I don’t know if you can blame me or DT Talk or the Freako, or just the fact that we get exposed form in the NAB and people are following the numbers. You will be able to point to just about every player in this feature and see NAB numbers supporting their popularity, so maybe the fantasy media have very little to do with it.
Having said that, I think next season I will de-emphasise features like RMT and Structure, due to the conformity they do impose.
m0nty
19 Mar 10 at 4:33 pm
I like the point that Monty is driving home about being unique which can be viewed as an extension of going with your gut instinct.
In my opinion getting the right starting squad, boring or not, is only half the battle. The other half is trading correctly and this is the most important half.
You could have the most boring squad, that scores an average amount and trade properly to make it an awesome side. On the other side of coin, you could have the most unique squad that scores above the average and screw it up with crappy trading.
In short regardless of how boring, unique or weird your initial squad might be, trading is still the most important thing.
mdon11
19 Mar 10 at 4:50 pm
m0nty your getting hit hard.
Master Q
19 Mar 10 at 5:04 pm
Monty it’s probably a bit much to think your advice weighs particularly heavily on the mind of a serious dt-er.
I read your stuff because the articles are generally well written and thoughtful. Anyone who changes their mind or structures their team based upon what you or anyone else has written, rather than considering it as a drop in the ocean of information out there, is of no real concern.
Unfortunately, the more information that is readily available regarding fantasy football, the more that teams are going to be relatively similar.
Just make sure you keep my smokies Darren Millane and Gary Dhurrkay quiet!
Superfist
19 Mar 10 at 5:27 pm
just remember people the winners of both competitions last year didnt go for unique picks
they won it because they traded imaculetly
of course having the best possible starting team makes a huge difference
jarrad_
19 Mar 10 at 5:39 pm
Jarrad hits the nail on the head. Regardless of how your initial squad (unique/ho-hum) is, if you trade like a spaz. You will have a car-wreck of a team.
mdon11
19 Mar 10 at 6:16 pm
My approach is “no risk”. For example Malceski = risk so not not in. I don’t know if that right but that how I pick my team – unique or not.
buddyforpm
19 Mar 10 at 6:19 pm
and…….My team is named after buddy but I can’t pick him because of the “risk” of suspension, and poor DT scores when hawks play bad. Plus the umpires hate him.
buddyforpm
19 Mar 10 at 6:23 pm
people seem to be forgetting whos website this is…as Denny Crane would say “name on the door”
Who give a stuff if he uses odd phrases, calls people nuffs nuffs etc etc, he can do what he wants, fact is its the best DT site, shitloads of people use it, wonder why?
cheez79
19 Mar 10 at 6:42 pm
I dunno if mentioned, but i’d recommend players like Kelly and Harbrow down back.
I personally prefer Kelly over Enright and Harbrow will become a keeper as my 5th back.
I have Waters on my bench as well, perhaps you could suggest that?
nameless
19 Mar 10 at 6:56 pm
Not bad work Monty. Hodge will star and be 100 weekly.Goddard a must with Fisher out 4-6 weeks he will get so much ball.
farqup
19 Mar 10 at 7:08 pm
Great work Monty with post like this you may even break into the top 25000 this year
jusso
19 Mar 10 at 7:18 pm
Cheez79, Monty can indeed to what he wants. No-one is suggesting otherwise.
But to respond to the contention of so many teams having the same picks, is it any wonder why, when there are so many sites that seem to be doing “rate my team” and “x vs. y” type things to death? Did YOU ever wonder why?
TheBaron
19 Mar 10 at 7:45 pm
who gives a s$%# about similar teams,if people wanna jump on the band wagon and get some tips from these type of websites so what!! just focus on your team and pick the players that u want. just enjoy thats what fantasy football is all about,people obviously take it 2 serious.
grass73
19 Mar 10 at 8:55 pm
People are fundamentally insecure, we all ask people to rate our teams even though we probably don’t agree with ‘em. Unless you’re a newbie to DT and want to get told your big mistakes, or you’re trying to get information on players from other clubs you don’t know much about (like finding out which players got substituted in NAB challenge, for example… 50 in a half and 50 in a full game are pretty different!), what do you really think you’ll get?
Monty’s blog articles, like the stuff from the DT Talk boys, gets people thinking even when you don’t agree with it or think it’s dumb. I know that when I looked over my team this evening and made some changes, one of the results was Heath Shaw out and Hargrave in (starting backline is now Goddard-Hargrave-Enright-Grimes-Bock-Hodge-Waters, so yeah, not exactly listening to Monty on structure am I? But after being stranded with the likes of Harding and Firrito and Mundy in my backs all last year, I am totally over mid-price back strategies).
Arky
19 Mar 10 at 9:14 pm
Hi Everyone
After reading all the posts on this subject, only 2 of them make any sense. The post from mdon11 and jarrad. At the end of the day who cares who everyone else picks to begin with. Who cares if all teams are similar and have no uniques. That is all irrelevant!
What matters {which is the most important aspect of DT or SC}is WHEN to trade and who you trade in your team. You need to know when your rookies or mid pricers have reached their max price then trade them out straight away. This is critical and crucial.
I guarantee if I had the exact same starting team as some other people, by the end of the season I will come out in front due to my trading technique.
I play SC because I think DT is for beginners. Every possession a player gets in DT you get points. I feel you need more thought in constructing a SC team due to the points system.
I am going more the mid priced option because for example, if I have mark mc veigh or masten or someone else in this price range and they increase in value I have a better opportunity to buy ablett or another premium midfielder that has decreased in value.
If i start my midfield with 3 or 4 rookies the range from their starting price to the premiums price is just too big.
Thats my 2 cents. I know there will be people who will disagree and criticise what i wrote but I am intitled to my opinion.
good luck everyone
carpsi
19 Mar 10 at 9:52 pm
The game mechanics of SC and DT are exactly the same. Teams selected the same, price movements the same, trading the same, captains the same. The only difference is that some players score higher in one or the other- even then, player scores in SC are as consistent in SC as in DT.
Do SC scores get closer to recognising a players worth than DT scores? A bit. But for us out here, the games are exactly the same, there’s not a single way that SC requires more skill or less skill than DT
Arky
19 Mar 10 at 11:03 pm
[...] backs post in this new series caused a firestorm of comments about conformity and the messages that fantasy [...]
Bogan princes: consensus Dream Team midfielders
20 Mar 10 at 3:16 am
Monty, I don’t agree with all you say, but in criticising your strategies etc I have to question my own. That is NEVER a bad thing. Well done and keep posting.
To add to the Goddard debate, I have to wonder whether his fanboys (of which I may be 1 by lockout) are just chasing last year’s form. If you did this last year you would have chosen as the top 4 backs:
Hodge 96.4 down to 83.5 last year
Carazzo 93.9 down to 85.1
Mackie 91.2 down to 83.1
Fisher 90 down to 85
That’s a lot of cash to burn!
Keep writing Monty. I enjoy your posts even (and perhaps more) when I disagree with them.
tom37
20 Mar 10 at 1:06 pm
Monty thanks for your posts. I’m a Supercoach man myself but let’s face it – the players we pick come from the same pool and they have the same injuries and game time no matter the competition.
Your point about the Swans backs sharing the points unevenly is a good one. Maybe if anyone includes these players they could take three of them – the averages would work out okay that way. If anyone wanted to take Shaw they could consider Rhys instead – half his games in SC last year were 90 and he had very few bad games (one stinker from memory). For mine, I’d just as soon take Heath because over the year his average is fine and there’s always the chance he’ll have one of his big games in a week that takes you close to winning it. A player like his brother with more even averages won’t do that for you.
As always there are a few smokies in this year, but you have to have the courage of your convictions to consider some of them. For example, Mark Nicoski has done me no favours in the past but he’s a newly designated half forward flanker who has the faith of his coach and above average skills. He may slot into his position nicely near after familiarising himself in some low scoring pre-season games. At his best he’s an 85-90 (Supercoach) points player.
Nathan Brown was playing hurt last year; I think as a third year player with a good physique, no fear and a rock of Gibraltar full back next to him, he can take advantage of the improving Collingwood back six with more possessions and some contested marks.
There are more of course and these guys have risks attached but I believe the backs offer a wider choice than a lot of fantasy coaches think.
As for the obvious cheapies, it’s entirely possible that one or even two of Kennealy, Malcevski, Ladson, Hunt, MacGuire, O’Brien and Waters will return averages high enough to lock them in for the season. I’d be perfectly happy with the scores they’re capable of generating at their best in sixth and seventh spot. I’d be concerned about Taidgh’s knee, Rick’s fitness, Matt’s place (as the Brisbane hierarchy see it) in the best 22 and Beau’s capacity as an honest and hard player to generate consistently high points, but I doubt all of these players will need to be traded.
The beauty of it is that you can easily take five of them and let the year decide the outcome for you – plan for the worst and hope for the best
Anyway, just some thoughts. I’ll keep my gems to myself for now. I’m sure everyone understands
One final point – it doesn’t matter how many ’nuff nuffs’ choose popuklar oplayers. There are so many of them to spread across 30 positions that it’s almost impossible to end up with the same squad as anyone else.
Good luck all.
Sleepwalk
sleepwalk
20 Mar 10 at 4:16 pm
Should read “half his games in SC last year were 90 (eight 100 )”
sleepwalk
20 Mar 10 at 4:18 pm
Hmmm – I see the blog doesn’t accept plus symbols
sleepwalk
20 Mar 10 at 4:21 pm
I think when a player that your dodgy on for fitness reasons plays nab cup and challenge games and scores well is then a good indication of wether there worth having or not,and therefore freakos information is good.Maybe i have misunderstood what you wrote monty
FLOPITOUT1
21 Mar 10 at 1:23 pm
[...] continues the consensus series started with the backs and midfielders. The early controversy about vanilla-ising the fantasy flavours seems to have died [...]
Dreaded lock: Consensus Dream Team rucks
22 Mar 10 at 2:04 am
[...] is the final in the consensus series, which has comprised backs, midfielders and rucks. This is probably the easiest one to do because the choices are so [...]
Chance frankly: Consensus Dream Team forwards
22 Mar 10 at 4:04 am
Monty,
Harry O’ or Heath Shaw? I know harry has done quite well in pre-season games this year, not only NAB cup.. What’s your opinion?
skspies
22 Mar 10 at 9:43 am
^^^Being my first year following this site..I am trying to get used to your quirky annotations Monty. Maybe a ‘Monty glossary of terms’ would be emailed my lol.
MissPies
22 Mar 10 at 2:05 pm
Great blog Monty, enjoying going through all your workings…
In light of reading the above discussion… thinking about downgrading Enright – (currently – Goddard, Enright, Hargrave, Hodge, Harry O, Waters, Maguire)
As a possible replacement, thinking one of Mackie, Doughty for differential…
Any particular way I should be leaning towards out of Mackie or Doughty?
Cheers
Najo_man86
24 Mar 10 at 2:45 pm