WXV Discussion

[GoLions]

Then we list restrictions
Maximum of 7 super premiums and 7 mid premiums per team

Will mean 1/3rd of you list averages more than 90 and will encourage depth being built in others to cover injuries.

Injured players maintain their average so teams do not benefit from injuries as is the case now.

You can't punish teams for trading well though. You should be allowed as many premium players as you want providing you're under tha cap. Just means you'd have zero depth, which is the risk you take.

[Holz]

Can't help but disagree with pretty much everything you bring up Holz.

Caps punish success, I agree

but so do every one of your suggestions Holz

they relatively do by only giving benefits to those who are poor.

there is a big difference between giving to the poor and taking from the rich directly and giving to the poor that's what im opposed to. A priority pick for NDT would move me from 18 to 19. thats nothing to me.

the cap forces me to sack my bench and trade in injured players at a premium. That does damage to me next year but more importantly hurts my future.

It will force teams to go the way of the dillos and in need of handouts in the future when it could have been avoided.

If a team cant improve with say pick 1 and 3 in the draft than they aren't running things properly.

You say that you are forced to cut bench players. That's not entirely true now, is it. The only player you were forced to delist of note was James Podsiadly, and he has done literally nothing this year.

You say that the top teams will go the way of the Dillos... also not true. Look at the youth of your list for goodness sake, you'll be dominating for years. Your old players; Dal Santo, Murphy and Mundy, the former two you deliberately traded in knowing that they won't last long and were for a premiership push. When they retire, you basically pay the price then don't you, for that short term fix. You got the benefit of the premium years they gave you, but when their careers end, the cost is you lose them for nothing (or trade them at a huge discount, like Buenos Aires). That's just the way it is, and shouldn't be brought up as a reason to critique the cap.

I don't see any evidence that the cap has had any positives on the comp but i can bring up quite a few negatives. Forced equalization methods like this aren't the way to go. Make sure the bottom teams have good support and lead by good coaches and than giving them advantages in the drafts is the way to go.

Are you serious? Look at 2013, and look now. The comp is WAY more even. My resurgence in 2013 and continued improvement was entirely due to the depth I acquired in 2013, then traded out to bring in fewer but better players. Beijing and Pacific are also on the same rout, they have acquired mountains of depth now (just look at their cap), with a lot of this acquirement of depth spear-headed by getting above the minimum cap. The minimum cap forces improvement via ensuring you have players playing every week! And usually one of these depth players that weren't very good at every club, break out into a best XV player. Hence, the cap forces you to bring in more AFL ready players, and increases the likelihood of receiving a surprise gem.

Even this year when New Delhi will fall drastically short of the cap, they'll HAVE to bring in more AFL regulars, which ensures they'll have XV players playing most weeks, something they haven't had this year.

And the maximum cap? It is incredibly easy to get under it. There is a plethora of options: 1) required delistings usually bring it under, but if it doesn't 2) trading often does 3) trade depth players for a decent draft pick.... these are beneficial moves. If anything, I would love to see the maximum cap brought down, but I won't.



This is something I heavily supported ossie bringing in at the time, and, like him, and putting the foot down. The cap isn't going anywhere... but is open for modifications.

ill right a long reply when I have the time and respect your opinion.

just a note, the cap helps Dublin but i think certain teams it hurts and thats evident with Dillos. my opinion os for the sake of the comp, the cap stops alot of teams challenging me so if it stays from that perspective I dont mind.

the rich almost always end up exploiting the situation, its the middle class who suffer. I would have over paid for Stanton last year but didn't because of the cap. I probably would have given up players like tom mcdonald, scharenberg, bruce example to Dillos for their old players last year.

[GoLions]

Not sure if the minimum cap is necessary. Teams that are struggling will want to get in youth (who haven't played a game), or getting rid of all their depth to try and improve their Best XV (probably going to lower their cap as well). The max is fine for now I guess, but I'd say the coaches we have right now are competent enough so that we don't need a min for the cap.

[ossie85]

Min cap is designed so that coaches don't sacrifice being able to play 15 every week for the sake of the future. 22000 isn't much

[Ringo]

Then we list restrictions
Maximum of 7 super premiums and 7 mid premiums per team

Will mean 1/3rd of you list averages more than 90 and will encourage depth being built in others to cover injuries.

Injured players maintain their average so teams do not benefit from injuries as is the case now.

You can't punish teams for trading well though. You should be allowed as many premium players as you want providing you're under tha cap. Just means you'd have zero depth, which is the risk you take.

And conversely I should not be penalised for trying to build depth with a team that will be competitive in 2 years which the cap is forcing me to as I have to play these developing players each week so it lifts my cap. Why as i said earlier should I have to trade these developing players to stay below a cap because no one wants the old players which I have to also play for balance.

Know not easy to resolve.

[Holz]

Then we list restrictions
Maximum of 7 super premiums and 7 mid premiums per team

Will mean 1/3rd of you list averages more than 90 and will encourage depth being built in others to cover injuries.

Injured players maintain their average so teams do not benefit from injuries as is the case now.

You can't punish teams for trading well though. You should be allowed as many premium players as you want providing you're under tha cap. Just means you'd have zero depth, which is the risk you take.

And conversely I should not be penalised for trying to build depth with a team that will be competitive in 2 years which the cap is forcing me to as I have to play these developing players each week so it lifts my cap. Why as i said earlier should I have to trade these developing players to stay below a cap because no one wants the old players which I have to also play for balance.

Know not easy to resolve.

no cap solved :)
I wont harp on about it though respect the admin's view. Ill always challenge it but whatever they go with ill follow along.

[Ricochet]

Then we list restrictions
Maximum of 7 super premiums and 7 mid premiums per team

Will mean 1/3rd of you list averages more than 90 and will encourage depth being built in others to cover injuries.

Injured players maintain their average so teams do not benefit from injuries as is the case now.

You can't punish teams for trading well though. You should be allowed as many premium players as you want providing you're under tha cap. Just means you'd have zero depth, which is the risk you take.

And conversely I should not be penalised for trying to build depth with a team that will be competitive in 2 years which the cap is forcing me to as I have to play these developing players each week so it lifts my cap. Why as i said earlier should I have to trade these developing players to stay below a cap because no one wants the old players which I have to also play for balance.

Know not easy to resolve.

You should be able to trade some of those developing players for draft picks to weaker teams under the cap though mate

[AaronKirk]

Teams do improve with pick 1 and 3, but ultimately teams improve more drastically through trading. With different coaches rating different players/picks, it's always gonna be hit and miss. It's really difficult to see the improvement of a team through the draft til further down the track. I don't think we need any changes through this season and offseason. It seems like we are gonna have a stable base of coaches and it gives everyone an opportunity to decide what they are gonna do with their lists. If we still have problems next season, then that could be the time to make a decision, but not yet.

Great points ML

Ruck issues have mostly been bad luck, except for Buenos Aires who traded them all out

Don't talk about rucks... I convinced myself that trading in Blicavs was going to be a masterstroke and then got convinced that trading him out was a good idea... how much is his PPG slaughtering Pyke by?

Trade 4
New York Give: Allen Christensen + Pick 26
Mexico City Give: Mark Blicavs + Jarrad Waite + Jed Adcock + Pick 73

The above would in theory be a win slightly to us.

Trade 14
New York give: Mark Blicavs and Darcy Lang
Cape Town give: Nathan Vardy and Jamie Bennell

How the heck did I agree to that  ::)

[Memphistopheles]

In my opinion the cap is what makes World XVs the best XVs competition.

It's another added element of strategy/intrigue and I'm all for more of this. I think in the long run it will help even out the competition which is where we are getting towards now.

Having a minimum cap is essential as well even though it may hurt some 'rebuilding' teams. Look at some of the other XV competitions without the cap and you can see several teams who are really struggling due going all out youth.

That makes for some pretty boring years for those teams (two of my teams come to mind - Taiwan and Staines). Those sides will be competitive in a few seasons once the kids develop but for now it's essentially just a free win when you come up against them.

The cap also allows for unlimited trading (because of the restrictions of going over/under the cap) which I love. It does put a bit of an unhealthy emphasis/price on injured players in the off-season though but, I'm not sure we can do anything about that.

Also for those of you interested in a ruck we could perhaps put Billy Longer on the trade table in the offseason.

Longer was recruited as a back up ruck to Martin but, then Blicavs has come on (and boy how has he come on) so Longer has become a tradeable asset. He's first choice as well at the Saints it seems

Longer is also an example of paying a good price to secure a ruck though.

At the time we gave up a decent midfielder and our first and second round draft picks to secure Longer and a young, unproven forward and a fourth round pick. That's a pretty hefty price to pay to get a guy who at the time wasn't even a guaranteed #1 ruck.

Cape Town give: Cameron Guthrie + NAT #9 (Liam Duggan) + NAT #34 (Matthew Goodyear)
Pacific give: Billy Longer + Cameron McCarthy + NAT #59 (We ended upgrading this to Nat 57 = Jaden McGrath)

If you look at the trade now it seems like we didn't pay as much and got a reasonable deal but, that's more due to McCarthy's development who was previously an unproven forward.

Long term I have my doubts if we'll win the deal as Duggan looks a gun and Guthrie could be too if he stops tagging but Longer is a first choice ruck, McCarthy looks a hidden gem and McGrath showed some good signs in the games he played earlier this year.

PS - We also picked up Peter Wright in the draft because of the ruck shortages. We know he's going to have no impact for us for the next few seasons but, in the long term he'll either become a first choice player or have a lot of currency because of the lack of ruck options around the place.

[Toga]

As a team that's experienced being both below the cap, and (looking like) being over it at the end of this season, I personally don't see a problem with it. It forced us to bring in much better depth, which has been very handy so far this year, and means that we haven't completely sacrificed the now for the future.

Also Ringo, I don't want to see the rookie list scrapped, adds a bit more strategy and I really like it!

[Memphistopheles]

Teams do improve with pick 1 and 3, but ultimately teams improve more drastically through trading. With different coaches rating different players/picks, it's always gonna be hit and miss. It's really difficult to see the improvement of a team through the draft til further down the track. I don't think we need any changes through this season and offseason. It seems like we are gonna have a stable base of coaches and it gives everyone an opportunity to decide what they are gonna do with their lists. If we still have problems next season, then that could be the time to make a decision, but not yet.

Great points ML

Ruck issues have mostly been bad luck, except for Buenos Aires who traded them all out

Don't talk about rucks... I convinced myself that trading in Blicavs was going to be a masterstroke and then got convinced that trading him out was a good idea... how much is his PPG slaughtering Pyke by?

Trade 4
New York Give: Allen Christensen + Pick 26
Mexico City Give: Mark Blicavs + Jarrad Waite + Jed Adcock + Pick 73

The above would in theory be a win slightly to us.

Trade 14
New York give: Mark Blicavs and Darcy Lang
Cape Town give: Nathan Vardy and Jamie Bennell

How the heck did I agree to that  ::)

:D :D :D :D :D :D

This is turning in to the best trade I've been part of in an XV comp. Lang and Blicavs are killing it this year. To the point where I'd feel bad for New York ... until I remember that they beat us this week  >:(

[Nige]

As a team that's experienced being both below the cap, and (looking like) being over it at the end of this season, I personally don't see a problem with it. It forced us to bring in much better depth, which has been very handy so far this year, and means that we haven't completely sacrificed the now for the future.

Also Ringo, I don't want to see the rookie list scrapped, adds a bit more strategy and I really like it!

Conversely, as a team that has been over and is now on the opposite end where we're not too far above the minimum, I'm very happy the cap is in place. It works well and does the job it's in place to do. I honestly don't even think it needs modification.

For us, we weren't dramatically over the cap but we traded out more than we should have (hindsight is a wonderful thing), so it's not hard to get below and it's honestly not hard to get above. The problem really just lies in coaches not wanting to acquire depth because their lists are 'young' or are too attached to their lists or committed to a premiership push to cull some players.

[ossie85]

Loving the passion and discussion from everyone

[RaisyDaisy]

Trade 14
New York give: Mark Blicavs and Darcy Lang
Cape Town give: Nathan Vardy and Jamie Bennell

How the heck did I agree to that  ::)

LOL that didn't work out well for us!

[elephants]

Someone give us a playing defender for Warnock + Gorringe + Brooksby + Pierce :p