News Limited’s Super Coach competition looks to have locked in #1 spot in fantasy coaches’ hearts.
One of the big industry questions in Australian fantasy football this off season was whether the Super Coach competition’s victory over the official AFL Dream Team competition in 2008 would continue on into the future. The extenuating circumstance surrounding an unprecedented drop in Dream Team registrations, due to an extremely late opening of the competition, was most definitely not on the case this year, with the AFL pumping up the competition not only through its own Web site in just about every article, but also on radio SEN to an almost nauseating level, and even the odd television commercial as part of their contra agreement with the official broadcasters Seven and Ten. For its part, the Herald-Sun and all the other News Limited newspapers, united under a single Super Coach competition this year after being separated into smaller competitions for each city in previous years, was also producing plenty of fantasy content to support its product, including its new Little Black Book, Kevin Sheedy in a superhero suit, and a comprehensive two-page wrap just before the season started of hot fantasy players. All was in readiness for the start of the season to see which competition fantasy coaches liked more.
The results are in: Dream Team 216,437; Super Coach 281,652. News Limited wins in a landslide.
I have been tracking the registration numbers for the various competitions for a while now, so I can project this graph, based on estimates of how the round 22 registrations will look compared to round 1.
There are a number of points that can be drawn from this. First is that the AFL not having a major media partner – SEN, while strategically important for a large number of reasons, is nowhere near the top of the radio ratings – is hurting their product. SEN’s audience, judging from their advertising, is working men who have the radio on while they work on building sites or cars… not the sort of demographic to which fantasy footy appeals.
The other big point is that is is criminal that Fairfax have not re-entered the fantasy frame with their own product. Their readers have shown from their first foray into the market in the mid-90s that they are willing to play. Fairfax have 3AW, the AM ratings leader and top football calling station in the land, just sitting there ready to be used as part of a concerted marketing campaign. The Age is getting hammered by the Hun on all fronts, yet in this battle they have no soldiers at all.
But what about you guys, the fantasy coaches? I’ve read countless forum threads devoted to debating the merits of the two scoring systems. Is this inexorable rise to ascendancy by Super Coach an endorsement of the Champion Data ranking points as a fantasy staple – late-game swings and normalisation included – or are the external factors like DT’s failure last year more of a reason? Is it just because the readership of News Ltd newspapers is much larger than afl.com.au’s vistors and SEN’s listenership put together? Tell me why you think Super Coach has run down Dream Team in the comments.
delre
March 30, 2009 at 6:25 pm
basically the super coach is more popular because the AFL website is crap. anything to do with AFL and web sites is to be steered well clear of.
phreophile
March 30, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I agree. The layout of Supercoach is much better than Dreamteam.
Ropes
March 30, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Good to see.
SC is a far better competition in my eyes.
Far easier to read and the layouts are easier on the eye
Chad
March 30, 2009 at 6:36 pm
They each have their own advantages. I think DT suits the more mathematical, purely stat based where as super coach favours a truer representation of how well a player actually went. For the masses the super coach is probably the better system.
Nickelass
March 30, 2009 at 6:37 pm
I think Supercoach has the better scoring system, rewarding effective possessions, contested ball etc. The only area where Supercoach falls short is the inexplicable lack of live SC scores. Why the Herald-Sun don’t set up a live site is beyond me. I’d even pay an annual subscription to see live SC scores.
Brad
March 30, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Agree with everyones comments thus far, regarding the lay out and the fact that it easier on the eyes.
Apart from the general aesthetics, S/C sides are much harder to get right and you will be punished for for poor disposal efficiency amongst other things, long time dream teamers dont cope with the transition to s/c as well as supercoaches do in reverse.
One thing that is really pissing me off, is no live supercoach scores at the moment!!
If this fued with champion data continues, i can see the balance shifting back to dream team next year becuase fair dinkum fantasy coaches want the live scores during the games.
Monty is providing an awesome service by having the CORRECT s/c scores up not long after the conclusion of the game but for the HUN to not have the scores up until hours after the game has ended is an absolute disgrace!!
Homer Thompson
March 30, 2009 at 6:53 pm
I feel sad now..#^$# U Supercaosch. 🙁
ScorchMarks
March 30, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Completely agree DT website is like logging online with a 56k connection , and SC is the broadband equivalent ……. The only pathetic thing is not getting live SC scores while these douche bags fight for exclusivity ….. If they not careful they will lose all of us to a newer version !
Superfist
March 30, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I find these results surprising as I would have thought that dreamteam would appeal more to people who actually watch the game as there is no real subjectivity to the scoring – you can see your player get a mark and a kick and know they’ve got 6 points, whereas with supercoach you’re left wondering whether it was an effective kick etc… so you can only have a general idea while watching the game if your player is going well.
Awesomeness
March 30, 2009 at 7:09 pm
i know this is unrelated but can someone please tell me when heath shaw will be back?
Peter G
March 30, 2009 at 7:12 pm
I’m of two minds.
I agree that SuperCoach rewards better play, yet I feel that it doesn’t require an as intricate knowledge of the game. A good Supercoach team can be picked on form and a little bit of research. A good DT team takes a whole lot of research and overall thinking, particularly with the mid-rangers / emerging kids.
That being said, I started DT and understand each players scoring potential much more instinctively than SC.
love4thegame
March 30, 2009 at 7:14 pm
i dont like supercoach,
dt is alot better. it sticks to the basics
on statistics, supercoach is just annoying
ETOH
March 30, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Supercaoach care factor=0
asanque
March 30, 2009 at 7:38 pm
I like dreamteam more.
SC has far too many arbitrary stats and no clear mechanism for determining many of the points awarded.
The DT site whilst a pain to use, has also introduced the shields which is a nice touch.
I participate in both competitions and they are both fun, but I prefer dreamteam more as I know exactly what my players need to achieve (i.e. lots of the ball).
fryzie
March 30, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again, Super Coach is for people who read books, Dream Team is for people who wait for the movie to come out.
I play both, but do prefer the true interpretation of a players game in Super Coach. Any competition that encourages people to say “Chris Judd is a dud” does not reflect the great game in an adequate fashion.
Nick
March 30, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Supercoach is better but needs live scores!!!
grimlock
March 30, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Would it too naive to say that more people play SC because it offers higher scores?
Kyn
March 30, 2009 at 8:12 pm
When did u guys start dream teaming? I started in 06′ same year supercoach started
korza
March 30, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Bugger the AFL, bugger News ltd, bring back the THE AUSTRALIAN newspaper.
Now that fantasy coaching, is huge business amongst the media fraternity, every greedy pig wants it’s market share.
I, as an addicted fantasy coach, both D/T & S/C,say we should all flood both fraternaties with e-mails requesting that prize monies be increased.Believe me they are making millions from us sick addicts.
Focker
March 30, 2009 at 8:21 pm
AFL DT is better just for the simplicity of it. The more technical the scoring is, the less you will enjoy the watching the game whilst watching the DT players.
And no live stats as well for SC. Isnt this a sign that SC is over complicating things?
Prospector
March 30, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Agree with Korza, he must have a good haircut.
Ropes
March 30, 2009 at 8:40 pm
SC does need live scoring, agreed.
They must fix that soon or lose out to the basic game that is DT.
rohan
March 30, 2009 at 8:47 pm
supercoach is shittt
Ropes
March 30, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Yeah well said Rohan. lol
Dream Team 216,437; Super Coach 281,652
If SC is shit, DT must be worse than shit.
Homer Thompson
March 30, 2009 at 9:00 pm
only hacks play Supercoach.
DreamTeam are for the real wizards.
Ropes
March 30, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Not so sad anymore then Homer?
SC rules the roost on this occassion, suck it up princess
🙂
Huge Action
March 30, 2009 at 9:08 pm
as a former dt player I’ve got to say once to play SC there is no turning back. The scoring system reflects the true nature of the performance – just wish there were live scores. No offece dt users but DT is SC for dummies.
Muppet Executioner
March 30, 2009 at 9:15 pm
We in the SC world lack the tools that DT has like live scoring (though if the AFL calls that live scoring in R1, I’ll carry MIck Nolan down Arden St) – and we dont really have the widespread appeal of the DT, yet the marketing muscle of the Murdoch rags seems to have them in an unassailable spot. I’m in both and I’ve noticed in my public league, that the SC has a major spread in scores between top and bottom of eack league ladder. Though that may be more down to 1 thing.
Females.
It seems that there are less women on DT than SC. Whilst you could argue this is good due to a percentage opp, they just make the winning less enjoyable, due to them coaching like spastics and cooking up doughnuts like they’re feeding the entire LAPD. If they didnt have ……..
Muppet Executioner
March 30, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Hey Korza – who owns The Australian – is it News Corp?
Muppet Executioner
March 30, 2009 at 9:21 pm
What’s DT Premium?
zach
March 30, 2009 at 9:33 pm
supercoach sucks hairy nutsack
the dud
March 30, 2009 at 9:35 pm
dt to the day i die
XztatiK
March 30, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Flower off Ropes.
DT coaches are generally smarter than SC coaches. I get a good SC ranking without even trying.
Oh and does anyone have the figures for DT vs. SC in South Australia? I don’t know anyone here who plays SC and not DT. Not one.
nickyt
March 30, 2009 at 9:43 pm
dt 100% better. I am a smart person eg iq 135ish and supercaoch is just too confusing/ annoying. I enjoy the simplicity of the dt as posted by the dud. DT TILL THE DAY I DIE.
joey joe joe
March 30, 2009 at 9:50 pm
champion data is a far more accurate way of determining player skill and effectiveness and thats why i prefer SC. with SC selection you really have to choose carefully as to the effectiveness of every player.
with DT you basically pick players that see alot of the ball, regardless of if they possess the skill to do the right thing with the ball.
and besides, who doesnt love watching their players take a contested mark and then cheer when the following kick is effective 🙂
team rohan
March 30, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Wow, 65k is a big discrepancy. I would have thought the majority of people would make a team in both leagues. I would imagine a few people would join only one to make up the numbers for a friends league although the majority of those would not frequent the site all that often.
A move to the American style fantasy league, (if free and with greater options than premium dream team) would be fantastic.
korza
March 30, 2009 at 10:06 pm
@ Muppet as long as Murdoch and Demitriou, give us the punters,the ones who are attracting millions of dollars into this huge growth buisiness,who cares who owns the The Australian(it was a figure of speach).
I say 2 cars for D/T and thats just for starters……
Dave
March 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm
The main thing that people are saying here about SC is that the scoring is confusing, but that the scores more accurately reflect the quality of a players’ game.
That pretty much sums it up. If you spend a bit of time figuring out how it works, then you get access to a competition which is simply better in valuing the players. As an earlier poster wrote, when Judd is being called a dud, you know the scoring system is broken.
All the people criticizing SC are saying it is too confusing. At the end of the day, if you are easily confused, maybe DT is the way to go for you? I’m all for people understanding their limits and living within them. But for mine, I don’t know why you’d spend time on a competition (DT) when you know there is another(SC) that values players and their performances more accurately.
Read all this thread. You will not find somebody saying DT scores are a better judge of someone’s game. Telling much? They only say it’s too confusing… Mmm… I reckon those folk are just ‘easily confused’, if you know what I mean…
Disco (UK)
March 30, 2009 at 10:13 pm
The reason why DT has less registrations is because their rubbish website wasn’t working on the final day of team entry!!!
Why they bothered having all the graphics and the fancy Bigpond menu when the website is running like a dog is beyond me. And they knew it was coming.
The fact that you score more points in SC and a bigger salary cap gets more of the casual coaches on board. In that regard, DT seems dour relative to SC.
Brad
March 30, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Supercoach is the poo and its about time you DreamTeam coahes take a big whiff.
jeremy
March 30, 2009 at 10:17 pm
SC isnt complicated because you dont have to do any scoring yourself, all you have to know is that if the player uses the ball well, he scores well. Thats why duds who get alot of the ball, but turn it over score well in DT, but SH!T in supercoach.
Supercoach evens up the backline with the rest of the positions, and the only way a backman in DT scores well is if he plays in the centre. I started out with DT but realised that SC is more reflective of real life scoring.
love4thegame
March 30, 2009 at 10:20 pm
dt has been around twice as long
sc is just a wanna be rip off.
like a australian brand gettin ripped off by a chinese dealer and sold cheaper cause they have more money.
dt is the only way to go .
jack
March 30, 2009 at 10:28 pm
XztatiK
no one cares about south australia, SC is clearly the more profesional game, its layout, its scoring system and its marketablilty. The numbers speak for it self
Hibbo
March 30, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Both are good- they both have their pros and cons.
But IMO supercoach is harder because u actually need to look up players effectivness and how they get their marks(contested/off opposition). With dreamteam it is easy to pick players as it is just based on the basic stats- which has its upside as when u watch a game u know exactly how many points a player gets when they touch the footy. I play both and enjoy them equally…
Azz
March 30, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Supercoach is definately the better game. Rewards the players that go in for the ball (contested marks and possies), and not just the guys in the backline chipping it around to each other. Plus as others have said the DT site is far inferior to that of SC
lee
March 30, 2009 at 11:41 pm
dreamteam is way better than that supercoach crap. why do people even consider doing sc over dt. DT ALL THE WAY.
tom
March 30, 2009 at 11:44 pm
i agree with XztatiK noone i no does supercoach coz it is CRAPPPPPPPPP
Brad
March 30, 2009 at 11:47 pm
You d/t supporters have the lost the plot.
You cant argue with the numbers.
S/C is better in every way!!
cdrobert
March 31, 2009 at 12:00 am
Ive participated in dream team since 2003 and have stayed loyal to the concept.
In DT We Trust
Damen
March 31, 2009 at 12:19 am
Large generalisation but Dreamteam is for people who value stats above all else and who sit on the computer with their “Live updates” rather than watching the actual game. Supercoach is for AFL aficionados who wish to watch a game of football, cringe at clangers and not know whether something is classed as effective, ineffective or a clanger – but who understand that in the end their scores will be a reasonably accurate indication of how well the players actually played the game.