Starting a new thread for 2015 discussions.
Has any one got any info if Sportal will be running Fantasy this year? Have not responded to me as yet. Remember last year we did not find out till last minute.
It would appear the AFL is maintaining the existing substitute rule.
Can we now have some discussion on how we will implement the sub this year.
My thoughts are:
1) We have 4 emergencies one for each line. You can nominate an OOP emergency but must state on team lodgement which position covering and this will be assessed as half points.
After any emergencies that have been used for the round have been negated, the remaining emergency scores per line are assessed and if the emergency score is higher than the lowest score for that line emergency score will apply. In the event that emergencies score more than lowest score in more than one line, the line with the lowest score is the one to be used. Can only be used once. And any OOP player the half points are the points to be used in the calculation.
2) Nominate a sub each week and if the sub score is higher than the lowest score in the line the subs score is taken. Will not apply if the nominated sub is required to be used as emergency.
Please free to comment here and start winding up for 2015
Quote from: Ringo on February 06, 2015, 02:44:56 PM
After any emergencies that have been used for the round have been negated, the remaining emergency scores per line are assessed and if the emergency score is higher than the lowest score for that line emergency score will apply. In the event that emergencies score more than lowest score in more than one line, the line with the lowest score is the one to be used. Can only be used once. And any OOP player the half points are the points to be used in the calculation.
I don't really like this. Would prefer that if you put someone on the field, you get their score, unless using the sub rule (which I'm ok with). Think emergencies should only be used if you have a player out in that position.
I think just leave the rule as it was last season
Just to clarify GL no sub is nominated so in effect any line can be used as sub as per 1. Probably did not clarify that part.
For information of all existing sub rule
Rule 7.5 Use of subs/
Name one of the 4 emergencies as a sub. If the sub has not been used as an emergency replacement and scores higher than the lowest scoring player on the field then the subs score is taken. eg If Player x scores 45 and your nominated sub scores 80 then the subs score of 80 will replace Player X's score. Player x's score will still count as lowest score for HGA Purposes,
Note a player nominated OOP can not be the nominated subs.
Disadvantage of current rule as I see it is sub can replace any position on the field whereas in 1 trying to restrict to line players, Am happy either way if majority agree.
So trying to understand this, I'll use my team as an example:
Simpson, Harwood, Higgins, Hurn (Waters EMG)
Cotchin, Barlow, Prestia, Dal Santo (Rischitelli EMG)
Minson (Nicholls EMG)
Christensen, Lecras, Puopolo, Lynch (Mayne EMG)
Judd and Boyd as Utilities
So let's say Waters is my sub, if he scores more than Higgins, Waters replaces Higgins. Is that correct? Can any other emergencies replace other players if they scored more?
Also, does anything happen if Waters doesn't score more than my other backmen? Can other emergencies replace my other players then?
Just wanna make sure I understand all this haha
So using example to explain how 1 will work (On field players are the lowest scoring for each line)
Higgins 80 Waters 95
Prestia 85 Riska 102
Minson 65 Nicholls 72
Lecras 95 Mayne 101
In this example Nicholls 72 would replace Minsons 65 as 65 was the lowest score of those where subs can be used,
Using Proposed rule 2 as Waters is your nominated sub and not required as emergency his 95 will replace Higgins 80.
Know 1 sounds complicated but not really just trying to explain it is.
To answer the last question under proposed rules no however under existing rule yes.
Ohhhhhhhhhh ok, cheers Ringo :)
So option 1 basically is lowest scoring emg replaces lowest score on its respective line if it's higher? That's fine with me.
Quote from: Nige on February 06, 2015, 06:03:20 PM
So option 1 basically is lowest scoring emg replaces lowest score on its respective line if it's higher? That's fine with me.
But can only be used once.
Quote from: Ringo on February 06, 2015, 06:15:29 PM
Quote from: Nige on February 06, 2015, 06:03:20 PM
So option 1 basically is lowest scoring emg replaces lowest score on its respective line if it's higher? That's fine with me.
But can only be used once.
Yep. I reckon that's good.
I like option 1
I think I like how it was last year. A new system means I'll need to get my head around it all.
Petracca :'(
Just means he will be even more keen next year Memph!
flower you Kreuzer
I like option 1.
Last year was just exploited and created a bigger gap between bottom teams and top, as the top teams had a midfield premium as depth (and sub) and bottom teams had no one
Question: What happens if Waters retires tomorrow/this week? Do I get another rookie or something, or do I have to keep him all season?
Do west coast get to draft someone new?
Quote from: Ringo on February 06, 2015, 03:13:00 PM
Just to clarify GL no sub is nominated so in effect any line can be used as sub as per 1. Probably did not clarify that part.
For information of all existing sub rule
Rule 7.5 Use of subs/
Name one of the 4 emergencies as a sub. If the sub has not been used as an emergency replacement and scores higher than the lowest scoring player on the field then the subs score is taken. eg If Player x scores 45 and your nominated sub scores 80 then the subs score of 80 will replace Player X's score. Player x's score will still count as lowest score for HGA Purposes,
Note a player nominated OOP can not be the nominated subs.
Disadvantage of current rule as I see it is sub can replace any position on the field whereas in 1 trying to restrict to line players, Am happy either way if majority agree.
I'm in support of this rule.
Quote from: GoLions on February 19, 2015, 01:13:51 AM
Question: What happens if Waters retires tomorrow/this week? Do I get another rookie or something, or do I have to keep him all season?
Just put him on your rookie list
Quote from: LF on February 19, 2015, 07:47:42 AM
Quote from: GoLions on February 19, 2015, 01:13:51 AM
Question: What happens if Waters retires tomorrow/this week? Do I get another rookie or something, or do I have to keep him all season?
Just put him on your rookie list
I Waters retires prior to final list lodgement I will allow a pick from remaining players however if he retires after this date you will have to promote a rookie from your list and place Waters on the rookie list pending de-listing at seasons end.
Quote from: Ringo on February 19, 2015, 08:56:02 AM
Quote from: LF on February 19, 2015, 07:47:42 AM
Quote from: GoLions on February 19, 2015, 01:13:51 AM
Question: What happens if Waters retires tomorrow/this week? Do I get another rookie or something, or do I have to keep him all season?
Just put him on your rookie list
I Waters retires prior to final list lodgement I will allow a pick from remaining players however if he retires after this date you will have to promote a rookie from your list and place Waters on the rookie list pending de-listing at seasons end.
So I get another pick then?
Quote from: GoLions on February 19, 2015, 01:51:10 PM
Quote from: Ringo on February 19, 2015, 08:56:02 AM
Quote from: LF on February 19, 2015, 07:47:42 AM
Quote from: GoLions on February 19, 2015, 01:13:51 AM
Question: What happens if Waters retires tomorrow/this week? Do I get another rookie or something, or do I have to keep him all season?
Just put him on your rookie list
I Waters retires prior to final list lodgement I will allow a pick from remaining players however if he retires after this date you will have to promote a rookie from your list and place Waters on the rookie list pending de-listing at seasons end.
So I get another pick then?
Looks like I have to use words of one syllables for you GL so here goes>
If Waters elects to retire before 9th March you will get a pick if after that date no pick.
Waters officially announced it today Ringo
Cool.
Quote from: GoLions on February 19, 2015, 04:35:00 PM
Cool.
Just hold onto him in case he comes out of retirement and delist him at the end of the year if he doesn't, like what we did with Garlett last season.
GL you need to decide whether keeping Waters or wanting a pick let me know.
On a more important note has any one heard anything from Sportal as to whether they are continuing the competition. They have not responded to any of my emails so just wondering if any one else has any info.
Quote from: Ringo on February 26, 2015, 03:42:35 PM
On a more important note has any one heard anything from Sportal as to whether they are continuing the competition. They have not responded to any of my emails so just wondering if any one else has any info.
Nope heard nothing.
I went onto the site the other day but still nothing for this year.
Can't remember when it ended up opening last year.
Was very late LF got ulcers whether we were having a comp or not hence starting to worry this year, From Memopry was only a month before actual comp started.
Still think the best way to go if Sportal dont run it is. DT + SC scores divided by 2.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on February 28, 2015, 01:10:33 PM
Still think the best way to go if Sportal dont run it is. DT + SC scores divided by 2.
Not a bad idea.
That's gonna have a pretty interesting impact on the value of some players.
Just a reminder that team lists in priority order are required by Monday night 9th March.
To be lodged in this thread
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,99640.0.html
has Sportal even opened yet?
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on March 09, 2015, 08:41:27 PM
has Sportal even opened yet?
I'm pretty worried, because looking at their Twitter alone, there's not even footy related content. They've even got NRL stuff, but no AFL thing.
The 2014 Sportal AFL Fantasy comp is still up, they haven't even updated it to 2015, not promising.
I know SR and nrich have tweeted them, but neither have had responses as far as I know.
@SportalAU in there an AFL comp this year? you have ignored several of my friends tweets asking so please answer
just sent this lol
So far I have sent 7 emails and tweets to Sportal with no response.
doesn't look like it will be running surely would be up by now if it was
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on March 13, 2015, 06:00:36 PM
doesn't look like it will be running surely would be up by now if it was
Yep. Time to activate the contingency plan.
option i see are
SC
DT/AF
SC + DT/AF divided by 2 plot twist or not divided by 2
ultimate footy custom scoring
SC+DT/2 works best imo.
i just wonder if Ringo can do that formula in his spreadsheets or not
It would literally be double the work for ringo though. I recorded every SC score in 2013 and it does take time.
Seeing as I'll be doing it for worlds though this year, I could probably lend a hand if need be.
If someone remember the exact point scoring system we used for sportal scoring, I could potential find a solution. Cheers
Quote from: Spite on March 13, 2015, 06:48:29 PM
If someone remember the exact point scoring system we used for sportal scoring, I could potential find a solution. Cheers
The website is still up, I should be able to grab a screenshot.
Thanks Guys for starting this thread for contingincies.
Ultimate Footy even with custom scoring does not cut it the way I would like.
Do not want another comp directly mimicking either SC or DT/AF
I can set up my spreadsheets to accommodate a division by 2 or other factor. Will be little extra work but for the sake of the competition will have to be done.
My thoughts are and feel free to discuss AF/DT is the weaker scoring system of all so I think to be fair we should use a factor. I am suggesting divide by 1.8 as a way of equalising but am happy to see further discussions.
(http://i.imgur.com/QfXBnt9.png)
Super Coach Scoring
Stat Description Points Awarded/Deducted
Effective kick 4 Points
Ineffective kick 0 Points
Clanger kick -4 Points
Effective Handball 1.5 Points
Ineffective handball 0 Points
Handball clanger -4 Points
Handball receive 1.5 Point
Hardball get 4.5 Points
Loose-ball get 4.5 Points
Goal 8 Points
Behind 1 Point
Mark uncontested (maintaining possession) 2 Points
Mark contested (maintaining possession) 6 Points
Mark uncontested (from opposition) 4 Points
Mark contested (from opposition) 8 Points
Tackles 4 Points
Free kick for 4 Points
Free kick against -4 Points
Hitout to Advantage 5 Points
Gather from Hitout 2 Points
AF/DT Scoring
Stat description Points awarded/deducted
Kick 3 Points
Handball 2 Points
Mark 3 Points
Tackle 4 Points
Free Kick For 1 Point
Free Kick Against -3 Points
Hitout 1 Point
Goal 6 Points
Behind 1 Point
So doing some analysis i think division by a factor of 2.3 is appropriate. Especially with the HO to advantage in SC I used 20 H/O for the game and only 6 to advantage and the difference in scoring in F.O of SC is 10 and we know that a good ruckman will no doubt exceed the 6.
Comments welcome from any one else who has done some comparisons.
Will be sending out a vote on a number of issues later tonight. Will include this option but will say factor to be determined,
Just keep it simple. SC + DT divide by 2.
Why divide by 2.3?
Ineffective or clanger possies are awarded points in DT/AF, but are either 0 or negative points in SC. Even an effective handball is worth more in the DT scoring system. It'd be terribly annoying to work out what factor to use here, so
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on March 15, 2015, 06:50:23 PM
Just keep it simple. SC + DT divide by 2.
I'd be good for 2.3, ringo does have a point about trying to make this competition more unique in terms of scoring.
tbh, I sorta think the difference between having (AF + SC/2) and pure SC in terms of points, would be so little that the extra work wouldn't really be worth it.
I think having a factor makes the extra work worth it, and little more unique IMO.
Am happy with that if most agree and I have done a fair amount of analysis this afternoon based on a number of stats. - The only real discrepancy will be H/o to advantage in SC as I said above and that was the basic reason for the 2.3 when I did a lot of stats as SC scores were advanced quite a bit with new scoring, The factor of 2.3 brought it back to basic Sportal scoring.
SC makes us Worlds 2.0, DT makes us Euros 2.0.
SC+DT/2 is best as JB/Dave have said. None of this funky, complicated factor shower. Having the scoring system mentioned is unique enough, no other comp uses it.
I'd like to point out that this stage that Sportal didn't open it's game until very late last year because they changed to a Matchday format.
So there was no need for players to log in and set a team too early.
In fact last year we had this same debate and the game opened only a week or two before the season started.
We are only 17 days out Memph so just getting a contingency in case they do not. It was three weeks before last year so my ulcer rate went up a bit when still nothing. Still hoping that they come to the party though.
yeah better to have a plan now instead of trying to do it in a week or 2
Just a slightly different question.
If we go the combined DT/SC route are all the player positions the same across both comps? If not which comp are we going to base the player positions on?
Quote from: SydneyRox on March 17, 2015, 12:25:43 PM
Just a slightly different question.
If we go the combined DT/SC route are all the player positions the same across both comps? If not which comp are we going to base the player positions on?
Sportal was based on Virtual Sports and they're the ones behind DT and SC, I assume and hope we're stick with that.
All XVs use Virtual Sports positions as far as I know.
Yeah, I wasnt sure if they were all the same?
So its only AF and UF that are different and change through the year.
So I finally got an answer to the question I posted on their Facebook page.
They directed me to the RDT comp so it doesn't look good.
I however said I know about that comp and want to know about their weekly comp.
Hopefully they don't take long to answer that question.
I also received this reply at last.
Hi All,
We will not be running NRL or AFL fantasy this season, but head to VIRTUAL SPORTS where they have great fantasy comps running.
So nothing really exciting there so we may have to continue working on the alternate with voting underway.
Disappointing :(
Whilst it is disappointing we still have options.
Just had a look at Ultimate Footy again.
Can customize as follows:
KI Kicks
HB Handballs
MA Marks
HO Hitouts
TK Tackles
FF Free Kicks For
FA Free Kicks Against
FD Free Kick Differential
GL Goals
BH Behinds
D Disposals Upgrade to Stats PLUS to access this stat category.
ED Effective Disposals Upgrade to Stats PLUS to access this stat category.
IED Ineffective Disposals Upgrade to Stats PLUS to access this stat category.
CP Contested Possessions Upgrade to Stats PLUS to access this stat category.
R50 Rebound 50s Upgrade to Stats PLUS to access this stat category.
SP Spoils Upgrade to Stats PLUS to access this stat category.
CL Clearances Upgrade to Stats PLUS to access this stat category.
Still does not meet the current scoring completely. Stats plus is a new add on this year and can be purchased for $29.95. Scoring it does not allow for is clangers - 5 and Uncontested possessions.
If you think it is worth going with this including the additional Stats comment in this thread, Happy to purchase if we in agreement.
Will be a draft comp as well.
If anyone has used Ultimate Footy before are the stats available for all players or only for players in your team.
Something to consider instead of dividing SC and DT by a factor.
Will also need to agree on the scoring as well.
Quote from: GoLions on March 15, 2015, 06:56:21 PM
Why divide by 2.3?
Ineffective or clanger possies are awarded points in DT/AF, but are either 0 or negative points in SC. Even an effective handball is worth more in the DT scoring system. It'd be terribly annoying to work out what factor to use here, so
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on March 15, 2015, 06:50:23 PM
Just keep it simple. SC + DT divide by 2.
Quote from: Ringo on March 17, 2015, 03:54:31 PM
Whilst it is disappointing we still have options.
Just had a look at Ultimate Footy again.
Can customize as follows:
KI Kicks
HB Handballs
MA Marks
HO Hitouts
TK Tackles
FF Free Kicks For
FA Free Kicks Against
FD Free Kick Differential
GL Goals
BH Behinds
D Disposals Upgrade to Stats PLUS to access this stat category.
ED Effective Disposals Upgrade to Stats PLUS to access this stat category.
IED Ineffective Disposals Upgrade to Stats PLUS to access this stat category.
CP Contested Possessions Upgrade to Stats PLUS to access this stat category.
R50 Rebound 50s Upgrade to Stats PLUS to access this stat category.
SP Spoils Upgrade to Stats PLUS to access this stat category.
CL Clearances Upgrade to Stats PLUS to access this stat category.
Still does not meet the current scoring completely. Stats plus is a new add on this year and can be purchased for $29.95. Scoring it does not allow for is clangers - 5 and Uncontested possessions.
If you think it is worth going with this including the additional Stats comment in this thread, Happy to purchase if we in agreement.
Will be a draft comp as well.
If anyone has used Ultimate Footy before are the stats available for all players or only for players in your team.
Something to consider instead of dividing SC and DT by a factor.
Will also need to agree on the scoring as well.
Hey Ringo,
Couple of things here.
If you set up a league with the scoring then you can see every player in the AFL in that UF league (by means of the Free Agent Pool if they are not in a team) with the scores under the custom system you set up. If we used it we'd need people to transpose the statistics across to this league (check results) as I imagine it would be difficult getting everyone here to join the league.
Secondly if you want you can manually assign the amount of players get per statistic. So if the standard points don't match up to Sportal we can change that. Like the handballs being 2 in RDT and 1 in Sportal
I actually think this could be a good option to have a league which has different scoring to the other XV competitions.
We could try match as many of the Sportal scoring categories with Ultimate Footy ones. Like this perhaps.
Sportal scoring Ultimate Footy ScoringKick = Kick
Handball = Handball
Contested Poss = Contested Poss
AND Free Kick For
Uncontested Poss = Effective Disposals
Tackle = Tackle
Hitout = Hitout
Clanger = Ineffective Disposal
AND Free Kick Against
Goal = Goal
Point = Point
We can probably leave out Rebound 50s and Spoils.
were we not voting on this?
have u got results?
Still 4 coaches to vote SR )ne vote is clear cut atm but the other 2 are not so not.
Vast majority are in favour of SC + DT/AF divided by a factor to be determined.
I only put the above out after getting an email about Ultimate Footy with the new Sports Plus options and asked for comments whether we could use this with a customised scoring system to align with Sportal given that now with Sports Plus we have more stats that we can customise.
Quote from: Ringo on March 18, 2015, 09:39:06 AM
Still 4 coaches to vote SR )ne vote is clear cut atm but the other 2 are not so not.
Vast majority are in favour of SC + DT/AF divided by a factor to be determined.
I only put the above out after getting an email about Ultimate Footy with the new Sports Plus options and asked for comments whether we could use this with a customised scoring system to align with Sportal given that now with Sports Plus we have more stats that we can customise.
Yeah this scoring system was not a part of the vote that was sent out. I'd prefer to look at this perhaps than the SC+DT/?
Quote from: Memphistopheles on March 18, 2015, 02:46:56 PM
Quote from: Ringo on March 18, 2015, 09:39:06 AM
Still 4 coaches to vote SR )ne vote is clear cut atm but the other 2 are not so not.
Vast majority are in favour of SC + DT/AF divided by a factor to be determined.
I only put the above out after getting an email about Ultimate Footy with the new Sports Plus options and asked for comments whether we could use this with a customised scoring system to align with Sportal given that now with Sports Plus we have more stats that we can customise.
Yeah this scoring system was not a part of the vote that was sent out. I'd prefer to look at this perhaps than the SC+DT/?
Same here
One of our coaches is working for a Sports Data company that obtains CD Data. He is unsure until Round 1 whether we can use the spreadsheet to convert to Sportal Data.
What are everyone thoughts on this proposal.
We do SC + DT/AF divided by 2 for 2 weeks. At the same time we see if we can get the data from this source and easily convert for us and run in parrallel then make decision going forward.
The 2 issues as I see them will be how easy to get the stats and convert to ex Sportal Scoring System and if I can get formuale, pivots and vlookups to be compatible with the data source.
Quote from: Ringo on March 20, 2015, 11:52:28 AM
One of our coaches is working for a Sports Data company that obtains CD Data. He is unsure until Round 1 whether we can use the spreadsheet to convert to Sportal Data.
What are everyone thoughts on this proposal.
We do SC + DT/AF divided by 2 for 2 weeks. At the same time we see if we can get the data from this source and easily convert for us and run in parrallel then make decision going forward.
The 2 issues as I see them will be how easy to get the stats and convert to ex Sportal Scoring System and if I can get formuale, pivots and vlookups to be compatible with the data source.
I'm up for it.
sounds good ringo
So we're using one scoring system for two weeks and then a different one for the rest of the season?
No problems here
Quote from: Nige on March 20, 2015, 02:00:20 PM
So we're using one scoring system for two weeks and then a different one for the rest of the season?
We all might only just use the SC+AF/2 system, if we are unable to get the right programs to run the other system...I think.
Quote from: Pkbaldy on March 20, 2015, 02:18:22 PM
Quote from: Nige on March 20, 2015, 02:00:20 PM
So we're using one scoring system for two weeks and then a different one for the rest of the season?
We all might only just use the SC+AF/2 system, if we are unable to get the right programs to run the other system...I think.
Yeah, my thinking also.
If there's already a bit of work involved in just doing one system, why invest even more time trying to get another one going?
For those that are not real excel gurus there is not a lot of work involved if the system can be tailored to ex Sportal scoring, If it can not be then we will not use but if it is easy then we have the option to continue our existing scoring system. Only real issue will not know till conclusion of Round 1 whether it will work or not hence the discussion.
It will be easy with lookups and pivots if possible.
Have we got a result as to what our scoring system is yet? :)
Voting does not close till tomorrow and 3 coaches are still to vote. As the second vote still does not have a majority will not publish at this stage.
Ahaha Rusty, there had to be one
Quote from: GoLions on March 28, 2015, 08:23:14 PM
Ahaha Rusty, there had to be one
Haha I didn't realise what you meant at first :-X
Not sure if I completely missed it in the rules thread, but can your sub replace the score of one of your utilities, or only those actually named as a def/mid/ruck/fwd?
Under the old rule which is current can replace the lowest score of any player on the field and that is still the case.
Quote from: Ringo on March 30, 2015, 09:39:40 PM
Under the old rule which is current can replace the lowest score of any player on the field and that is still the case.
Ok cheers Ringo :)
Ok this is a bit of a strange situation...josh thomas would have been one of the highest averaging forwards based on last years scores and pending his next drug test, could face expulsion from the league. Is there any way we may get some sort of compensation for this? (as mentioned he really was one of the best forwards based on last years averages)
Sorry to be harsh here but in short no. He is suspended as oppossed to retired or injured. Season starts tonight and he is still officially on the Pies list.
Will also not allow a rookie promotion otherwise it sets a precedent should player x be suspended for more than 6 weeks i would have to allow rookie promotions for the period.
So in short you may be playing one short this year as 2 will any other clubs who have players suspended as a result.
top 4 pick hype
Quote from: Ringo on April 02, 2015, 03:51:16 PM
Sorry to be harsh here but in short no. He is suspended as oppossed to retired or injured. Season starts tonight and he is still officially on the Pies list.
Will also not allow a rookie promotion otherwise it sets a precedent should player x be suspended for more than 6 weeks i would have to allow rookie promotions for the period.
So in short you may be playing one short this year as 2 will any other clubs who have players suspended as a result.
That's a short term solution while they're suspended. There's no chance they get off and they will certainly have their contracts terminated. So then what happens? We've had Garlett also lost from our list in the past so our team is getting stunted dramatically by this compared to other teams now
Just luck of the draw. Do i get compensation because Kreuzer cant stay fit?
Quote from: Spite on April 05, 2015, 11:41:28 PM
Quote from: Ringo on April 02, 2015, 03:51:16 PM
Sorry to be harsh here but in short no. He is suspended as oppossed to retired or injured. Season starts tonight and he is still officially on the Pies list.
Will also not allow a rookie promotion otherwise it sets a precedent should player x be suspended for more than 6 weeks i would have to allow rookie promotions for the period.
So in short you may be playing one short this year as 2 will any other clubs who have players suspended as a result.
That's a short term solution while they're suspended. There's no chance they get off and they will certainly have their contracts terminated. So then what happens? We've had Garlett also lost from our list in the past so our team is getting stunted dramatically by this compared to other teams now
Once the season has commenced it is the luck of the draw. we have had instances of players retiring mid season in the past and I did not allow replacement or rookie promotion.
Is it fair to other teams now that we have had virtually one complete round and you get to take your pick of Kamdyn McIntosh, Dylan Roberton, or Dale Morris who are all uncontracted players after final placements.
So basically it gets back to fairness and the fairness is teams are locked as per dates advised and if any issues after that it is luck of the draw.
Tim Sumner has quit AFL least one easy delisting for me
Yep KB easy for you
Quote from: Ringo on April 07, 2015, 03:26:34 PM
Yep KB easy for you
get the feeling there is a hidden message in this post but probably just over thinking it ???
nah no message just agreeing with you one decision on delisting already made for you.
I want Josh Bruce kicked 10 goals tonight. But I also don't want my opponents getting a high score for him :P
Quote from: Pkbaldy on April 17, 2015, 03:43:37 PM
I want Josh Bruce kicked 10 goals tonight. But I also don't want my opponents getting a high score for him :P
Then let Bruce kick none, and Nroo to kick 10 ;)
I just noticed that Dylan Roberton isn't on my BXVs list.
I got him in a trade with LF (Masten and Roberton for McGovern and Walters) and I don't think I delisted him.
It doesn't appear he's on any other list either.
I have a full list as well though.
What happens now Ringo? Has Roberton somehow fallen through the cracks and as a result I don't have or get him at all?
I only have the 2015 list with me at the moment. It shows Roberton as unowned at the current time. You are correct that you have a full list so will need to do a full check when I get back next week, and then try and resolve what needs to happen but by the looks of it a big mistake some where,
Conversely though you were asked to check final teams when you lodged in priority order and should hsve picked something up then.
and add Ziebell to my injury list
Quote from: Nige on April 17, 2015, 08:35:55 PM
I just noticed that Dylan Roberton isn't on my BXVs list.
I got him in a trade with LF (Masten and Roberton for McGovern and Walters) and I don't think I delisted him.
It doesn't appear he's on any other list either.
I have a full list as well though.
What happens now Ringo? Has Roberton somehow fallen through the cracks and as a result I don't have or get him at all?
I've got Roberton down for the Rams on the "team list by position thread" but also seems like there's 46 on that list.
I'll check later tonight to see if I can help work out what has happened.
Quote from: Rusty00 on April 19, 2015, 09:11:00 AM
Quote from: Nige on April 17, 2015, 08:35:55 PM
I just noticed that Dylan Roberton isn't on my BXVs list.
I got him in a trade with LF (Masten and Roberton for McGovern and Walters) and I don't think I delisted him.
It doesn't appear he's on any other list either.
I have a full list as well though.
What happens now Ringo? Has Roberton somehow fallen through the cracks and as a result I don't have or get him at all?
I've got Roberton down for the Rams on the "team list by position thread" but also seems like there's 46 on that list.
I'll check later tonight to see if I can help work out what has happened.
Oh, interesting.
I might have just forgotten to add him to my team list after the trade I did to bring him in, either that or I accidentally cut his name from my list when I was switching names around to sort my list for the list lodgement, but by then I would have already had a full list with him on it, so I might even just be the former.
btw just quietly
i have seen some players now that have diff positions in SC and AF etc
for example
http://www.fanfooty.com.au/player/adam-oxley
http://www.fanfooty.com.au/player/sean-lemmens
http://www.fanfooty.com.au/player/taylor-hunt
i think there are more
pretty sure these are accurate but think we need a set rule for this
Not sure what you are on about here but all three are shown as defenders in my British Master List and are shown the same in SC.
Am aware that AF is reviewing 3 times but for our competition initial positions as at start of season will apply for full season.
I did a complete check of positions when final listings done and although may have missed some am reasonably confident my list is at least 99% accurate for start of season.
well in AF/DT all 3 of those guys are mids not defenders like in SC
since we use SC + AF i thought i should bring it up
Why are people treating FF as if it's gospel haha
(http://i.gyazo.com/d65adbcd8e2f869a2be02c3cbdd641f9.png)
(http://i.gyazo.com/2fac312eb9c80030e63d471ac1464c8a.png)
(http://i.gyazo.com/b7e0cd104e1399720ecb6aae54a8c752.png)
Surely it's common sense to trust the official sites over FF.
bloody hell m0nty
yeah, I just posted RE the SC scores for current week are also incorrect. FF not to be trusted!!
Quote from: SydneyRox on April 20, 2015, 12:41:21 PM
yeah, I just posted RE the SC scores for current week are also incorrect. FF not to be trusted!!
It won't help you with beating me! :P
I hope.
Quote from: GoLions on April 20, 2015, 12:43:21 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on April 20, 2015, 12:41:21 PM
yeah, I just posted RE the SC scores for current week are also incorrect. FF not to be trusted!!
It won't help you with beating me! :P
I hope.
Nah, reckon you are safe, JPK was quiet and the rest just average.
Quote from: Nige on April 20, 2015, 09:09:35 AM
Surely it's common sense to trust the official sites over FF.
pls Davis scored 0.
Still trying to work out what happened to Roberton because it is still baffling, he's in decent form and I feel like I'm missing out.
Tried to trace my steps and find out where I lost him.
On the team lists by position thread that Rusty did, I've got 46, one extra to what I should have.
On my team lists in my thread he's not there either and I have the full 45.
Can't work out where or how he got lost.
Is he like officially banished from BXVs now? :P :(
My guess is with him not being listed in your final team lodgement, he was smacked the the delist! Free game for anyone next year in the rookie draft ;) But yes he is supposed to be in your team, seeings as LF traded him too you. Haha.
I have had discussions with Nige and the Rams.
Fact 1. Roberton was traded to Rams
Fact 2. Somehow there has been a screw up and Roberton has dropped off Rams List. As a result Nige was given an extra pick in draft to take Rams list to 45.
The decision to resolve is that Rams has priority access to Roberton at end of season to go onto to Rams list. Rams will have to delist sufficient players to also accommodate Roberton in their list.
what do we do regarding the position changes in AF adapt them?
Quote from: The Mighty Sainters on May 05, 2015, 09:24:47 PM
what do we do regarding the position changes in AF adapt them?
I'm pretty sure Ringo said somewhere we won't be
I have stated that there will be no positional changes in British during the season. Positions at start of season will be positions for season.
I dunno if this is where we're supposed to post this, but me and PK have decided to name our rivalry match for next week "The Waterfront Cup" Ringo
well Dragons can add Mitch Duncan to our injury list
looks like we will never get out best team on the park this year
time to get excited about probably getting a top 4 pick ;D
Ringo would it be tedious to get a ladder based on teams average losing margin? not every round just up to now
or am i being dumb and % reflects this? i think % reflects wins and losses i just want losing margins
if it's a tedious job don't worry about it
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on May 19, 2015, 09:53:54 PM
Ringo would it be tedious to get a ladder based on teams average losing margin? not every round just up to now
or am i being dumb and % reflects this? i think % reflects wins and losses i just want losing margins
if it's a tedious job don't worry about it
% reflects this however here is a table of points for and against which % is based on to end of Round 8
Team Pts For Pts Agst
Winchester Werewolves 1075 981
Liverpool Rams 1037 989
Oxford Owls 1030 977
Hastings Hurricanes 1026 984
Swansea Breakers 1027 977
Bradford Badgers 998 931
Huddersfield Hawks 998 983
Nottingham Hoods 959 916
Leeds Leaches 957 948
Manchester Magic 933 897
Crosby Cruisers 932 993
Blackpool Bunnies 929 963
Birmingham Dragons 892 948
Hebden Bridge Hedgehogs 875 919
Staines Steins 845 947
Grope Lane Giants 807 967
Most points against, oh man.
interesting thanks ringo so i wasnt being completely dumb :P ::)
Quote from: Nige on May 20, 2015, 10:13:58 AM
Most points against, oh man.
Since when was 989 higher than 993?
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on May 20, 2015, 10:34:29 AM
interesting thanks ringo so i wasnt being completely dumb :P ::)
That table shows exactly what percentage shows....
Quote from: Pkbaldy on May 20, 2015, 01:21:29 PM
Quote from: Nige on May 20, 2015, 10:13:58 AM
Most points against, oh man.
Since when was 989 higher than 993?
The sad thing is I looked multiple times just in case. :-[
Quote from: Nige on May 20, 2015, 02:16:59 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on May 20, 2015, 01:21:29 PM
Quote from: Nige on May 20, 2015, 10:13:58 AM
Most points against, oh man.
Since when was 989 higher than 993?
The sad thing is I looked multiple times just in case. :-[
Put your head down, i'm going to smack ya!
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on May 20, 2015, 01:43:54 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on May 20, 2015, 10:34:29 AM
interesting thanks ringo so i wasnt being completely dumb :P ::)
That table shows exactly what percentage shows....
no it doesn't % calculates % of wins and losses
i wanted to see the raw numbers
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on May 20, 2015, 03:50:56 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on May 20, 2015, 01:43:54 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on May 20, 2015, 10:34:29 AM
interesting thanks ringo so i wasnt being completely dumb :P ::)
That table shows exactly what percentage shows....
no it doesn't % calculates % of wins and losses
i wanted to see the raw numbers
Percentage is For/Against times by 100.
Nothing to do with % of wins and losses. Grope Lane would be 0% not 80 odd.
Prestia basically gone for the year apparently. Joins Dal Santo and Hanley on the sidelines in the Badgers midfield. Yay.
Can we loan a few guys not on a list for the next few weeks please :P
Oxley or McIntosh would be handy in our side right about now :D
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on May 20, 2015, 05:17:29 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on May 20, 2015, 03:50:56 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on May 20, 2015, 01:43:54 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on May 20, 2015, 10:34:29 AM
interesting thanks ringo so i wasnt being completely dumb :P ::)
That table shows exactly what percentage shows....
no it doesn't % calculates % of wins and losses
i wanted to see the raw numbers
Percentage is For/Against times by 100.
Nothing to do with % of wins and losses. Grope Lane would be 0% not 80 odd.
Can't help but laugh at this sorry kb :p
R12 thread going to be up soon? Crows/Hawks is tomorrow night and I gotta study for exams haha, so wanna do my team now :P
Quote from: GoLions on June 17, 2015, 12:51:24 PM
R12 thread going to be up soon? Crows/Hawks is tomorrow night and I gotta study for exams haha, so wanna do my team now :P
r12 and r11 are combined so probably no r12 thread
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on June 17, 2015, 01:08:38 PM
Quote from: GoLions on June 17, 2015, 12:51:24 PM
R12 thread going to be up soon? Crows/Hawks is tomorrow night and I gotta study for exams haha, so wanna do my team now :P
r12 and r11 are combined so probably no r12 thread
Read the fixture
Quote from: Ringo on November 14, 2014, 03:43:10 PM
Round 11 (AFL Round 11 Friday June 12th to Sunday June 14th)
Bye Round Players Adelaide, Brisbane, Carlton, Hawthorn, Richmond and Western Bulldogs will have Round 12 scores added to this round. Lockout arrangements to be advised.
Grope Lane Giants v Hebden Bridge Hedgehogs @ Giant Stadium
Blackpool Bunnies v Oxford Owls @ Bloomfield Road
Liverpool Rams v Bradford Badgers @ Goodison Park
Huddersfield Hawks v Leeds Leeches @ Galpharm Stadium
Staines Steins v Winchester Werewolves @ Wheatsheaf Park
Swansea Breakers v Manchester Magic @ Swalec Stadium
Hastings Hurricanes v Birmingham Dragons @ Pilot Fields
Crosby Cruisers v Nottingham Hoods @ Ewood Park
Round 12 (AFL Round 12 Thursday June 18th to Sunday June 21st)
Partial lockout with Crows and Hawks Players locked on Thursday, Other Lockouts to be advised,
Bye Round Players Collingwood, Essendon, Fremantle, Gold Coast, St. Kilda and Sydney will have their round 13 scores added to this round.
Hebden Bridge Hedgehogs v Oxford Owls @ Todmodern Sports Centre
Bradford Badgers v Grope Lane Giants @ Badger Village
Leeds Leeches v Blackpool Bunnies @ Elland Road Stadium
Winchester Werewolves v Liverpool Rams @ The Rose Bowl
Manchester Magic v Huddersfield Hawks @ Old Trafford
Hastings Hurricanes v Staines Steins @ Pilot Fields
Nottingham Hoods v Swansea Breakers @ Trent Bridge
Birmingham Dragons v Crosby Cruisers @ St Andrews Stadium
Round 13 (AFL Round 13 Thursday June 25th to Sunday June 28th)
Partial Lockout with Fremantle and Collingwood Players locked on Thursday Night. Other Lockouts to be advised,
Bye Round players Geelong, GWS Giants, Melbourne, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide and West Coast Eagles players will have their round 14 scores added to this round,
Bradford Badgers v Hebden Bridge Hedgehogs @ Badger Village
Oxford Owls v Leeds Leeches @ Incheon Stadium
Grope Lane Giants v Winchester Werewolves @ Giant Stadium
Blackpool Bunnies v Manchester Magic @ Bloomfield Road
Liverpool Rams v Hastings Hurricanes @ Goodison Park
Huddersfield Hawks v Nottingham Hoods @ Galpharm Stadium
Staines Steins v Crosby Cruisers @ Wheatsheaf Park
Swansea Breakers v Birmingham Dragons @ Swalec Stadium
only nerds read the fixture :P
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on June 17, 2015, 01:24:23 PM
only nerds read the fixture :P
tbag, what have you done with kb
Sorry about having a life but round 12 fixture will be up within the next hour.
Quote from: Ringo on June 17, 2015, 03:39:53 PM
Sorry about having a life but round 12 fixture will be up within the next hour.
What's a life?
damn it was so looking forward to have Crouch back but has had a set back
Ringo, could you please unlock the R12 thread? Cheers :P
Quote from: GoLions on June 25, 2015, 11:35:43 PM
Ringo, could you please unlock the R12 thread? Cheers :P
Since Ringo has locked the R12 thread, I'm posting this here to see how the top of table clash is unfolding...
Winchester Werewolves - 1445/14 with C, sub and HGA
D: Luke Hodge 110 , Michael Hibberd, Brad Sheppard 89, Jackson Thurlow 60
M: Nathan Fyfe 124x2=248 (C), Matt Priddis (VC) 104, Matthew Stokes 102, Sam Gibson 63
R: Ivan Maric 62
F: Taylor Walker 29, Jarryd Roughead 68, Dayne Zorko 77, Luke Dahlhaus 108
U: Tom Lynch 95, Tom Bell 98
E: Nick Haynes (def), Jake Melksham (fwd), Patrick Cripps (mid)(sub) 132, Tom Hickey(ruck)
vs
Liverpool Rams - 1119/12 with sub
D: B.Houli 97, J.Gibson 77, T.Hunt 69, S.Wright 75
M: D.Heppell (c), A.Treloar 128 (vc), L.Dunstan, H.Hartlett 103
R: T.Goldstein 145
F: B.Harvey 116, T.Cloke 56, L.Taylor 99, B.Brown 49
I: M.Hallahan, N.Hrovat 69
E: C.Masten 86 (M - sub), T.Varcoe (D), J.Lonie (F), L.Casboult (R - OOP)
So...
326 + Hibberd
vs
Heppx2, Dunstan and Hallahan
Gonna be a close one assuming Hepp tons up.
I did not lock it so do not know what happened. Unlocked now. can someone test for me please as a mod I can edit and post to locked threads so can not confirm one way or the other as there may have been an error in system and by clicking unlock/lock may have locked it if a system error.
Hey guys just letting everyone know that we are interested in starting a 2015 Champions league comp. The top 8 teams in each of the 4 XV comps will get in. Have a look here:
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,103822.0.html
Know I am preempting what may happen with Crows/Cats game but just thought we should have a bit of discussion as to what to do this week if game does not go ahead.
With the entrants in the Champions League to be decided based on table at end of this round we can not do as we have done for bye rounds.
I propose that if Cats and crows game does not go ahead that these teams players be allocated their average score year to date,
Comments welcome.
If that is the case, just confirming it will SC average + DT average divided by 2 is fine.
If I have to use it it will be the average of the British scores YTD.
This means it will be the average of the weekly SC+DT scores/2
Probably the easiest way to do it, otherwise it's going to get too complicated.
Fairest way to go I think.
OK so now that the Cats/Crows game has been cancelled. Cats and Crows players will be locked and they will receive the YTD average score. As 25 players have been named will provide the scores for the 25 players for those that are following scores.
I will however Cats/Geelongs players that have been named as subs to be changed.
So is this how it's done Ringo??
Mackie (71SC) (69DT) = 70BXV
Murdoch (70SC) (69DT)= 70BXV
Dangerfield (116SC) (106DT) = 111BXV
To expand PK
That is how we do the weekly score - I have added up all the weekly British scores eg Mackie 70 plus his 11 other scores to get his average.
I will be publishing the scores that you will use for Geelong and Crows players including round 13 Geelong bye players
Oh ok! Thanks mate. Love ya work .
Quote from: Ringo on July 03, 2015, 03:21:00 PM
OK so now that the Cats/Crows game has been cancelled. Cats and Crows players will be locked and they will receive the YTD average score. As 25 players have been named will provide the scores for the 25 players for those that are following scores.
I will however Cats/Geelongs players that have been named as subs to be changed.
Just to clarify does this mean players like Jimmy Bartel and Taylor Walker who I have named on my field for Rd.14 I can't change before tonight's lockout?
Interesting question Rusty - Purpose of locking was to cut down a loop hole where people may bring higher scoring Crows/Cats players.
I will however allow players named on field to be traded out but you can not bring in Cats or Crows players that you have not named. Think this is fair.
Will be advising Crows/Cats scores to use for Round 14 and Round 13 Cats scores after tonights boiunce.
so teams could easily play a team twice in the last 3 rounds?
Quote from: The Mighty Sainters on July 06, 2015, 01:47:43 PM
so teams could easily play a team twice in the last 3 rounds?
Nah Look at the draw Teams will be placed in groups of 4 based on Ladder positions and will play each other in that group once over rounds 16 - 18
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,99459.0.html
Seeings as we are getting to the bottom end of the season, Cruisers would like to put up a small list of players looking for a new club (Got too many GWS players and some others). First set of trades are strictly 1 for 1 (close to same age, close to same average) and 2nd set i'll be willing to chat about more leniently.
Looking to trade two of these players (1 for 1 not draft picks involved)
1. Dylan Shiel
2. Ryan Griffen
3. Devon Smith
4. Stephen Coniglio
Others up for trade. (Will consider draft picks)
1. Travis Boak
2. Cale Hooker
3. Mitch Grigg (M/F)
4. Nick Suban (M/F)
5. Jack Martin
6. Dan Gorringe
Quote from: Ringo on July 06, 2015, 01:51:15 PM
Quote from: The Mighty Sainters on July 06, 2015, 01:47:43 PM
so teams could easily play a team twice in the last 3 rounds?
Nah Look at the draw Teams will be placed in groups of 4 based on Ladder positions and will play each other in that group once over rounds 16 - 18
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,99459.0.html
yeah but teams in those 4 groups can shuffle positions? that's why i'm thinking teams could play each other twice
Quote from: The Mighty Sainters on July 06, 2015, 07:59:25 PM
Quote from: Ringo on July 06, 2015, 01:51:15 PM
Quote from: The Mighty Sainters on July 06, 2015, 01:47:43 PM
so teams could easily play a team twice in the last 3 rounds?
Nah Look at the draw Teams will be placed in groups of 4 based on Ladder positions and will play each other in that group once over rounds 16 - 18
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,99459.0.html
yeah but teams in those 4 groups can shuffle positions? that's why i'm thinking teams could play each other twice
No draw will be done for all three weeks based on positions as at conclusion of Round 15 so effectively weeks 17 and 18 are as per Round 15 table.
oh ok understood now
So does the round robin thingo count towards the H&A season? Cause that seems really stupid to me if so. I assumed it was separate, but PK said it might not be and so wanna confirm this.
Yep does count for points similar to the AFL system of grouping teams for those that play each other twice.
So if I finish 5th, then I play 6th-8th and probably break into top 4.
And if I finish 4th, I play 1st-3rd and probably drop to as low as 7th.
Seems fair.
I vote we scrap that after this season.
Quote from: GoLions on July 11, 2015, 06:23:00 PM
So if I finish 5th, then I play 6th-8th and probably break into top 4.
And if I finish 4th, I play 1st-3rd and probably drop to as low as 7th.
Seems fair.
I vote we scrap that after this season.
i dont think you can drop out of your group
Quote from: The Mighty Sainters on July 11, 2015, 11:40:09 PM
Quote from: GoLions on July 11, 2015, 06:23:00 PM
So if I finish 5th, then I play 6th-8th and probably break into top 4.
And if I finish 4th, I play 1st-3rd and probably drop to as low as 7th.
Seems fair.
I vote we scrap that after this season.
i dont think you can drop out of your group
That would make more sense
Was put out there for comment when draw was proposed and received no negative feed back so went ahead with it. Can review at end of season though.
Couple of ideas I am floating Round for next year depending on AFL draw.
1. We have no competitons during the byes thus having a one round home and away season of 15 matches, Still playing our GF in AFL Round 23. One week before the AFL final home and away season.
2. Place into groups based on ladder finishing positions this year and play the round Robin for the first three rounds then go into home and away.
Just a preliminary note as well will also be looking for someone to record and post scores for a period next year as at this time in 12 months I will be on holidays in Europe for 5 weeks. Internet will be flakey at times from what I have read due to WIFI on River cruise being satellite based.
Just letting you know that the R15 thread is locked Ringo
Unlocked now thank you - how it got locked no idea unless I had cursor over the lock/unlock while I was trying to find why Dragons scores were so different to mine. Haha
wonder if any teams are planning a rebuild this year
i doubt it, theres no super old teams.
Agree with JB Most teams have a good mixture of experience and youth.
Giants and Steins lacking in experienced players but will be able to trade for that.
Comments on this suggestion
As Giants and Steins have only won 1 and 2 games respectively over the home and away season thinking of making their priority National Draft picks 1 and 2 which they can use to trade or on left over draft players.
Currently Priority picks are allocated after Round 1 but I believe special circumstances exist this year with Giants and Steins to try and make them more competitive for next year,
Dragons will also have a priority pick but keeping that one after Round 1
so Giants and Steins would get the top 4 picks?
yuk
#biased
plus we dont normally change rules mid year
Not changing rules mid season as it is for discussion and will be voted on prior to draft,
It is meant to try and even comp a little, as all will agree (maybe not you ;) )that Giants and Steins desparately need some help if they are to be competitive. If that means giving them the first 4 picks so be it. There have been occasions this year where both these teams have been unable to even field a full team from their lists. No different to what happens in the AFL.
Giants No 1 player is Brad Ebert and Steins is Kieran Jack so that gives you an idea why their lists need a hand.
Not biased at all looking at ways to make the competition a little more even and avoid the % blow outs. Your position is mainly due to the injuries to Rockliff and you will bounce back next year similar to the Breakers this year who had injury issues last year.
yeah i here you i'm not totally opposed to it
btw not just Rocky we had/have Duncan and B Crouch out also and T Mitchell at the start
and there % is like 10% lower then mine so a big drop
another talented youngster at the Dragons Riley Knight got his first run on the weekend as a junior his stats were huge have big hopes for him still
I wouldn't be surprised if the Giants and Steins kept the priority picks and their actual draft picks.
Quote from: Nige on July 14, 2015, 11:31:34 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if the Giants and Steins kept the priority picks and their actual draft picks.
More for the fact most people seem happy with their lists. (Mainly the stacked teams)
Quote from: Pkbaldy on July 14, 2015, 12:19:50 PM
Quote from: Nige on July 14, 2015, 11:31:34 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if the Giants and Steins kept the priority picks and their actual draft picks.
More for the fact most people seem happy with their lists. (Mainly the stacked teams)
i need another defender
Position and DPP changes are the killer I already have a few players that will likely change possies or lose DPP using heat maps as a guide.
So going by that for now we are going to need forwards again
Quote from: LF on July 14, 2015, 12:32:20 PM
Position and DPP changes are the killer I already have a few players that will likely change possies or lose DPP using heat maps as a guide.
So going by that for now we are going to need forwards again
I could be of service
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 14, 2015, 12:25:02 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on July 14, 2015, 12:19:50 PM
Quote from: Nige on July 14, 2015, 11:31:34 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if the Giants and Steins kept the priority picks and their actual draft picks.
More for the fact most people seem happy with their lists. (Mainly the stacked teams)
i need another defender
Can almost certainly help with that.
Quote from: LF on July 14, 2015, 12:32:20 PM
Position and DPP changes are the killer I already have a few players that will likely change possies or lose DPP using heat maps as a guide.
So going by that for now we are going to need forwards again
No out and out guns available, but fairly decent forward depth available.
i got a shower ton of forwards dunno how many will keep DPP though
Ziebell, T Mitchell, Billings, Zerrett, Howllett, Crisp, WHE, Turner, A Hall, Tarrant, Hannath
compared to my forward line last year it's heaven
Having looked at heat maps of some of these players,they suggest to me that Ziebell will be back to mid only,Crisp and Billings likely mid only as well.Can probably have a looksie at the others as well except WHE as he hasn't played enough games for the heat maps to be of much use.
With forward would need to be a starter since we are definitely losing McGovern to defence and Gray is likely to be mid only next year so we could have a fairly good midfielder up for trade but we won't confirm this until we get confirmation of changes and do a dissection of our list.
yeah i wont do many trades this year until positions announced
Zerret, Ziebell n Crisp will lose fwd imo. Billings will be the end of the next year.
Quote from: Pkbaldy on July 14, 2015, 01:23:42 PM
Zerret, Ziebell n Crisp will lose fwd imo. Billings will be the end of the next year.
im going to have to many mids lol
T. Rockliff
B. Crouch
A. Miles
D. Zaharakis
M. Duncan
J. Ziebell
J. Caddy
J. Crisp
A. Vandenberg
only need 6 decent ones
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 14, 2015, 01:32:44 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on July 14, 2015, 01:23:42 PM
Zerret, Ziebell n Crisp will lose fwd imo. Billings will be the end of the next year.
im going to have to many mids lol
T. Rockliff
B. Crouch
A. Miles
D. Zaharakis
M. Duncan
J. Ziebell
J. Caddy
J. Crisp
A. Vandenberg
only need 6 decent ones
Double up for Shiel?? ;)
Quote from: Pkbaldy on July 14, 2015, 01:33:44 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 14, 2015, 01:32:44 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on July 14, 2015, 01:23:42 PM
Zerret, Ziebell n Crisp will lose fwd imo. Billings will be the end of the next year.
im going to have to many mids lol
T. Rockliff
B. Crouch
A. Miles
D. Zaharakis
M. Duncan
J. Ziebell
J. Caddy
J. Crisp
A. Vandenberg
only need 6 decent ones
Double up for Shiel?? ;)
certainly willing to discuss
Not Zaha though. He's a flowering dip.
Quote from: Pkbaldy on July 14, 2015, 01:40:17 PM
Not Zaha though. He's a flowering dip.
ikr
running out of patience with him
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 14, 2015, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on July 14, 2015, 01:40:17 PM
Not Zaha though. He's a flowering dip.
ikr
running out of patience with him
4th rounder for him would be the best offer haha. He's barely depth to me haha!
Quote from: Pkbaldy on July 14, 2015, 01:42:28 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 14, 2015, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on July 14, 2015, 01:40:17 PM
Not Zaha though. He's a flowering dip.
ikr
running out of patience with him
4th rounder for him would be the best offer haha. He's barely depth to me haha!
if i had my Duncan and Crouch playing i wouldn't be playing him
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 14, 2015, 01:45:35 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on July 14, 2015, 01:42:28 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 14, 2015, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on July 14, 2015, 01:40:17 PM
Not Zaha though. He's a flowering dip.
ikr
running out of patience with him
4th rounder for him would be the best offer haha. He's barely depth to me haha!
if i had my Duncan and Crouch playing i wouldn't be playing him
Still waiting for Crouch in Americas... Matty is bored on his own racking up 90s haha...
Vanders is a chance of mid/fwd next year
Zerrett chance of def/mid next year otherwise he will be straight up mid
Billings may be fwd/mid next year
TMitch likely mid only next year
Quote from: LF on July 14, 2015, 01:48:39 PM
Vanders is a chance of mid/fwd next year
Zerrett chance of def/mid next year otherwise he will be straight up mid
Billings may be fwd/mid next year
TMitch likely mid only next year
not really noticed Zerrett in defence that much would be handy but
LF should just change her name to Heatmap ;)
Don't think I'll have too many changes.
Lewis Taylor to M/F, Travis Varcoe to D/M or D/F, Taylor Hunt to D/M maybe off the top of my head. Couldn't be too many others.
Not even sure those are certainties.
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 14, 2015, 01:51:00 PM
Quote from: LF on July 14, 2015, 01:48:39 PM
Vanders is a chance of mid/fwd next year
Zerrett chance of def/mid next year otherwise he will be straight up mid
Billings may be fwd/mid next year
TMitch likely mid only next year
not really noticed Zerrett in defence that much would be handy but
64% defensive half most of the red part of the heat map is that way as well so he has a good chance
Quote from: Nige on July 14, 2015, 01:54:44 PM
Don't think I'll have too many changes.
Lewis Taylor to M/F, Travis Varcoe to D/M or D/F, Taylor Hunt to D/M maybe off the top of my head. Couldn't be too many others.
Not even sure those are certainties.
Lewis Taylor probs won't be mid/fwd going off the heat maps he will either be mid or mid/def
Varcoe is 50/50 to get mid/def defs not mid/fwd but could end up as mid only
Hunt should get def/mid otherwise mid only
Quote from: LF on July 14, 2015, 02:05:58 PM
Quote from: Nige on July 14, 2015, 01:54:44 PM
Don't think I'll have too many changes.
Lewis Taylor to M/F, Travis Varcoe to D/M or D/F, Taylor Hunt to D/M maybe off the top of my head. Couldn't be too many others.
Not even sure those are certainties.
Lewis Taylor probs won't be mid/fwd going off the heat maps he will either be mid or mid/def
Varcoe is 50/50 to get mid/def defs not mid/fwd but could end up as mid only
Hunt should get def/mid otherwise mid only
Jordan Murdoch being Mid/Fwd?
Looks like I'm gonna have an abundance of mids, yay.
Quote from: Pkbaldy on July 14, 2015, 02:07:44 PM
Quote from: LF on July 14, 2015, 02:05:58 PM
Quote from: Nige on July 14, 2015, 01:54:44 PM
Don't think I'll have too many changes.
Lewis Taylor to M/F, Travis Varcoe to D/M or D/F, Taylor Hunt to D/M maybe off the top of my head. Couldn't be too many others.
Not even sure those are certainties.
Lewis Taylor probs won't be mid/fwd going off the heat maps he will either be mid or mid/def
Varcoe is 50/50 to get mid/def defs not mid/fwd but could end up as mid only
Hunt should get def/mid otherwise mid only
Jordan Murdoch being Mid/Fwd?
Defence somewhere in his possie not sure if def/mid or def/fwd
Potentially stupid question, but where do you get the heat maps from LF?
Quote from: Nige on July 14, 2015, 02:15:15 PM
Potentially stupid question, but where do you get the heat maps from LF?
I have AFL Live and they have them on that
Wish they were more defined tho,splitting it into defence and forward half is kind of annoying.
Quote from: LF on July 14, 2015, 02:05:58 PM
Quote from: Nige on July 14, 2015, 01:54:44 PM
Don't think I'll have too many changes.
Lewis Taylor to M/F, Travis Varcoe to D/M or D/F, Taylor Hunt to D/M maybe off the top of my head. Couldn't be too many others.
Not even sure those are certainties.
Lewis Taylor probs won't be mid/fwd going off the heat maps he will either be mid or mid/def
Squizzy seems to play mostly fwd/mid in the games? Could the heat maps be skewed due to the ball always being down Brisbanes defensive end?
Regarding the discussion of priority picks, I am not opposed to the Giants gaining a priority pick but not the Steins. This is because I feel the Steins have a vastly better list than the Giants and have also been very unlucky with injuries. The depth will come naturally for them. For the record, the hedgehogs haven't been able to field a team at times this year too, so I don't think that should be a criteria for an extra pick - and the steins outscored us this week too!
Quote from: Spite on July 14, 2015, 11:59:30 PM
Regarding the discussion of priority picks, I am not opposed to the Giants gaining a priority pick but not the Steins. This is because I feel the Steins have a vastly better list than the Giants and have also been very unlucky with injuries. The depth will come naturally for them. For the record, the hedgehogs haven't been able to field a team at times this year too, so I don't think that should be a criteria for an extra pick - and the steins outscored us this week too!
Quote from: nrich102 on July 14, 2015, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: LF on July 14, 2015, 02:05:58 PM
Quote from: Nige on July 14, 2015, 01:54:44 PM
Don't think I'll have too many changes.
Lewis Taylor to M/F, Travis Varcoe to D/M or D/F, Taylor Hunt to D/M maybe off the top of my head. Couldn't be too many others.
Not even sure those are certainties.
Lewis Taylor probs won't be mid/fwd going off the heat maps he will either be mid or mid/def
Squizzy seems to play mostly fwd/mid in the games? Could the heat maps be skewed due to the ball always being down Brisbanes defensive end?
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p660/rdw206/Taylor%20Heat%20Map_zps6jic1ns3.jpg) (http://s1344.photobucket.com/user/rdw206/media/Taylor%20Heat%20Map_zps6jic1ns3.jpg.html)
I dont like giving priority picks, maybe they would be more competitive if they drafted one of experienced guns available instead of James Aish.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on July 15, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
I dont like giving priority picks, maybe they would be more competitive if they drafted one of experienced guns available instead of James Aish.
I am unsure what this means sorry. "Drafted one of the more experienced guns instead of Aish?"
Nostra and I only took over the team this season and had no part of the drafting of Aish.
Quote from: Rids on July 15, 2015, 02:38:37 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on July 15, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
I dont like giving priority picks, maybe they would be more competitive if they drafted one of experienced guns available instead of James Aish.
I am unsure what this means sorry. "Drafted one of the more experienced guns instead of Aish?"
Nostra and I only took over the team this season and had no part of the drafting of Aish.
I think he means the special draft where two teams folded and players like Lewis and Aish were available and Nails took Aish.
Not your fault mate!
I've got a small idea on how to close the gap between the 'stacked' teams and the teams that're really behind instead of handing out priority picks which won't help them out for a few years. I know A LOT of people won't agree with this.
Where the top 2 teams (overall score) done a mercy trade to the bottom team (Giants), giving them well rated player each to the Giants in return they get a compensation pick for the draft, to try and even out the competition. I know it's mostly a bad idea because these teams have done great to trade and recruit all these good players, but it's probably the best way to even up the competition.
Eg. Werewolves give up Patrick Cripps to Giants for compensation pick (1-3), and Hawks give up Jake Lloyd to the Giants for compensation pick (5-10). Difference in picked based on Cripps being a better scorer than Lloyd.
The only reason I am suggesting this is that I had no fear in playing the Giants and knew no matter how low my players scored I'd still smash them, and i'm in the bottom half of the Comp. I don't think it'll be the end of the world for the top 2 scoring teams to hand out a handy player for a compensation pick, and it adds a bit more grunt to the bottom team. Because I don't see anyone wanting to rebuild so no one will be willing to lose good players for draft picks.
I didn't want to get involved in the priority pick conversation as I thought it would be best for others to discuss and decide. But I have changed my mind as I think the thoughts should be shared so people can make an educated decision.
Nostra and I knew what we were getting into when we took over the Giants. While the team is a fair distance away from being competitive at this point in time, we will be continuing on with the rebuild with our already started 'youth policy' from last season. The problem we have at the moment is depth of quality players. Just this week we lost Adams for 2 weeks and David Swallow for the remainder of the year. This means we have effectively lost our vice captain and emergency vice captain straight up. Yes injuries and suspensions happen but other teams have a little depth to cover them when they arise. And most teams have to try and decide between multiple players on a weekly basis who should be captain and vice captain. We have one choice most weeks in Brad Ebert lol.
We both knew this would be a 3 year rebuild to get the team to a point where we are comfortable. What we don't want though is to force others to trade with us etc. This will happen as usual process. We haven't had too many issues previously with trading in the other comps. We won't have any issue again here I believe.
I think the priority pick is required for us to speed up the process. The more young talent we can acquire, the more likely people will want to trade with us for some of it. As people have been saying, and quite rightly so, no-one will want to trade us a decent player for picks. But what might happen is that people will be more than willing to trade with us in the near future for one of these talented draftees eg: Brayshaw, De Goey that we drafted last year.
I will try and let others chat and decide without trying to influence the decision one way or the other.
I don't think you can have one rule for the Giants and a different one for us.
We're both in as bad a predicament this season - we have barely a starting XV every week to play which is our problem. Similar to the Giants. We've played games with 12, 13 and 14 players on a regular basis.
When everyone does play we can look good but that's been a rare commodity this season.
As Rids has said below - long term both clubs are going to turn out all right.
Why do I know that? Because Rids, Nostra, myself and Grinpowderdiah (who we see occasionally on the forums) know what we are doing as coaches and are improving the lists.
You can see that in what I've done since I took over the Steines whose list was arguably even worse than the Giants one when we first took I over.
Seriously look at the below list of players they had. They had one, just one actual premium midfielder in Kieren Jack. I don't know how the list got this bad but, it was woeful.
I have italicised all the complete spuds who we've since gotten rid of and bolded the good players.
Staines Steins team after the 2013 season and draft periods.
Kieren Jack
Tendai Mzungu
Ryan O'Keefe
Ivan Maric
Hamish Hartlett
Jaryd Cachia
Kurt Tippett
Nathan Grima
Mitchell Clark
Lewis Jetta
Ryan Crowley
Jack Crisp
Marty Clarke
Josh Jenkins
Nathan Bock
Sam Naismith
Alex Greenwood
Rhys Stanley
Jamie Elliott
Lee Spurr
Ricky Henderson
Ben Rutten
Lewis Roberts-Thomson
Beau Maister
Tom Lonergan
Jesse Hogan
Jed Anderson
Brodie Martin
Tim Mohr
Jason Johannisen
Harry Cunningham
Dean Terlich
Kristian Jaksch
Matthew Spangher
Mitchell Brown
Daniel Nicholson
Josh Kelly
Nathan Gordon
Malcolm Karpany
Brandon Jack
Louis Herbert
Angus Graham
Ciaran Byrne
Luke Reynolds
Max King
Now take a look at our list. It's much improved with almost no utter spuds on the list and some actual decent talent.
The reason it isn't any better than it is already is simple - we didn't have anyone who had any trade currency when I first took over. Except K Jack but if i'd traded him we wouldn't have a captain and would be even worse off.
So we've had to relying on drafting to get our talent in. No-one was going to trade us for the guys listed in italics above.
In bold are the players I think could develop in to premium options or are premos already
Nick Vlastuin
Ricky Henderson
Nathan Grima
Lee Spurr
Elliott Yeo
Kristian Jaksch
Zak Jones
Angus Litherland
Matt Dick
Brayden Maynard
Matt Spangher
Ciaran Byrne
Michael Manteit
Kieran Jack
Jack Redden
George Horlin-Smith
Tendai Mzungu
Josh Kelly
Marcus Bontempelli
Christian Petracca
Viv Michie
Jed Anderson
Alex Woodward
Daniel Robinson
Alec Waterman
Lloyd Perris
Jake Barrett
Jarrad Jansen
Mark Jamar
Brodie Grundy
Jake Spencer
Max Gawn
Sam Naismith
Max King
Adam Tomlinson
Mitch Clark
Lachie Hunter
Josh Jenkins
Jamie Elliott
Jesse Hogan
Rhys Stanley
Max Duffy
Kyle Langford
Taylor Garner
Josh Clayton
Looking at this list though there's even more work to do this off season.
Grima, Spangher, Jamar, Mzungu, Michie, Naismith, King, Garner and Clayton are all guys who could be cut to make way for more talent. There's another tier of limited players who could be pushed out should we get some better players on board.
I think one more priority pick (even end of first round) would complete the rebuild and set us on a path to better days and I think the Giants need time like we did to do the same.
Because, looking at their side - what commodities do they have to trade? They have hardly any old guys to trade for talent and if they trade the good kids they'll never get good.
I think the priority pick system is the best way to go about helping teams rebuild but, you have to realise it will take a good four seasons in my opinion for us to see the results.
Th best thing to do really is not let teams trade away all their talent so we have teams in this predicament again.
Just because I got curious looking at the list Memph just posted, I thought I'd look at the Liverpool list when I took over around this time in 2013 (the team went on to finish last that season).
1 Dyson Heppell
2 Todd Goldstein
3 Harley Bennell
4 Shaun Grigg
5 Bachar Houli
6 Adam Treloar
7 Daniel Nicholson
8 Brent Harvey
9 Brent Reilly
10 Scott D. Thompson
11 Michael Walters
12 Clancee Pearce
13 Travis Varcoe
14 Mitch Duncan
15 Sam Wright
16 Michael Firrito
17 Graham Johncock
18 James Polkinghorne
19 Jarrod Witts
20 Kieran Harper
21 Andrew Collins
22 Jake Spencer
23 Marley Williams
24 Jack Redfern
25 Alex Browne
26 Levi Casboult
27 Derick Wanganeen
28 Matt Dea
29 Jacob Townsend
30 Jordan Kelly
31 Matt Thomas
32 Martin Gleeson
33 Mitchell Wilkins
34 Brad Dick
35 Mitch Hallahan
36 Nathan Brown
37 Jordan Schroder
38 Tim Golds
39 Nathan Hrovat
40 Josh Saunders
41 Rory Atkins
42 Dylan Van Unen
43 Matthew Arnot
44 Cameron Eardley
45 Sam Naismith
Bolded players are ones still on our list, which is now a top 4 side. 17 of the 45, more than I thought I had kept tbh.
Basically turned the list around in 18 months. 8)
Memph makes a good point.
They are still ahead by about a year though.
Once again, not having a starting XV shouldn't be taken into consideration for priority picks. Hedgies have played with 13 and 14 players many times this year due to a backline consisting of duff, seeds, savage, golby and bruce. It only takes a trade and rookie draft pick to get a starting XV from this point on for all teams.
I think Giants should get a priority pick after Steins first pick and the Steins get a priority pick at the end of round 1 as they're a year ahead in development.
Thoughts?
Quote from: Spite on July 16, 2015, 01:25:02 PM
I think Giants should get a priority pick after Steins first pick and the Steins get a priority pick at the end of round 1 as they're a year ahead in development.
Nailed it.
Not having an XV is easily fixed. It was a problem for Liverpool in 2013 so I worked on that in the 2013/2014 offseason and then again in the 2014/2015 one to make sure that never happened again.
It's basically why I like to acquire playing depth, so I never find myself in that scenario.
That was my problem last year really crap depth that never ever go any games plus injuries caused us to play OOP's towards the end of the season ruining any chance we had in finals so we took the first step in addressing the problem area's and have managed to field a full team every week even with injuries.
Taking even one of the lower scoring players but who is a lock 22 for depth is a good idea,we traded a late pick for Schoey(has actually been fairly solid this year) to have the extra depth down back
Quote from: LF on July 16, 2015, 01:55:30 PM
That was my problem last year really crap depth that never ever go any games plus injuries caused us to play OOP's towards the end of the season ruining any chance we had in finals so we took the first step in addressing the problem area's and have managed to field a full team every week even with injuries.
Taking even one of the lower scoring players but who is a lock 22 for depth is a good idea,we traded a late pick for Schoey(has actually been fairly solid this year) to have the extra depth down back
Yep, even used the draft to get guys like Rory Thompson and Ben Stratton who play weekly but hopefully never have to start. :P
Our problem is more the top end than depth. We don't have many players that people will want to trade for to be honest. It is why we are going with the youth policy. Try and build some top end talent. There will be a lot of deadwood cut again from the Giants list this season again. Replacing average with average or fringe with fringe will take time for the team to become competitive.
The better youth we get in now, the better chance of people wanting to trade with us over the next year or 2.
Here is our list:
DEFENDERS
Garrick Ibottson (Freo), Cam O'Shea (Port), Andrejs Everitt (Carl), Brendan Whitecross (Hawks), S. Colquhoun (Port), E. Mackenzie (WCE), D. McStay (Bris), D. Astbury (Ric), M. Watson (Carl), J. Kelly (Adel), T. Logan (Port), H. Wigg (Adel), J. McGuiness (Bris), D. McKenzie (Saints)
MIDS
Brad Ebert (Port), David Swallow (GC), James Aish (Bris), Reece Conca (Rich), Angus Brayshaw (Melb), William Langford (Hawks), G. Hewett (Syd), A. Riley (Melb), J. De Goey (Coll), C. Ellis (Rich), B. Boekhorst (Carl), D. Lang (Geel), W. Hartung (Hawks), N. Krakoeur (Port)
RUCKS
Matthew Leueunberger (Bris), B. Longer (Saints)
FORWARDS
Rhys Palmer (GWS), Danny Stanley (GC), Ricky Petterd (Rich), Taylor Adams (Coll), T. Boyd (WB), D. Ellard (Carl), C. Knights (Rich), T. Vickery (Rich), M. Close (Bris), T. Dickson (WB), J. Grant (WB), D. Butler (Rich), J. Hall (GC), M. Newman (WCE), J. Saunders (Saints)
You can see that we have the depth types covered eg: Grant, Dickson, Vickery, Tom Boyd, McStay to name a few. But have a look at the top end talent.
Let's play a game. Who is your top 5 players from the above list?
Mine are - Ebert, Adams, Swallow and then maybe Brayshaw who is a first year player.
Can we make it so the priority pick must be traded for someone over the age of 21?
It would be up to Rids as to whether he trades or not. The real issue though is will any teams be willing to trade a reasonable player for the priority pick. Speaking of Breakers no way am I going to Trade Lewis, Selwood or Picken for example who are the type of players the Giants would want.
At the moment the draft order for first round would be and I agree with Spites Idea would be:
1. Giants
2. Steins
3. Giants
4. Dragons
5. Bunnies
6. Hedgehogs
7. Magic
8. Leeches
9. Cruisers
10. Owls
11. Breakers
12. Hurricanes
13. Badgers
14. Hoods
15. Rams
16. Hawks
17. Werewolves
18. Steins
Quote from: Ringo on July 16, 2015, 02:54:48 PM
It would be up to Rids as to whether he trades or not. The real issue though is will any teams be willing to trade a reasonable player for the priority pick. Speaking of Breakers no way am I going to Trade Lewis, Selwood or Picken for example who are the type of players the Giants would want.
At the moment the draft order for first round would be and I agree with Spites Idea would be:
1. Giants
2. Steins
3. Giants
4. Dragons
5. Bunnies
6. Hedgehogs
7. Magic
8. Leeches
9. Cruisers
10. Owls
11. Breakers
12. Hurricanes
13. Badgers
14. Hoods
15. Rams
16. Hawks
17. Werewolves
18. Steins
We'd be happy with this.
I'm confident Staines are on the right track. It will just take time for us to get there.
You can't force someone to trade a priority pick either.
If my experience from the last couple of years has taught me anything it's that people don't want to trade any guns unless it's for another gun. Everyone who wanted to trade with us wanted Kieren Jack in any deal which would have robbed our team of even more competitiveness this season.
The only reason we were able to get Jack Redden was because the Cruisers were able to offer us a nice deal. If I was on the receiving end of this I wouldn't have taken it but, thanks to the Ossie (then Cruisers coach) for helping us out!
Staines Steins give: Kurt Tippett + Dean Terlich + Brandon Jack
Crosby Cruisers give: Jack Redden + Jake Barrett.
PS - It says this trade was only approved after a lot of deliberation? What did you need to think about? The deal clearly improved a weaker side - should be easily passed imo even if it is weighted a bit towards us. I'd hate to see the Giants get a good deal and it get knocked back because the trade was unfair.
It's the trade I hated most seeing when I joined the game... Shouldn't of been up to a mid tier team to give you a player for that, should be the premium stacked teams. Because if we stayed at Sportal, Tippett would avg about 50 and the rest don't even play.
Just another item for discussion. As we know AFL lists are 48 players so thinking that as we have a number of left over draft players and with 16 teams increasing our lists to 48 as well 42 Senior Player plus 6 rookies listed players. Means 1 extra on Senior List and 2 extra on rookie list.
I suppose that could happen, but I feel like given the quality of the players left over, it wouldn't really add too much and just add more deadweight to lists.
Quote from: Ringo on July 16, 2015, 03:48:31 PM
Just another item for discussion. As we know AFL lists are 48 players so thinking that as we have a number of left over draft players and with 16 teams increasing our lists to 48 as well 42 Senior Player plus 6 rookies listed players. Means 1 extra on Senior List and 2 extra on rookie list.
I'm definitely in favour of this.
Larger lists means more depth and hopefully a stronger competition. It might not make a difference to bigger clubs but, for the struggling clubs it would be useful.
Quote from: Pkbaldy on July 16, 2015, 03:38:02 PM
It's the trade I hated most seeing when I joined the game... Shouldn't of been up to a mid tier team to give you a player for that, should be the premium stacked teams. Because if we stayed at Sportal, Tippett would avg about 50 and the rest don't even play.
Ossie didn't make that trade because he wanted to help us.
Well, as far as I know anyway. He made the trade because he really wanted a forward and thought Tippett might get ruck too. Terlich wasn't completely useless then either - he was coming off a semi-decent year.
I'd have given more up for Redden but Ossie was happy with the deal. I'm just glad it wasn't rejected.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on July 16, 2015, 06:02:06 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on July 16, 2015, 03:38:02 PM
It's the trade I hated most seeing when I joined the game... Shouldn't of been up to a mid tier team to give you a player for that, should be the premium stacked teams. Because if we stayed at Sportal, Tippett would avg about 50 and the rest don't even play.
Ossie didn't make that trade because he wanted to help us.
Well, as far as I know anyway. He made the trade because he really wanted a forward and thought Tippett might get ruck too. Terlich wasn't completely useless then either - he was coming off a semi-decent year.
I'd have given more up for Redden but Ossie was happy with the deal. I'm just glad it wasn't rejected.
Half my team are forwards (even after I traded away 3 of them in the preseason) haha :o.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on July 16, 2015, 03:33:45 PM
If my experience from the last couple of years has taught me anything it's that people don't want to trade any guns unless it's for another gun. Everyone who wanted to trade with us wanted Kieren Jack in any deal which would have robbed our team of even more competitiveness this season.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 02, 2014, 02:25:02 PM
Quote from: Spite on September 02, 2014, 02:21:48 PM
Greenwood is on the table but unfortunately by jut looking at your list, it would be hard to get a deal done for him since we would be trading in depth players really, unless a high draft pick or kjack is on the table too I guess
Alright well we might have to leave it there then as Jack is not on the table and neither is Nat Pick 1 as we know who we want.
Pick 17 possible but I'm not sure that interests you?
Or Pick 1 rookie perhaps.
From the sportal scoring system Greenwood was a top midfielder (140+) and we would have given him up for pick number 1. Of course he got injured which we couldn't have known, along with a change in scoring system but certainly trading pick 1 for him would have made you more competitive this year.
This is what JB was trying to say before I believe, that some teams chose youth on purpose and should suffer accordingly because of their choices.
Rids and Nos just took over the team this year so they're excluded from this point.
I'm still happy with the Steins getting a priority pick at the end of round 1, but I didn't want everyone to gloss over the point JB was trying to make before, because it is a very relevant point.
Quote from: Spite on July 16, 2015, 06:27:25 PM
Quote from: Memphistopheles on July 16, 2015, 03:33:45 PM
If my experience from the last couple of years has taught me anything it's that people don't want to trade any guns unless it's for another gun. Everyone who wanted to trade with us wanted Kieren Jack in any deal which would have robbed our team of even more competitiveness this season.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on September 02, 2014, 02:25:02 PM
Quote from: Spite on September 02, 2014, 02:21:48 PM
Greenwood is on the table but unfortunately by jut looking at your list, it would be hard to get a deal done for him since we would be trading in depth players really, unless a high draft pick or kjack is on the table too I guess
Alright well we might have to leave it there then as Jack is not on the table and neither is Nat Pick 1 as we know who we want.
Pick 17 possible but I'm not sure that interests you?
Or Pick 1 rookie perhaps.
From the sportal scoring system Greenwood was a top midfielder (140+) and we would have given him up for pick number 1. Of course he got injured which we couldn't have known, along with a change in scoring system but certainly trading pick 1 for him would have made you more competitive this year.
This is what JB was trying to say before I believe, that some teams chose youth on purpose and should suffer accordingly because of their choices.
Rids and Nos just took over the team this year so they're excluded from this point.
I'm still happy with the Steins getting a priority pick at the end of round 1, but I didn't want everyone to gloss over the point JB was trying to make before, because it is a very relevant point.
Greenwood has had one good season. I'd hardly call home a gun midfielder which is what you could get with Pick 1. Unfortunately Petracca did his knee but long term we think he'd be better than Greenwood.
There's no point picking up players to be slightly more competitive short term. The goal of the XVs is to win a flag and to do that you need the best players. Better off getting them in when you're down than getting in a few good to okay players and not ever challenging.
Well said Spite!
Sooooooo any movement on the scoring system for next year yet?
Just seeing if there are any more comments - may put out a vote then so we have a decision before trade.
as far as scoring goes i like as is i guess
i'm to biased to comment about the draft pick compensations
but if Giants get a priority pick in the top 3 they shouldn't get one at the end of round 1 like Steins and i think Dragons are
also about trading picks for players the trick is being willing to offer a pick higher then the player is worth sometimes it pays off sometimes it doesn't
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 27, 2015, 08:43:23 PM
as far as scoring goes i like as is i guess
i'm to biased to comment about the draft pick compensations
but if Giants get a priority pick in the top 3 they shouldn't get one at the end of round 1 like Steins and i think Dragons are
also about trading picks for players the trick is being willing to offer a pick higher then the player is worth sometimes it pays off sometimes it doesn't
Agree with this.
Let's look at attempting to try and trade #3 nat pick pick for a player. You are in essence attempting to sell a top 3 mid for the year's draft for a player that might not be a top 3 mid for their team. Would we trade pick 3 for a Harley Bennell or Tom Mitchell type? Definitely! But would the owner of a Harley Bennell or a Tom Mitchell be willing to trade the player for the pick? Very doubtful. I don't think either Tom Mitchell or Harley Bennell are in the top 3 mids for their respective teams yet getting that trade to occur would be very difficult.
Trying to gauge what value #3 nat draft pick has is almost impossible due that the kid is unproven.
I think that it has already been stated that the priority pick would occur somewhere at the start of the round instead of the end of the first round. There wouldn't be 2 priority picks.
Quote from: Rids on July 28, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 27, 2015, 08:43:23 PM
as far as scoring goes i like as is i guess
i'm to biased to comment about the draft pick compensations
but if Giants get a priority pick in the top 3 they shouldn't get one at the end of round 1 like Steins and i think Dragons are
also about trading picks for players the trick is being willing to offer a pick higher then the player is worth sometimes it pays off sometimes it doesn't
Agree with this.
Let's look at attempting to try and trade #3 nat pick pick for a player. You are in essence attempting to sell a top 3 mid for the year's draft for a player that might not be a top 3 mid for their team. Would we trade pick 3 for a Harley Bennell or Tom Mitchell type? Definitely! But would the owner of a Harley Bennell or a Tom Mitchell be willing to trade the player for the pick? Very doubtful. I don't think either Tom Mitchell or Harley Bennell are in the top 3 mids for their respective teams yet getting that trade to occur would be very difficult.
Trying to gauge what value #3 nat draft pick has is almost impossible due that the kid is unproven.
I think that it has already been stated that the priority pick would occur somewhere at the start of the round instead of the end of the first round. There wouldn't be 2 priority picks.
yeah so if you can get any super premos you still try and get a potential best xv player like GHS OR M Crouch someone that could be decent one day but less riskier then a rookie
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 28, 2015, 02:37:21 PM
Quote from: Rids on July 28, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 27, 2015, 08:43:23 PM
as far as scoring goes i like as is i guess
i'm to biased to comment about the draft pick compensations
but if Giants get a priority pick in the top 3 they shouldn't get one at the end of round 1 like Steins and i think Dragons are
also about trading picks for players the trick is being willing to offer a pick higher then the player is worth sometimes it pays off sometimes it doesn't
Agree with this.
Let's look at attempting to try and trade #3 nat pick pick for a player. You are in essence attempting to sell a top 3 mid for the year's draft for a player that might not be a top 3 mid for their team. Would we trade pick 3 for a Harley Bennell or Tom Mitchell type? Definitely! But would the owner of a Harley Bennell or a Tom Mitchell be willing to trade the player for the pick? Very doubtful. I don't think either Tom Mitchell or Harley Bennell are in the top 3 mids for their respective teams yet getting that trade to occur would be very difficult.
Trying to gauge what value #3 nat draft pick has is almost impossible due that the kid is unproven.
I think that it has already been stated that the priority pick would occur somewhere at the start of the round instead of the end of the first round. There wouldn't be 2 priority picks.
yeah so if you can get any super premos you still try and get a potential best xv player like GHS OR M Crouch someone that could be decent one day but less riskier then a rookie
Yep. It becomes a guess on a kid that might be a gun one day but not at the present or using the #3 nat pick on who you think is the 3rd best kid in the draft. I would much rather the latter and hope that we get the next Tom Mitchell or Harley Bennell with that selection.
really? i rather get someone i have seen at AFL level and think they will be good i should have pick 3/4 i would happily trade it for M Crouch or Dunstan or Aish etc instead of drafting
I really enjoy the draft. It gives me an interest when my website is having a break. I enjoy doing the research and watching the footage of the TAC and U18 Championships etc. But I do understand the thought process that you have as well. If the right kid was offered then no doubt I would consider the trade.
Quote from: Rids on July 28, 2015, 02:56:35 PM
I really enjoy the draft. It gives me an interest when my website is having a break. I enjoy doing the research and watching the footage of the TAC and U18 Championships etc. But I do understand the thought process that you have as well. If the right kid was offered then no doubt I would consider the trade.
You can have all my picks then :P
Quote from: GoLions on July 28, 2015, 09:45:53 PM
Quote from: Rids on July 28, 2015, 02:56:35 PM
I really enjoy the draft. It gives me an interest when my website is having a break. I enjoy doing the research and watching the footage of the TAC and U18 Championships etc. But I do understand the thought process that you have as well. If the right kid was offered then no doubt I would consider the trade.
You can have all my picks then :P
Feel free to send through some offers then ::)
just a request for this year and next
can we get the next rounds threads up pretty early in the week or at least by Tuesday even if there is no info just a thread started
it's not cause i'm impatient is just cause i like posting my team early in case i have net issues etc
i was even thinking at the start of next year make all the threads with the fixtures and we can bump them once needed and you can do write ups if you like
and i do like the writeups you do and appreciate them
not having a go at you at all btw just an idea
Isn't this the last week before finals?
Fair point KB and I usually try to get them up by Wednesday in the process of doing them atm.
And yes this is ;last week before the Premiership and Plate finals start
Another quick item for discussion:
Last year the Premiership Finals were for positions 1 - 8 so just wondering whether the plate finals should also decide positions 9 - 16 or we just leave as ladder positions after home and away.
just leave it
most bottom 8 sides just want the season to end ASAP lol
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on July 29, 2015, 02:44:39 PM
just leave it
most bottom 8 sides just want the season to end ASAP lol
Agreed i'm not a fan of bottom 8 comps.
Just like DT Americas... But we are doing a bottom 4 comp... Sooooooooooooooooooooo pointless.
Agree, leave the bottom 8 positions the same as they finish the H&A rounds.
OK consensus seems to be leave the bottom 8 as is at conclusion of H & A but we will still run the plate competition as we have for the past 2 years.
Ewood Park Has Been Taken Over By The
Wrexham Knights
(http://orig13.deviantart.net/2419/f/2012/313/e/8/knight_sketch_by_chrisbjors-d5khyav.jpg)
Lucky I have the week off... Treloar sitting our this week to rest a groin injury.
Hopefully he's back and ready to have a big game in two weeks.
Quote from: Nige on August 12, 2015, 02:57:44 PM
Lucky I have the week off...
Not as lucky as some ::)
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 12, 2015, 05:52:34 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 12, 2015, 02:57:44 PM
Lucky I have the week off...
Not as lucky as some ::)
I still feel almost wrong in accepting that win :-[ I actually checked the raw scores today as when I originally added them up I thought you had still won. You don't want to know how close they actually were :-\
Quote from: Rusty00 on August 12, 2015, 07:24:11 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 12, 2015, 05:52:34 PM
Quote from: Nige on August 12, 2015, 02:57:44 PM
Lucky I have the week off...
Not as lucky as some ::)
I still feel almost wrong in accepting that win :-[ I actually checked the raw scores today as when I originally added them up I thought you had still won. You don't want to know how close they actually were :-\
Kudos for paying attention I suppose!
But yeah, I've got nothing nice/good to say about that rule or the reasons behind it, so I'm trying (and failing a little) to not create a scene and keep my mouth shut... it's pretty bloody hard, because I feel like I'm not getting across my true utter disgust, like someone who would.
Guess I better take the long way around and win the premiership :-X :P
Badgers Best and Fairest (http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,99413.msg1663308.html#msg1663308) for anyone interested, it's flowering close!
OK now that we have decided to use Ultimate Sports scoring system for next year, which in theory should make my job a little easier, time to discuss her any ideas to re-energise British and our trophies.
I am thinking of revamping the Rob Roy to have a straight knockout competition based on positions at end of Round 17 and then have a straight KO competition for 4 weeks.
Should give us the opportunity to name team and coach of the week.
What are peoples thoughts of running a reserves competition as well. Need to establish some rules to cover for shortfall of players to make it fair. Maybe back to increasing lists to 48 to allow a reserves.
Any other suggestions welcome.
If you're running a reserves comp, just follow the Worlds model.
Personally I quite like the rob roy model as it is now. Happy to have the Ringo Royal KO Cup being the KO comp at the end of round 17 though.
Not keen on a reserves competition, personally I won't know I won't invest enough time into it and also we played some rounds with 12 players total, so really don't have the depth.
airnt you going away for weeks next year probs not the best idea to start a reserves comp this year
Keep the comments coming. - Remember it is not my competition it is yours so feel free to float any ideas here to improve it no matter how silly it may sound.
Yes KB I will be in Europe for 6 weeks in July/August next year so will also be looking for someone to keep the comp running during that time. (Leave on 5th July returning 5th August),
i have the time to do it but i cant even get my own teams scores right so i wouldnt trust me doing it
UF should do most of the scoring on its own? So should be pretty easy?
My 2 cents.....
After creating the UF league with the scoring format it should be simple. The squad numbers however will be where we might have an issue as UF allows 20 on the bench and from memory we will require more than that (only a little hurdle as most of the tracking will be done here anyways).
Draw will be easy to set up and you can even set up a % of game time rule in UF to help assist Ringo in highlighting the guys who might need to be subbed on and off. Another good thing will be able to track the in round match up of not only your team but for the league overall. I will be more than happy to help set up everything when the time comes.
I have asked the question about uncontested possessions and clangers and they will hopefully have those extra stats for 2016. UF have advised me they will let me know in January.
I would also think that HGA is done here. This comp is a fanfooty comp and should stay that way imo. We are just leveraging a tool to help Ringo and improve BXV.
Quote from: Rids on August 18, 2015, 12:07:00 PM
My 2 cents.....
After creating the UF league with the scoring format it should be simple. The squad numbers however will be where we might have an issue as UF allows 20 on the bench and from memory we will require more than that (only a little hurdle as most of the tracking will be done here anyways).
Draw will be easy to set up and you can even set up a % of game time rule in UF to help assist Ringo in highlighting the guys who might need to be subbed on and off. Another good thing will be able to track the in round match up of not only your team but for the league overall. I will be more than happy to help set up everything when the time comes.
I have asked the question about uncontested possessions and clangers and they will hopefully have those extra stats for 2016. UF have advised me they will let me know in January.
I would also think that HGA is done here. This comp is a fanfooty comp and should stay that way imo. We are just leveraging a tool to help Ringo and improve BXV.
All great points. Agree with it all mate.
In regards to the 20 person bench, if we just turn off waivers, then people will be able to pick up their players from the FA and play them whenever they want. As long as we don't pick up each others players then its all good!
Well said dude, sounds good to me.
Ditto, will be very good indeed
Shameless advertising
WXV Vacant Coaching Position (http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,104688.0.html)
Just finished up the B&F to be posted after the end of our season, super interesting count that even left me surprised in parts.
are lists staying at 45
Just a couple of things that need to be discussed now before the season officially ends,
1) If any coach wishes to give up their team now is the time to advise so we can have new coach in place for trading and drafting. Purple has resigned as coach of the Hurricanes due to his commitments with Worlds which is understandable and will be advertising for a new coach shortly along with any other that may become vacant.
2) If you wish to change Team names or home ground please also advise in this thread.
@KB we have voted to keep lists at 45 with no rookie list,
The Wrexham Knights new homeground is 'Racecourse Ground'. Thanks Ringo man.
Thanks for having me Ringo & everyone! I didn't intend to quit when I went for 2015 here, but I unexpectedly got the Worlds gig and I soon found that it didn't allow much time to coach here... kinda feel bad leaving the next coach with an older list, I was gonna fix it I swear :-X
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 26, 2015, 10:27:31 AM
Thanks for having me Ringo & everyone! I didn't intend to quit when I went for 2015 here, but I unexpectedly got the Worlds gig and I soon found that it didn't allow much time to coach here... kinda feel bad leaving the next coach with an older list, I was gonna fix it I swear :-X
It was a pleasure to have outcoached you. :P 8)
Quote from: Nige on August 26, 2015, 10:32:52 AM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 26, 2015, 10:27:31 AM
Thanks for having me Ringo & everyone! I didn't intend to quit when I went for 2015 here, but I unexpectedly got the Worlds gig and I soon found that it didn't allow much time to coach here... kinda feel bad leaving the next coach with an older list, I was gonna fix it I swear :-X
It was a pleasure to have outcoached you. :P 8)
Phwoah... nah fair enough, I'll let you have this ONE! :P
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 26, 2015, 11:18:53 AM
Quote from: Nige on August 26, 2015, 10:32:52 AM
Quote from: Purple 77 on August 26, 2015, 10:27:31 AM
Thanks for having me Ringo & everyone! I didn't intend to quit when I went for 2015 here, but I unexpectedly got the Worlds gig and I soon found that it didn't allow much time to coach here... kinda feel bad leaving the next coach with an older list, I was gonna fix it I swear :-X
It was a pleasure to have outcoached you. :P 8)
Phwoah... nah fair enough, I'll let you have this ONE! :P
I don't get much of a chance in Worlds, suffice to say I'm an opportunist.
If only you had updated your scores Purp. I would be in the GF >:(
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 26, 2015, 02:31:35 PM
If only you had updated your scores Purp. I would be in the GF >:(
:-X
Don't think I'm brave after to give Oscar McDonald his debut this week and Tom Sheridan won't be appearing in the grand final either. Jayden Laverde might though, there's hope for him!
Quote from: Nige on August 27, 2015, 05:37:37 PM
Don't think I'm brave after to give Oscar McDonald his debut this week and Tom Sheridan won't be appearing in the grand final either. Jayden Laverde might though, there's hope for him!
Sheridan should look to go to a club that will play him ;) Like Wrexham.
2014 GF
Ablett out injured
Fyfe out suspended
Cox out rested
Lynch out injured
2015 GF
Ablett out injured
Fyfe out injured
Hodge out suspended
Myers out injured
That's even before teams are named as well :'(
At least I won't have to play an OOP ruck this year :)
i talked to TDawg if we don't get any interest to take over from purple he will apply
Quote from: Rusty00 on August 27, 2015, 05:57:26 PM
2014 GF
Ablett out injured
Fyfe out suspended
Cox out rested
Lynch out injured
2015 GF
Ablett out injured
Fyfe out injured
Hodge out suspended
Myers out injured
That's even before teams are named as well :'(
At least I won't have to play an OOP ruck this year :)
I am extremely lucky...
Vacancy for Hastings Hurricanes Head Coach.
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,104783.0.html
Where are we at with the scoring system for next year?
The celebrations continue with the Liverpool Rams' best and fairest starting shortly.
The Rams' B&F has just concluded, you can read the count, awards and result here (http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,84683.msg1668983.html#msg1668983).
For what it's worth I think, given the whole Freo are resting their whole team debacle that's likely this weekend, I think it was a great move to end our season in Round 22.
Quote from: Memphistopheles on August 31, 2015, 10:56:37 PM
For what it's worth I think, given the whole Freo are resting their whole team debacle that's likely this weekend, I think it was a great move to end our season in Round 22.
Tim Sumner and Matt Goodyear the only 2 not to get a game for there club this year i think on my list and Sumner got delisted
looking very possibleat this stage unless we can get trades done Dragons may not use any picks in either draft have 46 players currently have nobody i want to delist will be forced to delist one obviously
So you wont be using Pick 1 in the Rookie draft or is that your 46th players,
Quote from: Ringo on September 11, 2015, 08:15:13 AM
So you wont be using Pick 1 in the Rookie draft or is that your 46th players,
yeah i have Oxley on my list already lol so he is counted as is McKernan lol
Just a bit of advertising for a vacant position in AXVIII DT
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,104976.0.html
Just a reminder that trade period concludes on Sunday Night and also and further de-listings required.
I have also put up the current lists as I have them in this thread. Can you all please check, mainly due to the extensive manual work involved, and advise any discrepancies.
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,105127.0.html
How likely is it that UPs and Clangers are added to the scoring system? I think I remember Rids or someone saying that it was probably going to happen, but wanna know if there's any new updates or something.
Quote from: GoLions on November 21, 2015, 01:58:48 PM
How likely is it that UPs and Clangers are added to the scoring system? I think I remember Rids or someone saying that it was probably going to happen, but wanna know if there's any new updates or something.
Won't know 100% until Jan when UF do the new contract with CD for the stats. These stats are on their list to be included in the new contract.
Quote from: GoLions on November 21, 2015, 01:58:48 PM
How likely is it that UPs and Clangers are added to the scoring system? I think I remember Rids or someone saying that it was probably going to happen, but wanna know if there's any new updates or something.
CD and Ultimate Sports renew the contract in January and that is when we will know what others are added. They are hopeful they will be.
Edit We both posted same time Rids with same answer
Cheers guys!
Lads if you're interested in joining the Asian comp, have a read of the below
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,105139.0.html
Please Note
Due to the need to start our own drafts and keep the off-season moving, applications will be open for just over a day, closing at 11:59PM AEDT on Wednesday 25th November
So jump in straight away
Just a note for further discussion - As the Standard lists for AFL Teams is 47 players and as we will have players left over should we increase our lists to 47 having an additional 2 rookie rounds at the conclusion of the rookie draft.
Might as well just keep them as they are. The players we get with those picks are probably guys we'll just end up delisting next season anyway.
Yeah keep as is. Also remember some people may have delisted guys that they would have kept with 47 spots available on their list. Personally, I would've used at least 1 extra NAT pick.
Quote from: Ringo on December 04, 2015, 10:13:57 AM
Just a note for further discussion - As the Standard lists for AFL Teams is 47 players and as we will have players left over should we increase our lists to 47 having an additional 2 rookie rounds at the conclusion of the rookie draft.
We would have held on to 2 guys we delisted if we were to increase the team lists to 47.
Would rather keep as is
Quote from: Rids on December 04, 2015, 10:38:20 AM
Quote from: Ringo on December 04, 2015, 10:13:57 AM
Just a note for further discussion - As the Standard lists for AFL Teams is 47 players and as we will have players left over should we increase our lists to 47 having an additional 2 rookie rounds at the conclusion of the rookie draft.
We would have held on to 2 guys we delisted if we were to increase the team lists to 47.
Would rather keep as is
This is true, we would have for sure.
If it were to be introduced (not really sure it's needed though), we'd be better off introducing it prior to any trade periods and drafts, so as to be able to plan strategically for our desired outcomes
you could adjust the rule next year but teams have already traded and delisted to suit rules this year so not fair to change them
OK - So what are thoughts on increasing size of lists to 47 for 107 Season. Just to get an idea ealy and record for decision prior to end of 2016 season.
Lists will remain at 45 for 2016 season.
I'd prefer to keep it at 45.
I'd prefer to keep it at 45
Bennell keeps DPP! 8)
Ultimate Footy
Ultimate Footy â€" â€@UltimateFootyAu
No new scoring categories this year unfortunately but some other big changes coming
9:09 PM - 4 Jan 2016
3 LIKES
Quote from: LF on January 05, 2016, 07:55:21 PM
Ultimate Footy
Ultimate Footy â€" â€@UltimateFootyAu
No new scoring categories this year unfortunately but some other big changes coming
9:09 PM - 4 Jan 2016
3 LIKES
Wait what? does that mean UP isn't going to be added?
Sounds like it
Quote from: iZander on January 05, 2016, 07:56:26 PM
Quote from: LF on January 05, 2016, 07:55:21 PM
Ultimate Footy
Ultimate Footy â€" â€@UltimateFootyAu
No new scoring categories this year unfortunately but some other big changes coming
9:09 PM - 4 Jan 2016
3 LIKES
Wait what? does that mean UP isn't going to be added?
Or clangers I guess
Does not sound promising after the anticipation of adding clangers and UP. Think we should still go with UF and adapt whatever they come up with and customise.
Will be looking into it further over the next few weeks.
No UP = Bradley Hill's avg is going to be about 12.
Just messaged them for official confirmation that clangers and uncontested possies arent going to be added.
Sounds like the $$$ were too much to justify from CD for the extra categories.
Quote from: Rids on January 05, 2016, 09:20:02 PM
Just messaged them for official confirmation that clangers and uncontested possies arent going to be added.
Sounds like the $$$ were too much to justify from CD for the extra categories.
Thanks Rids. Do you know if the other changes coming soon will help our BXV league? (aka should we lock in a decision on scoring system etc now or wait a bit for more info)
how are we adding spoils? are we just adding them ourselves? or is that a category they have already?
Spoils is a category in the Sports Plus add on which we will have access to.
here are the categories in the package
Stat Description
KI Kicks 3pts
HB Handballs 1pt
MA Marks 3pts
HO Hitouts 1pt
TK Tackles 3pts
FF Free Kicks For 1pt
FA Free Kicks Against - 1pt
FD Free Kick Differential
GL Goals 6pts
BH Behinds 1pt
D Disposals
ED Effective Disposals 2pts
IED Ineffective Disposals -2pts
CP Contested Possessions 4pts
R50 Rebound 50s
SP Spoils 2pts
CL Clearances 4pts
At this stage pending further advices proposing to use all except those 2 in red. Will need to agree on scoring though to set.
So I assume then that there would be a different amount of points awarded for effective and ineffective disposals, and extra points awarded for clearances? Kind of balances clangers not being added then.
Quote from: GoLions on January 06, 2016, 06:42:22 PM
So I assume then that there would be a different amount of points awarded for effective and ineffective disposals, and extra points awarded for clearances? Kind of balances clangers not being added then.
No it doesn't because a clanger and an ineffective disposal aren't the same? How does clearances affect the balancing of clangers? (I would love clearances to be worth more because it benefits the hedgehogs but I don't understand the logic behind this?)
I think we just have the exact scoring system as discussed, without UP being worth anything as was planned if they weren't available?
I have added suggested points scoring based on the categories, Not final and open for discussion. Not sure whether we want to increase Ineffective disposals t to say -3 or 0r -5 as an example.
Points in green are the ones that correlate to those of original Sportal. Others are my suggestions and open for debate.
Quote from: Spite on January 06, 2016, 06:50:35 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 06, 2016, 06:42:22 PM
So I assume then that there would be a different amount of points awarded for effective and ineffective disposals, and extra points awarded for clearances? Kind of balances clangers not being added then.
No it doesn't because a clanger and an ineffective disposal aren't the same? How does clearances affect the balancing of clangers? (I would love clearances to be worth more because it benefits the hedgehogs but I don't understand the logic behind this?)
I think we just have the exact scoring system as discussed, without UP being worth anything as was planned if they weren't available?
Let me use Jack Steven and Pendles as an example. With clangers added, Steven's score would get hurt a lot more than Pendles, so would give Pendles a +10ppg advantage (for arguments sake). If they're not added, but effective and ineffective are, then because Pendles uses the ball better than Steven, he will still get that +10ppg advantage or thereabouts.
Obviously clearances has no effect, I was just referring to the effective and ineffective disposals part with that statement. And yes I know ineffective disposals doesn't give you negative points, but it gives you less than effective disposals do.
Quote from: Ringo on January 06, 2016, 06:38:00 PM
Spoils is a category in the Sports Plus add on which we will have access to.
here are the categories in the package
Stat Description
KI Kicks 3pts
HB Handballs 1pt
MA Marks 3pts
HO Hitouts 1pt
TK Tackles 3pts
FF Free Kicks For 1pt
FA Free Kicks Against - 1pt
FD Free Kick Differential
GL Goals 6pts
BH Behinds 1pt
D Disposals
ED Effective Disposals 2pts
IED Ineffective Disposals -2pts
CP Contested Possessions 4pts
R50 Rebound 50s
SP Spoils 2pts
CL Clearances 4pts
At this stage pending further advices proposing to use all except those 2 in red. Will need to agree on scoring though to set.
Ineffective disposals shouldn't be negative points, I'd just give them 0.
And if we added clearances, I wouldn't be making them worth any more than 2.
I was using ineffective disposals as a form of clangers but not the -5 that was used by Sportal. Happy for further discussion though as to whether we should use this (o means we do not).
My thinking were clearances and contested possessions were similar to the outcome of a game so hence scoring the same. Happy to lower points if that is concensus.
Quote from: Ringo on January 06, 2016, 07:36:43 PM
I was using ineffective disposals as a form of clangers but not the -5 that was used by Sportal. Happy for further discussion though as to whether we should use this (o means we do not).
My thinking were clearances and contested possessions were similar to the outcome of a game so hence scoring the same. Happy to lower points if that is concensus.
An ineffective disposal isn't a clanger though, so shouldn't get negative points.
A clearance will get you the contested possession points if it was a contested possession anyway, wouldn't it?
Do we need negative scorings at all?? I'm not a fan of either Clangers or Ineffective Disposal... And seeing as Clangers aren't going to be in it at all... Do we really need to use Ineffective Disposal?
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 06, 2016, 07:52:43 PM
Do we need negative scorings at all?? I'm not a fan of either Clangers or Ineffective Disposal... And seeing as Clangers aren't going to be in it at all... Do we really need to use Ineffective Disposal?
Yeah I agree.
From Wikipedia
"Examples of clangers include,
Any disposal or deliberate knock-on that goes directly to an opposition player.
Any free kick conceded
Dropped marks or fumbles under no pressure
50-metre penalties conceded
A Ball-Up Kick In (Stepping over the line when kicking in after a behind)"
Only one of those examples are ineffective disposals and it requires a direct turnover . However (correct me if I'm wrong because I'm just going off last years stats) an ineffective disposal includes a wider spectrum from a direct turnover to a kick into space (so one that doesn't give your team immediate possession).
Part of the fun is cheering on your players when you see them do something that will earn you a lot of BXV points and I think ineffective disposals just adds an unnecessary ambiguity to this.
As a compromise to this, as a free kick against is considered a clanger, we could just decrease the amount of points a free kick against is worth from perhaps -1 to -3? A large percentage of clangers are free's against anyway.
Quote from: Spite on January 07, 2016, 01:19:36 AM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 06, 2016, 07:52:43 PM
Do we need negative scorings at all?? I'm not a fan of either Clangers or Ineffective Disposal... And seeing as Clangers aren't going to be in it at all... Do we really need to use Ineffective Disposal?
Yeah I agree.
From Wikipedia
"Examples of clangers include,
Any disposal or deliberate knock-on that goes directly to an opposition player.
Any free kick conceded
Dropped marks or fumbles under no pressure
50-metre penalties conceded
A Ball-Up Kick In (Stepping over the line when kicking in after a behind)"
Only one of those examples are ineffective disposals and it requires a direct turnover . However (correct me if I'm wrong because I'm just going off last years stats) an ineffective disposal includes a wider spectrum from a direct turnover to a kick into space (so one that doesn't give your team immediate possession).
Part of the fun is cheering on your players when you see them do something that will earn you a lot of BXV points and I think ineffective disposals just adds an unnecessary ambiguity to this.
As a compromise to this, as a free kick against is considered a clanger, we could just decrease the amount of points a free kick against is worth from perhaps -1 to -3? A large percentage of clangers are free's against anyway.
I'd be fine with that.
Happy to delete Ineffective disposals if that is the consensus (and heading that way). Like the idea then of increasing FA to -3.
Keep the debate coming as I do not want to be dogmatic and implement points that you all are not happy with. Would also like some comment on the positive points as well eg is 4 to much for CP and Clearances.
This is what my suggestion is for the points system.
I actually don't mind CP as 4 points. To me it should be a very rewarding stat, as they're pretty important to the game, and players in all roles can rack up 10 or so a game.
Stat Description
KI Kicks 3pts
HB Handballs 1pt
MA Marks 3pts
HO Hitouts 1pt
TK Tackles 3pts
FF Free Kicks For 1pt
FA Free Kicks Against - 3pt
GL Goals 6pts
BH Behinds 1pt
ED Effective Disposals 2pts
CP Contested Possessions 4pts
SP Spoils 2pts
CL Clearances 2pts
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 07, 2016, 10:35:00 AM
This is what my suggestion is for the points system.
I actually don't mind CP as 4 points. To me it should be a very rewarding stat, as they're pretty important to the game, and players in all roles can rack up 10 or so a game.
Stat Description
KI Kicks 3pts
HB Handballs 1pt
MA Marks 3pts
HO Hitouts 1pt
TK Tackles 3pts
FF Free Kicks For 1pt
FA Free Kicks Against - 3pt
GL Goals 6pts
BH Behinds 1pt
ED Effective Disposals 2pts
CP Contested Possessions 4pts
SP Spoils 2pts
CL Clearances 2pts
I'm a fan of this
Quote from: Spite on January 07, 2016, 12:16:00 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 07, 2016, 10:35:00 AM
This is what my suggestion is for the points system.
I actually don't mind CP as 4 points. To me it should be a very rewarding stat, as they're pretty important to the game, and players in all roles can rack up 10 or so a game.
Stat Description
KI Kicks 3pts
HB Handballs 1pt
MA Marks 3pts
HO Hitouts 1pt
TK Tackles 3pts
FF Free Kicks For 1pt
FA Free Kicks Against - 3pt
GL Goals 6pts
BH Behinds 1pt
ED Effective Disposals 2pts
CP Contested Possessions 4pts
SP Spoils 2pts
CL Clearances 2pts
I'm a fan of this
Quote from: GoLions on January 07, 2016, 12:35:04 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 07, 2016, 12:16:00 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 07, 2016, 10:35:00 AM
This is what my suggestion is for the points system.
I actually don't mind CP as 4 points. To me it should be a very rewarding stat, as they're pretty important to the game, and players in all roles can rack up 10 or so a game.
Stat Description
KI Kicks 3pts
HB Handballs 1pt
MA Marks 3pts
HO Hitouts 1pt
TK Tackles 3pts
FF Free Kicks For 1pt
FA Free Kicks Against - 3pt
GL Goals 6pts
BH Behinds 1pt
ED Effective Disposals 2pts
CP Contested Possessions 4pts
SP Spoils 2pts
CL Clearances 2pts
I'm a fan of this
l like most of what has been suggested.
Except for not including clangers, as they help to accurately reflect a players true value to an AFL team. Also don't like the raising of the penalty of frees against to -3 to compensate.
To me it has the potential to penalise inside mids and players who have a real crack, whilst at the same time reward outside seagulls who can't kick straight and turn the ball over.
The rest l like :)
**Also worth noting l'm talking on Rids' behalf too, we've discussed it but he's interstate working and can't get online at the moment.
Quote from: nostradamus on January 07, 2016, 01:16:16 PM
l like most of what has been suggested.
Except for not including clangers, as they help to accurately reflect a players true value to an AFL team. Also don't like the raising of the penalty of frees against to -3 to compensate.
To me it has the potential to penalise inside mids and players who have a real crack, whilst at the same time reward outside seagulls who can't kick straight and turn the ball over.
The rest l like :)
**Also worth noting l'm talking on Rids' behalf too, we've discussed it but he's interstate working and can't get online at the moment.
Clangers aren't available though
Quote from: nostradamus on January 07, 2016, 01:16:16 PM
l like most of what has been suggested.
Except for not including clangers, as they help to accurately reflect a players true value to an AFL team. Also don't like the raising of the penalty of frees against to -3 to compensate.
To me it has the potential to penalise inside mids and players who have a real crack, whilst at the same time reward outside seagulls who can't kick straight and turn the ball over.
The rest l like :)
**Also worth noting l'm talking on Rids' behalf too, we've discussed it but he's interstate working and can't get online at the moment.
Well it's not our fault UF can't add Clangers. And if Ineffective Disposal is added it just damages the inside mids even more. Mainly if the forwards over extend their lead and it ends up in the hands of the opponent they get penalized... I'd prefer to punish the midfielder for tackling a guy too high... Because he is in control of where he tackles. But isn't in control of his team mates marking or gathering abilities.
Personally in favour of -3 points for Frees against. Reason being you penalise the team with the free against so there should be a penalty involved. Remember under Sportal F/A it was classed as a clanger and incurred -5. Think -3 is a fair compromise when we can not get clangers statistics.
With using UF advances stats we still have a unique scoring competition.
Quote from: Ringo on January 07, 2016, 10:24:11 AM
Happy to delete Ineffective disposals if that is the consensus (and heading that way). Like the idea then of increasing FA to -3.
Keep the debate coming as I do not want to be dogmatic and implement points that you all are not happy with. Would also like some comment on the positive points as well eg is 4 to much for CP and Clearances.
yeah personally think +4 is a lot for CP if UP are not going to be rewarded at all
I'm fine with 4 for CPs
Quote from: Ringo on January 07, 2016, 02:00:00 PM
Personally in favour of -3 points for Frees against. Reason being you penalise the team with the free against so there should be a penalty involved. Remember under Sportal F/A it was classed as a clanger and incurred -5. Think -3 is a fair compromise when we can not get clangers statistics.
With using UF advances stats we still have a unique scoring competition.
We're happy to go with your best judgement on everything Ringo
If agreement can not be reached on any scoring points we will have a vote to resolve.
Thanks for the open debate going on here with Contested Possessions and Frees Against being the 2 causing the most angst at the moment.
If people want 4 i don't really care, just increases the gap between forwards/defenders and mids further, thats my thinking behind it. Lets me honest, everyone is just trying to suit there team strengths anyway but i have no problem with + 4 for CP.
Well I'm pretty sure in the original Sportal scoring system that CP's was 4 points so that is really what it should be imo
LF is correct - Here is the original Sportal Scoring
Kick 3 Points
Handball 1 Point
Contested Possession * 4 Points
Uncontested Possession ** 2 Points
Tackle 3 Points
Hitout 1 Point
Clanger *** -5 Points
Goal 6 Points
Behind 1 Point
*** Clangers include any blatant unforced error including free kick against, 50m penalty against, dropped marks.
As frees against were classed as clangers should we also increase them to -5, Probably not in favour of that but happy with - 3.
I wouldn't be against Frees against being -5 points tbh. And RIngo and I have heaps of Lions boys in our squad, and we all know the umps hate Brisbane :P
Quote from: iZander on January 07, 2016, 08:03:23 PM
If people want 4 i don't really care, just increases the gap between forwards/defenders and mids further, thats my thinking behind it. Lets me honest, everyone is just trying to suit there team strengths anyway but i have no problem with + 4 for CP.
We probably have the most to gain out of any team with CP being worth +4 and I campaigned for +2 so I'm not sure you can lump everyone into that...
Yup...
The team was initially drafted to suit +4 CP. I traded to suit +4 CP. Because that's what it should be. No arguments.
BXV has always been about strong midfield, no doubt about that. So that's what people drafted/traded for.
would vote for 4
Quote from: Ringo on January 07, 2016, 08:37:17 PM
LF is correct - Here is the original Sportal Scoring
Kick 3 Points
Handball 1 Point
Contested Possession * 4 Points
Uncontested Possession ** 2 Points
Tackle 3 Points
Hitout 1 Point
Clanger *** -5 Points
Goal 6 Points
Behind 1 Point
*** Clangers include any blatant unforced error including free kick against, 50m penalty against, dropped marks.
As frees against were classed as clangers should we also increase them to -5, Probably not in favour of that but happy with - 3.
I think Frees For are a contested possession as well? Which would mean we make them worth 4. I don't think having FF as 1 and FA as -5 is a great idea, but not too fussed either way.
Quote from: Ringo on January 07, 2016, 08:37:17 PM
LF is correct - Here is the original Sportal Scoring
Kick 3 Points
Handball 1 Point
Contested Possession * 4 Points
Uncontested Possession ** 2 Points
Tackle 3 Points
Hitout 1 Point
Clanger *** -5 Points
Goal 6 Points
Behind 1 Point
*** Clangers include any blatant unforced error including free kick against, 50m penalty against, dropped marks.
As frees against were classed as clangers should we also increase them to -5, Probably not in favour of that but happy with - 3.
Of course there is always an exception to the rule which happens to be out on the full. These are not registered as free against but they are recognised as a clanger. I know we cant capture this in the scoring but it was always a question I posed when working at Champion Data.
-5 is too much for a F/A. Happy for it to be -3. The rest of the stats look fine to me. It is the same for everyone and won't be too much different to what we wanted anyways.
Heppell. :( :( :(
Usually our captain under this kind of scoring system too (won both his Liverpool B&Fs under Sportal scoring).
Is it fair to assume we may have some kind of minidraft with the top up players for affected clubs, Ringo?
Will be digesting possibilities over the next three days.
My initial thoughts are that franchises with suspended players will be allowed to delist these players and then select from the left over players. Methodology to be worked out including reinstatements after 12 months but for discussion here is what I am thinking:
1) Identify the players that are now suspended
2) Await the result of any appeals etc that may eventuate.
3) Conduct a mini draft for clubs involved based on finishing order,
4) Clubs to decide whether to participate or not and to nominate whether they will delist player drafted and reinstste suspended player for the 2017 season.
Open for discussion though
1 - The '17' players are already known pretty much, so identifying them is easy.
2 - I don't think there will be any appeals and if there are, I'm not sure they'll be successful. Prepare for the worst case scenario.
3 - Mini draft is fine, but I think the draft has to be somewhat conducted based on player value or something. This is slightly biased, but it's also because I think it's unfair to do it any other way. I'm losing arguably the best Essendon player (Heppell), my captain no less, and in finishing order I'd get the last pick, aka the worst top up player of the bunch as compensation for losing the best of the suspended. Obviously not all clubs are affected, but the point still stands.
4 - I don't think there's any point delisting the player, nobody will want to do that considering most of these guys are genuinely good players (Heppell, Jobe, Hurley etc). Just keep them on the list like an LTI. It's kinda like how Collingwood are keeping Josh Thomas and Lachlan Keeffe. Essendon won't be delisting the playes either, so neither should we.
I take the point on value of players such as Stanton and will try and devise a system and draft order based on this. Will publish for discussion and agreement as values for some mid tier players will be subjective.
Also a valid point with lists so some teams may have more than 45 players on their list but at end of season will have to bring list back to 45.
Also with mini draft will need to wait till any top up players are identified as they should be included in the pool.
Dyson Heppell
Jobe Watson
Michael Hurley
Cale Hooker
Brent Stanton
Paddy Ryder
Michael Hibberd
David Myers
Jake Carlisle
Tom Bellchambers
Ben Howlett
Travis Colyer
Heath Hocking
Stewart Crameri
Jake Melksham
Angus Monfries
Tayte Pears
A rough, subjective ranking of the 17.
Fair effort Nige but would look at each teams structure as well to assign value eg if Ryder is one of the teams say 2 rucks obviously his value to that team is more. Just as an example.
I'm not sure how we avoided the carnage but we did.
I would be in support for each Essendon player to score their average from 2014 for every game of the 2015 season, with a rule against them being Captain/Vice-Captain.
^ That is the fairest option IMO,
I am thinking of doing this in Americas.
Officially delist the player affected for the season and do a mini draft based on the players worth
Then at seasons end the players picked in the mini draft are delisted back into the player pool and each team gets their original player back so lists all remain the same size.
Quote from: LF on January 12, 2016, 12:29:17 PM
I am thinking of doing this in Americas.
Officially delist the player affected for the season and do a mini draft based on the players worth
Then at seasons end the players picked in the mini draft are delisted back into the player pool and each team gets their original player back so lists all remain the same size.
Yeah, this sounds ok.
My initial thought was, bad luck and treat it like a LTI. However looking at the teams affected, there are a couple with 3 of those players which is probably too unfair.
keep it simple don't need to delist anyone teams affected just go into a draft for top up players and the topup players get delisted at the end of the year
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on January 12, 2016, 02:49:20 PM
keep it simple don't need to delist anyone teams affected just go into a draft for top up players and the topup players get delisted at the end of the year
If you delisted a player because he retired but he comes back to be a top up player, does the team that delisted them get first priority or something?
iZander
Will start a new thread for Essendon Saga where we can discuss.
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 12, 2016, 03:05:43 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on January 12, 2016, 02:49:20 PM
keep it simple don't need to delist anyone teams affected just go into a draft for top up players and the topup players get delisted at the end of the year
Done a few quick scores of some of the elite players of this comp. Some players don't move too much, and some COP it really bad without UP but the extra points gained from not getting clangers. (Didn't add FA averages)
Fyfe 162 (was 166)
Dangerfield 152 (was 160)
Pendles 136 (was 162)
Kennedy 153 (was 160)
Gaff 119 (was 150)
Lewis 135 (was 157)
Mundy 141 (was 156)
Boyd 121 (was 148)
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 13, 2016, 01:55:39 PM
Done a few quick scores of some of the elite players of this comp. Some players don't move too much, and some COP it really bad without UP but the extra points gained from not getting clangers. (Didn't add FA averages)
Fyfe 162 (was 166)
Dangerfield 152 (was 160)
Pendles 136 (was 162)
Kennedy 153 (was 160)
Gaff 119 (was 150)
Lewis 135 (was 157)
Mundy 141 (was 156)
Boyd 121 (was 148)
Yeah, I did something similar and it's all the "outside players" like Gaff above and most of the rebounding defenders who suffer the most. (3 players it affects most of all those who played 10 or more games are B Hill, Gibson and Birchall....).
It affected Ruckman and key forwards the least and in a lot of cases their average scores actually rose with these changes.
Quote from: Rusty00 on January 13, 2016, 02:37:47 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 13, 2016, 01:55:39 PM
Done a few quick scores of some of the elite players of this comp. Some players don't move too much, and some COP it really bad without UP but the extra points gained from not getting clangers. (Didn't add FA averages)
Fyfe 162 (was 166)
Dangerfield 152 (was 160)
Pendles 136 (was 162)
Kennedy 153 (was 160)
Gaff 119 (was 150)
Lewis 135 (was 157)
Mundy 141 (was 156)
Boyd 121 (was 148)
Yeah, I did something similar and it's all the "outside players" like Gaff above and most of the rebounding defenders who suffer the most. (3 players it affects most of all those who played 10 or more games are B Hill, Gibson and Birchall....).
It affected Ruckman and key forwards the least and in a lot of cases their average scores actually rose with these changes.
Yeah, I got Hill... Better off playing an ant haha. Yeah a fair few ruckmen only changed 4-5 points max. Tippett went up from 99 to 102 haha. Boak only went down 10 points, 135 to 125.
Quote from: Rusty00 on January 13, 2016, 02:37:47 PM
players it affects most of all Gibson and Birchall
Yes, more bad news please.
Quote from: Nige on January 13, 2016, 03:20:39 PM
Quote from: Rusty00 on January 13, 2016, 02:37:47 PM
players it affects most of all Gibson and Birchall
Yes, more bad news please.
Hey it could be worse, we added spoils and Gibbo get's like a bonus 15+ ppg! :P
Quote from: GoLions on January 14, 2016, 06:20:32 PM
The top up players will only be playing for 1 year, so teams that had them previously wouldn't get first crack. If, however, any of those players get on to an AFL list after the end of this season, then the team that originally had them would get first crack, and not those getting them as replacements this season (if we go down that route).
Just moved this here to continue discussion although everyone so far seems for it.
I think this would be good because whoever had simpkin for example and delisted him would probably deserve to have first crack at him if he gets a lifeline in 2017.
Will treat it like academy father son. Any players that you have de-listed and are picked up in future seasons by an afl club, the franchise has the opportunity to redraft them with their final national Draft or Rookie pick depending on the draft taken. Coaches will have to nominate redrafting player X. This will not apply though to top up players of tjhis year though.
Ok guys another item for discussion and needs to be resolved reasonably quickly.
Ultimate footy have just released their DPP for the year and they have an additional 13 Players with DPP as per this article.
http://footyprophet.com/exclusive-ultimate-footy-2016-position-update/
These 13 are added to the initial 160 that have already been released so we have 173 players with DPP in UF.
We have already decided that positions in round 1 will stay for the season. Question we now have to decide is do we use the UF version or try somehow to keep the CD version of 160. Full list can be downloaded from the article.
My thoughts is for simplicity we use the UF list of 173 and lock at Round 1.
Thoughts.
I have no problem with keeping it simple. (also it was stupid Oxley wasn't a defender anyway)
Ryan Griffen (WS â€" C) â€" Add B
I'm in.
We had Matty James from Footy Prophet on our podcast last week and were discussing the guys who should have had DPP allocated. I dont mind either way tbh but I am totally against any positions that are added in the season being allowed.
Quote from: Rids on January 19, 2016, 04:58:53 PM
We had Matty James from Footy Prophet on our podcast last week and were discussing the guys who should have had DPP allocated. I dont mind either way tbh but I am totally against any positions that are added in the season being allowed.
Yep
Quote from: Rids on January 19, 2016, 04:58:53 PM
We had Matty James from Footy Prophet on our podcast last week and were discussing the guys who should have had DPP allocated. I dont mind either way tbh but I am totally against any positions that are added in the season being allowed.
yeah agreed, lock them in round 1 :P
Quote from: GoLions on January 19, 2016, 05:00:15 PM
Quote from: Rids on January 19, 2016, 04:58:53 PM
We had Matty James from Footy Prophet on our podcast last week and were discussing the guys who should have had DPP allocated. I dont mind either way tbh but I am totally against any positions that are added in the season being allowed.
Yep
Why can't we keep it the same as CD? If you have Griffin, just play him as a mid and not a defender. It is literally that easy. No player is given a position that he can't play in CD so we should keep it as it has always been and stick to CD positions.
Issue is we are using UF to do draw and allow you you to pick teams each week and load into UF as per decision reached. That is why I said for simplicity to match their initial DPP and lock at Round 1 which we can do. I am using as much of the features available in UF to make my job as administrator as simple as possible after spending nearly 8hrs a week last year updating scores etc.
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 05:12:59 PM
Issue is we are using UF to do draw and allow you you to pick teams each week and load into UF as per decision reached. That is why I said for simplicity to match their initial DPP and lock at Round 1 which we can do. I am using as much of the features available in UF to make my job as administrator as simple as possible after spending nearly 8hrs a week last year updating scores etc.
Is there an option in UF to use CD possies?
Just seems silly that someone like Goddard can get def status
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 05:12:59 PM
Issue is we are using UF to do draw and allow you you to pick teams each week and load into UF as per decision reached. That is why I said for simplicity to match their initial DPP and lock at Round 1 which we can do. I am using as much of the features available in UF to make my job as administrator as simple as possible after spending nearly 8hrs a week last year updating scores etc.
You don't need to check it Ringo.
Someone with Goddard knows his position in CD. So he will play him as a mid and not a defender. There are 13 extra DPPs, people don't have different positions, they have added position and so they can still play them in their original CD position. You don't have to do anything extra at all, just trust people don't play people out of their CD position and screw something up.
You can even post the differences here and people will just know if they have those players, play them in their CD original positions. People with Goddard and Griffin won't "accidentally" play them as a defender. They know they're mid only.
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 05:08:00 PM
Why can't we keep it the same as CD? If you have Griffin, just play him as a mid and not a defender. It is literally that easy. No player is given a position that he can't play in CD so we should keep it as it has always been and stick to CD positions.
CD's reasoning to positions this year was completely retarded. They based positions and DPP based on where they were NAMED before the match. Not roles that they actually played. Griffen missed out on DEF status because he was named in the backline 33% of the time, but had to be named 35% of the time to be given DEF status. Then if you look at his heat map, it's about 50% of his disposal was in the back 50. And about 75% in the back half.
So CD isn't that great to follow.
Do not think you realise with going UF and customising we get to use their scoring systems and saves me a great deal of work as I will explain.
1) You will be lodging your team each week in UF and no need to lodge in thread. Any penalties involved will be done off line.
2) we will be using a UF draft which I will load so each franchise has their nominated players. No trading will be allowed.
3) We will be using the draw as devised by UF each week.
4) Will apply HGA as appropriate off line -
If we were to go back to CD I would have to check each week to ensure rules are not being flaunted, believe me there are time when this is the case. So my recommendation for simplicity is to use the 173 DPP from UF. Will make our competition further unique from others.
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 05:32:44 PM
Do not think you realise with going UF and customising we get to use their scoring systems and saves me a great deal of work as I will explain.
1) You will be lodging your team each week in UF and no need to lodge in thread. Any penalties involved will be done off line.
2) we will be using a UF draft which I will load so each franchise has their nominated players. No trading will be allowed.
3) We will be using the draw as devised by UF each week.
4) Will apply HGA as appropriate off line -
If we were to go back to CD I would have to check each week to ensure rules are not being flaunted, believe me there are time when this is the case. So my recommendation for simplicity is to use the 173 DPP from UF. Will make our competition further unique from others.
Ringo I don't think you understand what I'm saying honestly.
I understand everything and all the points you mentioned above. I understood it before I posted.
I am simply saying that when we use UF and we name our own teams each week, people with Goddard only use him throughout the year as a Midfielder and not a defender. That is all.
Once again, UF and CD all have the same player positions except UF has 13 additional DPPs. That means we are able to use CD positions as long as those 13 extra players are named here and people know to play them in their CD positions and not their UF positions.
Nothing changes for you Ringo. You have literally the same amount of work as before. (If you want to check the 13 players are in their CD positions each week then I guess that is minimal more work, however I think we can all trust each other not to cheat)
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 19, 2016, 05:29:11 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 05:08:00 PM
Why can't we keep it the same as CD? If you have Griffin, just play him as a mid and not a defender. It is literally that easy. No player is given a position that he can't play in CD so we should keep it as it has always been and stick to CD positions.
CD's reasoning to positions this year was completely retarded. They based positions and DPP based on where they were NAMED before the match. Not roles that they actually played. Griffen missed out on DEF status because he was named in the backline 33% of the time, but had to be named 35% of the time to be given DEF status. Then if you look at his heat map, it's about 50% of his disposal was in the back 50. And about 75% in the back half.
So CD isn't that great to follow.
Where did you read this? Can I please have the link as I am very interested by that, thanks.
When I kindly asked for 1% and spoiler stats. You told me to find them myself. So I will leave you to find them! They've actually been said on the forum itself, but if you're really struggling i'd try twitter. Pretty easy to find them there :)
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 05:39:29 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 19, 2016, 05:29:11 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 05:08:00 PM
Why can't we keep it the same as CD? If you have Griffin, just play him as a mid and not a defender. It is literally that easy. No player is given a position that he can't play in CD so we should keep it as it has always been and stick to CD positions.
CD's reasoning to positions this year was completely retarded. They based positions and DPP based on where they were NAMED before the match. Not roles that they actually played. Griffen missed out on DEF status because he was named in the backline 33% of the time, but had to be named 35% of the time to be given DEF status. Then if you look at his heat map, it's about 50% of his disposal was in the back 50. And about 75% in the back half.
So CD isn't that great to follow.
Where did you read this? Can I please have the link as I am very interested by that, thanks.
I think Rico posted it somewhere
Quote from: GoLions on January 19, 2016, 05:48:34 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 05:39:29 PM
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 19, 2016, 05:29:11 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 05:08:00 PM
Why can't we keep it the same as CD? If you have Griffin, just play him as a mid and not a defender. It is literally that easy. No player is given a position that he can't play in CD so we should keep it as it has always been and stick to CD positions.
CD's reasoning to positions this year was completely retarded. They based positions and DPP based on where they were NAMED before the match. Not roles that they actually played. Griffen missed out on DEF status because he was named in the backline 33% of the time, but had to be named 35% of the time to be given DEF status. Then if you look at his heat map, it's about 50% of his disposal was in the back 50. And about 75% in the back half.
So CD isn't that great to follow.
Where did you read this? Can I please have the link as I am very interested by that, thanks.
I think Rico posted it somewhere
Yup. Rico and i'm pretty sure Holz had info on it.
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 19, 2016, 05:45:33 PM
When I kindly asked for 1% and spoiler stats. You told me to find them myself. So I will leave you to find them! They've actually been said on the forum itself, but if you're really struggling i'd try twitter. Pretty easy to find them there :)
Jeez you hold a grudge man. Even the other day when you said we didn't exactly get along I thought you were just playing since I got over that like 2 days after it happened (and will shortly after this)
This the one?
http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,105230.msg1696910.html#msg1696910
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 19, 2016, 05:29:11 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 05:08:00 PM
Why can't we keep it the same as CD? If you have Griffin, just play him as a mid and not a defender. It is literally that easy. No player is given a position that he can't play in CD so we should keep it as it has always been and stick to CD positions.
CD's reasoning to positions this year was completely retarded. They based positions and DPP based on where they were NAMED before the match. Not roles that they actually played. Griffen missed out on DEF status because he was named in the backline 33% of the time, but had to be named 35% of the time to be given DEF status. Then if you look at his heat map, it's about 50% of his disposal was in the back 50. And about 75% in the back half.
So CD isn't that great to follow.
After reading the link, I think you have misunderstood the post. It says it is where the player lines up relative to the ball. Not where they are named on the team sheet.
For example, Barlow was a forward because he was mostly in front of the ball, making him a forward, not because he was named on the team sheet as a forward.
Thus CD positioning isn't crap at all and there is no reason why we wouldn't use it.
Happy to go with whatever the general concensus is, even happier if that particular scenario makes things easier for Ringo.
Personally l don't think the extra 13 DPP positions make much difference at all, there are already 160 so really it's just a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things.
The only thing l am against is if there are positional changes during the season, lock 'em in @ Round one l say.
Bear in mind also this may assist teams that have been effected by the WADA suspensions.
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 06:34:13 PM
Bear in mind also this may assist teams that have been effected by the WADA suspensions.
How so?
Will those teams get less "rewards" if we go to a top up player draft?
I know it helps whoever has Goddard...
There are an additional 13 players who now have a DPP and this may assist those clubs who can move these DPP players to cover depth or shortfalls in the lines where suspended players may be.
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 06:42:36 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 06:34:13 PM
Bear in mind also this may assist teams that have been effected by the WADA suspensions.
How so?
Will those teams get less "rewards" if we go to a top up player draft?
I know it helps whoever has Goddard...
The team that has Goddard has Hurley and the team that has Hooker has Griff so there you go helps them fix that problem without a draft or trading
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 05:08:00 PM
Why can't we keep it the same as CD? If you have Griffin, just play him as a mid and not a defender. It is literally that easy. No player is given a position that he can't play in CD so we should keep it as it has always been and stick to CD positions.
Can't play Griffin as anything but a ruck unless he's OOP. :P
Quote from: LF on January 19, 2016, 06:47:32 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 06:42:36 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 06:34:13 PM
Bear in mind also this may assist teams that have been effected by the WADA suspensions.
How so?
Will those teams get less "rewards" if we go to a top up player draft?
I know it helps whoever has Goddard...
The team that has Goddard has Hurley and the team that has Hooker has Griff so there you go helps them fix that problem without a draft or trading
Great and what about Nige who had Hep or us who has Stanton?
Quote from: Nige on January 19, 2016, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 05:08:00 PM
Why can't we keep it the same as CD? If you have Griffin, just play him as a mid and not a defender. It is literally that easy. No player is given a position that he can't play in CD so we should keep it as it has always been and stick to CD positions.
Can't play Griffin as anything but a ruck unless he's OOP. :P
LOL good call man haha
For Heavens sake stop trying to side track this discussion by bringing in other factors and not sticking to the facts. the Stanton and Heppell will be addressed with the mini draft as decided so no need to bring them into this discussion.
Only trying to work out which DPP we use and the consensus so far is go with UF with players locked at Round 1.
Spite, considering we're using UF for scoring and everything, is there actually a reason not to use their positions? So far you've said we should use CD because Ringo won't have to change anything as it's only the extra 13 DPP players, and no-one has lost it. But that argument goes both ways.
As someone who isn't impacted by the new DPP players, and has a suspended player, I honestly don't care whether we go with CD or UF, but don't really see a reason not to go with UF.
Also, I'm happy to take Stanton off your hands :)
Him and Riska both should have the same amount of years left to play, thinking a straight swap? ;)
You are focusing on 1 change out of 13, all the other 12 are good changes. KB gave up N4 for Oxley then got screwed over.
There are always going to be some strange calls, no matter what positions you use (eg. Monty this year)
Not to mention its easier for Ringo, he's already spent what i can assume was a fair bit of time making sure all the other Dpps were there.
I'll also add that I'm not trying to gang up on you or anything Spite, just want to know if there are any decent reasons not to use UF :)
Use CDs position none of this bullshower UF positions. Just trust that Goddard and Griffens owners play them as mids.
Funny how it is the Goddard and a Griffen owners that are most keen for this .
um no that's untrue others have said they are fine with it as well.
If its no extra work why not just leave as is though? We have always used CD possies in this comp, why change it? It was used for the original fantasy comp that this XV comp was based on
That was because Sportal used CD now we are changing to UF we should be governed by them. None of you have been involved in Admin to know how much has been involved over the years. If you want to use CD then go to the other xvs. We have an opportunity to get something unique and because you do not benefit you seem to be against every enhancement we try to do to make the competition fairer. So you need to consider the whole competition not the Hedgehogs which I as administrator do.
JB you have not read the whole discussion on this as it was my original suggestion tto try and keep the admin job a little easier.
Quote from: GoLions on January 19, 2016, 07:11:49 PM
I'll also add that I'm not trying to gang up on you or anything Spite, just want to know if there are any decent reasons not to use UF :)
Sure GL. We have traded and used movements based on the positions of the players we had and which players were available. For example, trading for Geary because he was the 21st best defender etc and we think he is worth this price. If theres more defenders added, then we have overpaid for him.
Thats just an example.
We could have thrown the house with picks and all at Goddard if we knew he was going to get def status too. It's just a big change to happen after we have done a draft and trade period.
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 06:42:36 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 06:34:13 PM
Bear in mind also this may assist teams that have been effected by the WADA suspensions.
How so?
Will those teams get less "rewards" if we go to a top up player draft?
I know it helps whoever has Goddard...
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 07:05:53 PM
For Heavens sake stop trying to side track this discussion by bringing in other factors and not sticking to the facts. the Stanton and Heppell will be addressed with the mini draft as decided so no need to bring them into this discussion.
Only trying to work out which DPP we use and the consensus so far is go with UF with players locked at Round 1.
Ringo I find your comment quite unnecessary, I know you're running the league but you started the side discussion then preceded to tell me off for it.
Quote from: Ricochet on January 19, 2016, 07:23:08 PM
If its no extra work why not just leave as is though? We have always used CD possies in this comp, why change it? It was used for the original fantasy comp that this XV comp was based on
we have always used CD positions because sportal or whoever we used they used CD positions now we have UF scoring is why we should match there positions
We are still in Trade period 2 so you can still trade.
Point taken on side issue but the point I was making it will help some teams who have been previously disadvantaged but not all. Did not want to start the Suspended players discussion again that was the purpose of my comment.
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 07:28:23 PM
That was because Sportal used CD now we are changing to UF we should be governed by them. None of you have been involved in Admin to know how much has been involved over the years. If you want to use CD then go to the other xvs. We have an opportunity to get something unique and because you do not benefit you seem to be against every enhancement we try to do to make the competition fairer. So you need to consider the whole competition not the Hedgehogs which I as administrator do.
JB you have not read the whole discussion on this as it was my original suggestion tto try and keep the admin job a little easier.
That's quite rich Ringo, have a look over at EXV and see what's going on there.
I feel like most of your suggestions after your original post have seemingly targeted me too.
If you'd like another example of what I organise for the forum, have a look at the front bar ultimate footy thread. I also run a keepers EPL league by myself for others.
Also your response to JB is quite mean. I think he did read it and he gave his opinion and you shut it down because you didn't agree with it. There was nothing he said that showed he hadn't read through the thread.
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 07:29:01 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 19, 2016, 07:11:49 PM
I'll also add that I'm not trying to gang up on you or anything Spite, just want to know if there are any decent reasons not to use UF :)
Sure GL. We have traded and used movements based on the positions of the players we had and which players were available. For example, trading for Geary because he was the 21st best defender etc and we think he is worth this price. If theres more defenders added, then we have overpaid for him.
Thats just an example.
We could have thrown the house with picks and all at Goddard if we knew he was going to get def status too. It's just a big change to happen after we have done a draft and trade period.
Well to be fair, you made that trade wayyyy before positions were released :P
Also, I don't feel that Geary dropping 2 spots in the defender list is that big a deal. Also, he would've gone up with Hurley, Hooker, and Hibberd losing it I assume, so all in all he gains 1 position, yes?
And you have like 14 movements to go after any player you want. I have plenty of defenders if you'd like to start talks again of a possible trade. I'm sure others are happy to trade as well, particularly anyone with excess midfielders after you lost Stanton.
We don't even need discussion on this, it should be Ringos decision with whatever makes it easiest for him.
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 07:35:22 PM
Also your response to JB is quite mean. I think he did read it and he gave his opinion and you shut it down because you didn't agree with it. There was nothing he said that showed he hadn't read through the thread.
Did you actually read what he wrote? Pretty clear he didn't read it
feel like people are really over analyzing peoples posts
Fair enough if you feel that way Spite but I am only trying to answer your objections to going to UF which I am strongly in favour of now that the decision was made to go that way.
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 07:28:23 PM
That was because Sportal used CD now we are changing to UF we should be governed by them. None of you have been involved in Admin to know how much has been involved over the years. If you want to use CD then go to the other xvs. We have an opportunity to get something unique and because you do not benefit you seem to be against every enhancement we try to do to make the competition fairer. So you need to consider the whole competition not the Hedgehogs which I as administrator do.
JB you have not read the whole discussion on this as it was my original suggestion tto try and keep the admin job a little easier.
I'm one of the admins for AXV Ringo....
It was just a genuine question. If it isn't any extra work why do we need to make a change? I'm not against enhancing the comp, i'm against changes that affect to core of the comp that most of us have been apart of for ages.
Quote from: GoLions on January 19, 2016, 07:35:36 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 07:29:01 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 19, 2016, 07:11:49 PM
I'll also add that I'm not trying to gang up on you or anything Spite, just want to know if there are any decent reasons not to use UF :)
Sure GL. We have traded and used movements based on the positions of the players we had and which players were available. For example, trading for Geary because he was the 21st best defender etc and we think he is worth this price. If theres more defenders added, then we have overpaid for him.
Thats just an example.
We could have thrown the house with picks and all at Goddard if we knew he was going to get def status too. It's just a big change to happen after we have done a draft and trade period.
And you have like 14 movements to go after any player you want. I have plenty of defenders if you'd like to start talks again of a possible trade. I'm sure others are happy to trade as well, particularly anyone with excess midfielders after you lost Stanton.
Sure we could have but we would like to add picks into a trade with a player to improve on the said player. It completely hampers our trading opportunities because we have to fork out more for the same player.
Come on mate, just cause something doesn't benefit your team it doesn't mean it's bad for the comp.
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 07:28:23 PM
None of you have been involved in Admin to know how much has been involved over the years. If you want to use CD then go to the other xvs.
That's a really poor and unnecessarily aggressive comment.
Having been involved in admin work for two comps and assisting another two in the past, I know it's not easy.
On the actual matter, I'm not overly fussed what happens anymore. I've conceded that my season is well and truly cooked regardless of what happens.
I think Rico said it best re: the discussion at hand though.
Quote from: Ricochet on January 19, 2016, 07:42:26 PM
I'm not against enhancing the comp, i'm against changes that affect to core of the comp that most of us have been apart of for ages.
It will be extra work for me to verify the teams being played each week. With UF everything is able to be done within that platform each week (with the exception of HGA) so is very easy. Do not want the added task of verifying that there have been no players playing out of position which can not happen under UF. You use Sportsbet in AXV which translates across CD. If Sportsbet had their own DPP what would you do would you want to do a heap of stuff offline just to continue CD.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on January 19, 2016, 07:17:20 PM
Use CDs position none of this bullshower UF positions. Just trust that Goddard and Griffens owners play them as mids.
Funny how it is the Goddard and a Griffen owners that are most keen for this .
Quote from: nrich102 on January 19, 2016, 07:39:25 PM
We don't even need discussion on this, it should be Ringos decision with whatever makes it easiest for him.
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 07:35:22 PM
Also your response to JB is quite mean. I think he did read it and he gave his opinion and you shut it down because you didn't agree with it. There was nothing he said that showed he hadn't read through the thread.
Did you actually read what he wrote? Pretty clear he didn't read it
1) You agree with Ringo, so of course you're going to say that. So I'm going to dismiss this comment straight off the bat.
2) Where does it show that JB didn't read the thread? Did you not read my comments initially? I said the same thing about trusting the owners of Goddard and Griffen to play them as mids only and he was supporting what I was saying.
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 07:40:14 PM
Fair enough if you feel that way Spite but I am only trying to answer your objections to going to UF which I am strongly in favour of now that the decision was made to go that way.
I feel like you have the responsibility of posing the question to everyone, but not actively push for your agenda. Let other people discuss it and hear what everyone has to say before giving your opinion because basically you've caused it to be more one sided than it probably is in reality. This can clearly be seen as Nrich said "We don't even need discussion on this, it should be Ringos decision with whatever makes it easiest for him. " because this is the easiest way for him to also get what he wants. I'd rather have had him join in on this discussion than jumping to that comment, as the easy way out of the discussion.
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 07:50:52 PM
It will be extra work for me to verify the teams being played each week. With UF everything is able to be done within that platform each week (with the exception of HGA) so is very easy. Do not want the added task of verifying that there have been no players playing out of position which can not happen under UF. You use Sportsbet in AXV which translates across CD. If Sportsbet had their own DPP what would you do would you want to do a heap of stuff offline just to continue CD.
Let me ask - from the 13 different positions, how many are fantasy relevant? Because that is the number that really counts. I'm sure people won't cheat and play them out of position and then you won't have any extra work to do at all, you don't need to verify teams.
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 07:44:06 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 19, 2016, 07:35:36 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 07:29:01 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 19, 2016, 07:11:49 PM
I'll also add that I'm not trying to gang up on you or anything Spite, just want to know if there are any decent reasons not to use UF :)
Sure GL. We have traded and used movements based on the positions of the players we had and which players were available. For example, trading for Geary because he was the 21st best defender etc and we think he is worth this price. If theres more defenders added, then we have overpaid for him.
Thats just an example.
We could have thrown the house with picks and all at Goddard if we knew he was going to get def status too. It's just a big change to happen after we have done a draft and trade period.
And you have like 14 movements to go after any player you want. I have plenty of defenders if you'd like to start talks again of a possible trade. I'm sure others are happy to trade as well, particularly anyone with excess midfielders after you lost Stanton.
Sure we could have but we would like to add picks into a trade with a player to improve on the said player. It completely hampers our trading opportunities because we have to fork out more for the same player.
I would have thrown the house at quite a few of the players that gained DPP from CD, for example guys like Montagna. Same goes with the guys I didn't expect to keep it, such as Dahlhaus and Dusty. It's the risk you take when going after certain players in the first trade period. I thought Christensen and Cunningham might lose DPP (as we didn't know how CD did it at the time), which meant at this point I probably lost some trades. But as I said, it's the risk you take.
I can understand what Ric is saying as we have always used the CD positioning, but it's an extremely small change, and honestly, apart from Goddard, these were all players that people would have thought could/should get DPP this year anyway.
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 07:50:52 PM
It will be extra work for me to verify the teams being played each week. With UF everything is able to be done within that platform each week (with the exception of HGA) so is very easy. Do not want the added task of verifying that there have been no players playing out of position which can not happen under UF. You use Sportsbet in AXV which translates across CD. If Sportsbet had their own DPP what would you do would you want to do a heap of stuff offline just to continue CD.
If there's only 13 players surely we can keep an eye on it ourselves? But if it is really that much of a hinderance then yep that's fine.
Yes we use SB in AXVs, which is no longer available. So we have to manually input every score of every game each weekend. I know exactly how much work is involved and understand how you feel. If we didn't have to manually add those stats and instead only had to check 13 players (which i think us coaches could keep an eye on ourselves) then I don't think i would be against it.
But SB was the original comp, and it originally used CD's positions.
Like i said before, i'm not against making the comp better, i'm against changing the core of the comp that we all joined ages ago
From an outsiders view, to me it looks like ringo does the most work of the all the admins. (Thats just my opinion, could be wrong, feel free to differ.) Shouldn't we all just agree to do what makes the job easy for him?
The only argument I can pick up is that we're changing the core of the comp too much, but why does that mater, we've all ready changed it a heap?
If 13 positional changes are so bad, how about we just lock in positions and never change a players position throughout their career.
Pity the core of this comp was the scoring system which we have had to change already twice now so now we are basically making the move over to UF which should include following the players positions they use however locking them in at round 1 for the year.
Quote from: LF on January 19, 2016, 08:05:46 PM
Pity the core of this comp was the scoring system which we have had to change already twice now so now we are basically making the move over to UF which should include following the players positions they use however locking them in at round 1 for the year.
Quote from: nrich102 on January 19, 2016, 08:04:15 PM
From an outsiders view, to me it looks like ringo does the most work of the all the admins. (Thats just my opinion, could be wrong, feel free to differ.) Shouldn't we all just agree to do what makes the job easy for him?
The only argument I can pick up is that we're changing the core of the comp too much, but why does that mater, we've all ready changed it a heap?
If 13 positional changes are so bad, how about we just lock in positions and never change a players position throughout their career.
Are you both seriously suggesting that it doesn't matter if we change the core because we have changed it so much already - when we are literally in the middle of reverting the comp back to the original core? My god
Nrich, please. Ask holz how much he spent per week doing the fixtures and the scores and it was just as much as Ringo. They all do roughly the same. The AXV mods (Hi Rico) has to enter literally every AXV score.
I'm not going to comment on your other suggestion about perma-locking positions for their entire career either.
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 08:18:21 PM
Quote from: LF on January 19, 2016, 08:05:46 PM
Pity the core of this comp was the scoring system which we have had to change already twice now so now we are basically making the move over to UF which should include following the players positions they use however locking them in at round 1 for the year.
Quote from: nrich102 on January 19, 2016, 08:04:15 PM
From an outsiders view, to me it looks like ringo does the most work of the all the admins. (Thats just my opinion, could be wrong, feel free to differ.) Shouldn't we all just agree to do what makes the job easy for him?
The only argument I can pick up is that we're changing the core of the comp too much, but why does that mater, we've all ready changed it a heap?
If 13 positional changes are so bad, how about we just lock in positions and never change a players position throughout their career.
Are you both seriously suggesting that it doesn't matter if we change the core because we have changed it so much already - when we are literally in the middle of reverting the comp back to the original core? My god
Nrich, please. Ask holz how much he spent per week doing the fixtures and the scores and it was just as much as Ringo. They all do roughly the same. The AXV mods (Hi Rico) has to enter literally every AXV score.
I'm not going to comment on your other suggestion about perma-locking positions for their entire career either.
Just my opinion mate. They all (including you) do heaps of work and the site is better for them.
What difference are these positions going to make? You just seem to be pissed that another team will benefit and you won't.
Surprised you're against perma locking positions, because 15 changes are such a big issue.
If we were to satisfy everyone by the sounds of it we would have to write our own program incorporating everything that is wanted.
As LF has said we have lost the core of our system 2 years ago when Sportal ceased to be involved. So we had a mix match last year of both SC and DT scores. This year we have opted to use the customised UF scoring system to replicate as far as possible what we had in Sportal. So we should accept their decisions and their DPP.
If people are concerned about the 13 additional players now with DPP they still have the option to trade as we still have 3 weeks of trade period 2. remember in trade period 1 no one knew who would have or retain DPP and made trade decisions based on assumptions. So what is the difference here.
I reiterate we will not go down the road of changing positions weekly as has been intimated but will lock positions as at round 1.
In my opinion DPP has never been one of the core positions but scoring system has and this is being endeavoured to be maintained as much as possible.
Can people stop taking shots at each other and just post reasons why we should or should not use the UF positions. So far it's basically that it makes things slightly easier for Ringo, but it also slightly changes the core of the comp.
I really couldn't care less which system we go with, and I'll continue to not really be that fussed unless someone gives a really good reason to use or not use UF positioning :P
I say to stop all the drama and not have to worry about change, we continue to use SC+DT/2. O0
think it's silly going with UF but not following there positions 13 players changing positions isnt a big deal changing to UF was a big deal which we already did make that decision only makes sense to follow up that decision and use there positions
think people are overreacting and not seeing that it makes sense to keep it simple for the future or this debate will come up each year and people say we will be able to trust players not naming Goddard in defense or whatever but it's pretty easy to make a mistake when you're rushing to name teams so Ringo still really needs to check if we don't go with UF positions
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 07:35:22 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 07:28:23 PM
That was because Sportal used CD now we are changing to UF we should be governed by them. None of you have been involved in Admin to know how much has been involved over the years. If you want to use CD then go to the other xvs. We have an opportunity to get something unique and because you do not benefit you seem to be against every enhancement we try to do to make the competition fairer. So you need to consider the whole competition not the Hedgehogs which I as administrator do.
JB you have not read the whole discussion on this as it was my original suggestion tto try and keep the admin job a little easier.
That's quite rich Ringo, have a look over at EXV and see what's going on there.
I feel like most of your suggestions after your original post have seemingly targeted me too.
If you'd like another example of what I organise for the forum, have a look at the front bar ultimate footy thread. I also run a keepers EPL league by myself for others.
Also your response to JB is quite mean. I think he did read it and he gave his opinion and you shut it down because you didn't agree with it. There was nothing he said that showed he hadn't read through the thread.
Spot on Spite I did read over it all and gave my opinion.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on January 19, 2016, 09:48:06 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 07:35:22 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 07:28:23 PM
That was because Sportal used CD now we are changing to UF we should be governed by them. None of you have been involved in Admin to know how much has been involved over the years. If you want to use CD then go to the other xvs. We have an opportunity to get something unique and because you do not benefit you seem to be against every enhancement we try to do to make the competition fairer. So you need to consider the whole competition not the Hedgehogs which I as administrator do.
JB you have not read the whole discussion on this as it was my original suggestion tto try and keep the admin job a little easier.
That's quite rich Ringo, have a look over at EXV and see what's going on there.
I feel like most of your suggestions after your original post have seemingly targeted me too.
If you'd like another example of what I organise for the forum, have a look at the front bar ultimate footy thread. I also run a keepers EPL league by myself for others.
Also your response to JB is quite mean. I think he did read it and he gave his opinion and you shut it down because you didn't agree with it. There was nothing he said that showed he hadn't read through the thread.
Spot on Spite I did read over it all and gave my opinion.
Well this comment to me said you did not
"Funny how it is the Goddard and a Griffen owners that are most keen for this ."
There are more than those 2 interested in following the UF scoring as has been show through out the thread.
And for the record I do not benefit at all from either this change or the proposed mini draft.
i say we just vote on it
Quote from: GoLions on January 19, 2016, 08:37:05 PM
Can people stop taking shots at each other and just post reasons why we should or should not use the UF positions. So far it's basically that it makes things slightly easier for Ringo, but it also slightly changes the core of the comp.
I really couldn't care less which system we go with, and I'll continue to not really be that fussed unless someone gives a really good reason to use or not use UF positioning :P
Yep man thats all ive been asking, is there a big reason for the change
We are using UF to replicate the sportal comp. UF isn't the foundation to this comp. That's my only issue with this. It has nothing to do with teams getting an advantage or not
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 09:53:06 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on January 19, 2016, 09:48:06 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 07:35:22 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 07:28:23 PM
That was because Sportal used CD now we are changing to UF we should be governed by them. None of you have been involved in Admin to know how much has been involved over the years. If you want to use CD then go to the other xvs. We have an opportunity to get something unique and because you do not benefit you seem to be against every enhancement we try to do to make the competition fairer. So you need to consider the whole competition not the Hedgehogs which I as administrator do.
JB you have not read the whole discussion on this as it was my original suggestion tto try and keep the admin job a little easier.
That's quite rich Ringo, have a look over at EXV and see what's going on there.
I feel like most of your suggestions after your original post have seemingly targeted me too.
If you'd like another example of what I organise for the forum, have a look at the front bar ultimate footy thread. I also run a keepers EPL league by myself for others.
Also your response to JB is quite mean. I think he did read it and he gave his opinion and you shut it down because you didn't agree with it. There was nothing he said that showed he hadn't read through the thread.
Spot on Spite I did read over it all and gave my opinion.
Well this comment to me said you did not
"Funny how it is the Goddard and a Griffen owners that are most keen for this ."
There are more than those 2 interested in following the UF scoring as has been show through out the thread.
And for the record I do not benefit at all from either this change or the proposed mini draft.
Sorry should i re-word it.
You and the Goddard and Griffen owners are the most keen.
That is where we disagree Ric - Sportal scoring system was the foundation originally for this comp. The scoring system not the DPP is the foundation on which British was established. We have got close to replicating original Sportal which was the core by using the customization in UF.
To enable full management in UF am proposing we use their DPP so the comp can be 95% managed in the Portal.
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on January 19, 2016, 09:58:46 PM
i say we just vote on it
Do not think we need to vote just yet as from discussions there are 3 teams against and some 9 teams have now expressed support. Vote would reflect that.
FWIW. I cant see any issues with basing everything on UF
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on January 19, 2016, 10:08:27 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 09:53:06 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on January 19, 2016, 09:48:06 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 07:35:22 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 07:28:23 PM
That was because Sportal used CD now we are changing to UF we should be governed by them. None of you have been involved in Admin to know how much has been involved over the years. If you want to use CD then go to the other xvs. We have an opportunity to get something unique and because you do not benefit you seem to be against every enhancement we try to do to make the competition fairer. So you need to consider the whole competition not the Hedgehogs which I as administrator do.
JB you have not read the whole discussion on this as it was my original suggestion tto try and keep the admin job a little easier.
That's quite rich Ringo, have a look over at EXV and see what's going on there.
I feel like most of your suggestions after your original post have seemingly targeted me too.
If you'd like another example of what I organise for the forum, have a look at the front bar ultimate footy thread. I also run a keepers EPL league by myself for others.
Also your response to JB is quite mean. I think he did read it and he gave his opinion and you shut it down because you didn't agree with it. There was nothing he said that showed he hadn't read through the thread.
Spot on Spite I did read over it all and gave my opinion.
Well this comment to me said you did not
"Funny how it is the Goddard and a Griffen owners that are most keen for this ."
There are more than those 2 interested in following the UF scoring as has been show through out the thread.
And for the record I do not benefit at all from either this change or the proposed mini draft.
Sorry should i re-word it.
You and the Goddard and Griffen owners are the most keen.
Come on mate show some respect. Ringo puts heaps of time and effort into this for our enjoyment, the least we could do is make it a little easier for him.
Just make whatever decision you want Ringo, your the Admin mate and do a heap of work for us all. Leaders lead, their decisions don't always have to be popular ........we at Grope Lane are happy whichever way you go.
In our limited time in this comp we've always found your decisions to be in the best interests of the league as a whole.
**and good luck to whoever has Goddard l say, just the luck of the draw with the fantasy gods**
Is there a 100% confirmed scoring system for this year yet? If so could someone let me know what it is?
Also, what are the chances that UP/Clangers are added by UF next year?
iZander
Quote from: iZander on January 21, 2016, 12:12:21 PM
Is there a 100% confirmed scoring system for this year yet? If so could someone let me know what it is?
Also, what are the chances that UP/Clangers are added by UF next year?
iZander
I personally feel that whatever we go with this year, we should probably stick with.
Quote from: iZander on January 21, 2016, 12:12:21 PM
Is there a 100% confirmed scoring system for this year yet? If so could someone let me know what it is?
Also, what are the chances that UP/Clangers are added by UF next year?
iZander
It is unlikely UP/Clangers will be added now. I would suggest it would take an injection of $$$ into UF to do so. Champion Data charge per stat and it isnt cheap. Really excited to get this comp on to a platform where it makes life easier for Ringo as well as everyone else. We will be able to see in match/round match ups, make easy changes to on field teams etc. There is also an improved mobile app (last year's version was reasonably basic and didnt cover key functionality) for those of us that need to make changes etc on the run.
I will be doing a mock draft this evening with some of the guys. Hoping for UF to open very shortly as there has been quite a bit of work done so far. If I find out some goss I will pass on.
Quote from: GoLions on January 21, 2016, 12:18:41 PM
Quote from: iZander on January 21, 2016, 12:12:21 PM
Is there a 100% confirmed scoring system for this year yet? If so could someone let me know what it is?
Also, what are the chances that UP/Clangers are added by UF next year?
iZander
I personally feel that whatever we go with this year, we should probably stick with.
I agree with that, UP/Clangers is a pretty significant change, which makes it hard to make trades and plan ahead for the future :P
Quote from: Rids on January 21, 2016, 12:20:14 PM
Quote from: iZander on January 21, 2016, 12:12:21 PM
Is there a 100% confirmed scoring system for this year yet? If so could someone let me know what it is?
Also, what are the chances that UP/Clangers are added by UF next year?
iZander
It is unlikely UP/Clangers will be added now. I would suggest it would take an injection of $$$ into UF to do so. Champion Data charge per stat and it isnt cheap. Really excited to get this comp on to a platform where it makes life easier for Ringo as well as everyone else. We will be able to see in match/round match ups, make easy changes to on field teams etc. There is also an improved mobile app (last year's version was reasonably basic and didnt cover key functionality) for those of us that need to make changes etc on the run.
I will be doing a mock draft this evening with some of the guys. Hoping for UF to open very shortly as there has been quite a bit of work done so far. If I find out some goss I will pass on.
Thanks Rids
I take it the scoring system isn't confirmed yet? Trying to do some trading :)
We will be using a the customised scoring system in UF. Clangers and UP taken out.
This is what is currently proposed.
Stat Description
KI Kicks 3pts
HB Handballs 1pt
MA Marks 3pts
HO Hitouts 1pt
TK Tackles 3pts
FF Free Kicks For 1pt
FA Free Kicks Against - 3pt
GL Goals 6pts
BH Behinds 1pt
ED Effective Disposals 2pts
CP Contested Possessions 4pts
SP Spoils 2pts
CL Clearances 2pts
There has been some discussion on F/A. There is the option of scoring a Free Kick Differential. Do we want to go this way with a multiplier or just keep as above. If you want a multiplier need to suggest. Not really a fan as certain players always seem to be on the favourable end of free kick count Selwood and Christensen come to mind so if using this they would be favoured depending on multiplier.
Quote from: Ringo on January 21, 2016, 12:47:46 PM
We will be using a the customised scoring system in UF. Clangers and UP taken out.
This is what is currently proposed.
Stat Description
KI Kicks 3pts
HB Handballs 1pt
MA Marks 3pts
HO Hitouts 1pt
TK Tackles 3pts
FF Free Kicks For 1pt
FA Free Kicks Against - 3pt
GL Goals 6pts
BH Behinds 1pt
ED Effective Disposals 2pts
CP Contested Possessions 4pts
SP Spoils 2pts
CL Clearances 2pts
There has been some discussion on F/A. There is the option of scoring a Free Kick Differential. Do we want to go this way with a multiplier or just keep as above. If you want a multiplier need to suggest. Not really a fan as certain players always seem to be on the favourable end of free kick count Selwood and Christensen come to mind so if using this they would be favoured depending on multiplier.
Thanks Ringo!
Not too worried either is fine with me, can't imagine it would make a huge difference :)
I think 1 point is sufficient for a free kick and -3 is fine for FA
Quote from: LF on January 21, 2016, 02:09:20 PM
I think 1 point is sufficient for a free kick and -3 is fine for FA
Quote from: iZander on January 21, 2016, 01:03:47 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 21, 2016, 12:47:46 PM
We will be using a the customised scoring system in UF. Clangers and UP taken out.
This is what is currently proposed.
Stat Description
KI Kicks 3pts
HB Handballs 1pt
MA Marks 3pts
HO Hitouts 1pt
TK Tackles 3pts
FF Free Kicks For 1pt
FA Free Kicks Against - 3pt
GL Goals 6pts
BH Behinds 1pt
ED Effective Disposals 2pts
CP Contested Possessions 4pts
SP Spoils 2pts
CL Clearances 2pts
There has been some discussion on F/A. There is the option of scoring a Free Kick Differential. Do we want to go this way with a multiplier or just keep as above. If you want a multiplier need to suggest. Not really a fan as certain players always seem to be on the favourable end of free kick count Selwood and Christensen come to mind so if using this they would be favoured depending on multiplier.
Thanks Ringo!
Not too worried either is fine with me, can't imagine it would make a huge difference :)
It actually kinda does in comparison to what we currently have. Using a free kick differential with a multiplier is effectively the same as having both FF and FA worth that multiplier. So basically, you're either making FF worth a lot more, or FA worth a lot less.
E.g. 10 frees for, 9 frees against, multiplier of 3, gives a player 3 points.
But with what we currently have, that would make a player lose 17 points. So a total difference of 20 points.
I much prefer to stick with what we currently have.
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 01:56:33 AM
Quote from: iZander on January 21, 2016, 01:03:47 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 21, 2016, 12:47:46 PM
We will be using a the customised scoring system in UF. Clangers and UP taken out.
This is what is currently proposed.
Stat Description
KI Kicks 3pts
HB Handballs 1pt
MA Marks 3pts
HO Hitouts 1pt
TK Tackles 3pts
FF Free Kicks For 1pt
FA Free Kicks Against - 3pt
GL Goals 6pts
BH Behinds 1pt
ED Effective Disposals 2pts
CP Contested Possessions 4pts
SP Spoils 2pts
CL Clearances 2pts
There has been some discussion on F/A. There is the option of scoring a Free Kick Differential. Do we want to go this way with a multiplier or just keep as above. If you want a multiplier need to suggest. Not really a fan as certain players always seem to be on the favourable end of free kick count Selwood and Christensen come to mind so if using this they would be favoured depending on multiplier.
Thanks Ringo!
Not too worried either is fine with me, can't imagine it would make a huge difference :)
It actually kinda does in comparison to what we currently have. Using a free kick differential with a multiplier is effectively the same as having both FF and FA worth that multiplier. So basically, you're either making FF worth a lot more, or FA worth a lot less.
E.g. 10 frees for, 9 frees against, multiplier of 3, gives a player 3 points.
But with what we currently have, that would make a player lose 17 points. So a total difference of 20 points.
I much prefer to stick with what we currently have.
yeah, too complex for me ;) Either ones fine with me hahaha
Hey BXV, a bit of shameless advertising going on here, as we need to find a new admin for the AXV competition.
I have to announce that I intend to step down as AXV administrator. It's been great to run the competition for the last couple of seasons, but unfortunately in the coming year I will not have the time to commit to running the competition on a weekly basis, and making it the best it can be. I do intend to remain as coach of the Manila Folders. Ricochet my assistant admin does a great job, but he too lacks the time to run the competition on his own.
So far we haven't had any members of the current AXV community who have the time to and are willing to take over to run the competition, which is entirely understandable as it is quite an extensive role. So we are now extending to ask the wider FF community if there are any coaches out there interested in taking over the primary administrator position of the competition. It is quite an involved position, but it is great fun, and a way to get even further involved in fantasy football. We still have a couple of months to go before the season proper starts, so there is plenty of time for a new member to come into the position and get settled. I will be more than happy to help out the new coach and show them the ropes, and show them how the weekly running of the competition functions.
So if anyone is interested, please send a short application to myself and Ric as to why you believe you should gain the position of competition admin. As we haven't had any current AXV Coaches wishing to take on the role, we are willing to look at someone who is not a current head coach to take on this role. Its great fun to do, so send me a message if you think you might be interested and want some more details.
Just a quick one. We will be able to change player's positions to CD positions in UF eg: remove Goddard def to be mid only.
There is an option to do so in the PLUS ($40 annual fee per league) but I am sure I will be able to get this done as a favour.
From UF...
What if our league doesn't agree with the positions changes?
You can either Lock Original Positions as mentioned above, or alternatively use the Edit Player Positions tool available to Features PLUS leagues to customise player positions on an individual basis.
Thanks Rids but all being well going forward and as we will continue to use UF, as long as they keep going, will stick to their positions. It is only 13 players that are different. Concern for the future as I get older I loose track of the original and forget to amend each year.
Quote from: Rids on January 22, 2016, 04:04:26 PM
From UF...
What if our league doesn't agree with the positions changes?
You can either Lock Original Positions as mentioned above, or alternatively use the Edit Player Positions tool available to Features PLUS leagues to customise player positions on an individual basis.
Lock original positions isn't the same as removing goddards def to mid? Could you explain this further please?
Using lock original positions would be need to manually search and edit players positions or would it just do it in one big heap?
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 05:13:02 PM
Quote from: Rids on January 22, 2016, 04:04:26 PM
From UF...
What if our league doesn't agree with the positions changes?
You can either Lock Original Positions as mentioned above, or alternatively use the Edit Player Positions tool available to Features PLUS leagues to customise player positions on an individual basis.
Lock original positions isn't the same as removing goddards def to mid? Could you explain this further please?
Using lock original positions would be need to manually search and edit players positions or would it just do it in one big heap?
You can customise an individual's position. So you can edit Goddard from a UF def/mid to anything you want. Mid only, fwd only, def/fwd etc
Quote from: Rids on January 22, 2016, 05:29:56 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 05:13:02 PM
Quote from: Rids on January 22, 2016, 04:04:26 PM
From UF...
What if our league doesn't agree with the positions changes?
You can either Lock Original Positions as mentioned above, or alternatively use the Edit Player Positions tool available to Features PLUS leagues to customise player positions on an individual basis.
Lock original positions isn't the same as removing goddards def to mid? Could you explain this further please?
Using lock original positions would be need to manually search and edit players positions or would it just do it in one big heap?
You can customise an individual's position. So you can edit Goddard from a UF def/mid to anything you want. Mid only, fwd only, def/fwd etc
Ah right sorry I mis-read.
I still would like to know Ringo, how many out of the 13 different DPPs are fantasy relevant players?
The extra UF positions are as per below:
Ryan Griffen (WS â€" C) â€" Add B
Sam Colquhoun (PA â€" C) â€" Add B
Adam Oxley (CW â€" C) â€" Add B
Tendai Mzungu (FR â€" C) â€" Add B
Jarrad Grant (GC â€" C) â€" Add F
Brendon Ah Chee (PA â€" C) â€" Add F
Tom Bell (BL â€" F) â€" Add C
Danny Stanley (GC â€" F) â€" Add B
David Mackay (AD â€" C) â€" Add B
Matt Jones (ME â€" F) â€" Add C
Sam Mayes (BL â€" B) â€" Add C
Allen Christensen (BL â€" F) â€" Add C
Brendon Goddard (ES â€" C) â€" Add B
They can be found here - http://footyprophet.com/exclusive-ultimate-footy-2016-position-update/
I personally think all of the above are justified amendments btw.
So if we can change them back to normal easy enough, why wouldn't we just do that??
Quote from: Ricochet on January 22, 2016, 05:44:15 PM
So if we can change them back to normal easy enough, why wouldn't we just do that??
why bother ......... good luck to the coaches that have them
Here are the 13 from the article:
Ryan Griffen (WS â€" C) â€" Add B
One of the most controversial omissions of the initial release, the Giants’ midfielder retains the back status he gained during 2015 for AFL Fantasy. With a likely increase in numbers through the midfield, Griffen now becomes very appealing on draft day.
Sam Colquhoun (PA â€" C) â€" Add B
Playing six games in 2015, the running Power defender rightly retains his back-status. If he can break into the Port side for Round 1, he could be a handy late-round pickup after scoring 80+ in half of his games last season.
Adam Oxley (CW â€" C) â€" Add B
Oxley had a great year in 2015, but his scores were inconsistent due to a certain red vest that kept being handed to him. Now confirmed as a defender for this season, Oxley could be a great pickup given the sub rule is no more. Has a non-vested-average of an outstanding 86.3 and could benefit with extra game time.
Tendai Mzungu (FR â€" C) â€" Add B
As a pure midfielder, Mzungu didn’t offer much appeal to many fantasy coaches â€" averaging just 66.1 in 2015 due to injury and form woes. Available once again as a defender in Ultimate Footy, he could become another great pickup late in drafts should he return to his former 75+ average.
Jarrad Grant (GC â€" C) â€" Add F
Grant gained a fair bit of opportunity in 2015, however still averaged just 58.7 points per game. With the Suns looking to improve another level, it’s hard to see Jarrad Grant becoming any more relevant in Ultimate Footy â€" regardless of his added forward-status at a new club.
Brendon Ah Chee (PA â€" C) â€" Add F
The mature-aged Ah Chee broke through for 11 games at Port in 2015, showing potential late with a last-four game average of 95 points. As a mid-forward in Ultimate Footy, he could prove handy depth should he start the season in the seniors and shake off the missing vest this year.
Tom Bell (BL â€" F) â€" Add C
The bullocking midfielder had a true breakout season for Carlton last year, and moved home to Queensland with an 88.8 average in tow. Set to be a regular in the Lions’ engine room, its only right he retains Dual-Position status.
Danny Stanley (GC â€" F) â€" Add B
With spots in the Suns’ side wide open, Stanley struggled with injury and form to play just eight games for a 57.7 average in 2015. Now with F/B status, he offers flexibility but it appears a high-scoring fantasy role in the Gold Coast side just isn’t there for him anymore unlike previous years.
David Mackay (AD â€" C) â€" Add B
Aside from a one-off, 130-point score against Melbourne in Round 3 last year, it was yet another demonstration of why Mackay isn’t super relevant as a fantasy player. Back status is nice and convenient, but it doesn’t change much in the grand scheme of things.
Matt Jones (ME â€" F) â€" Add C
After two solid years, Jones’ was barely sighted in 2015. Moving forward, it’s unlikely that he features much in the Melbourne seniors â€" making him a non-event in fantasy circles. However, if he can crack the Dees 22 and get back to his 2014 best, he could be handy if his output increases inside 50.
Sam Mayes (BL â€" B) â€" Add C
Already a defender, the addition of mid-status doesn’t overly improve Mayes’ relevance. However with many tipping him to make big gains in 2016, he could add flexibility in deeper leagues.
Allen Christensen (BL â€" F) â€" Add C
Relocating to Queensland proved to be a great move by Christensen, having his most consistent season yet in 2015. Retaining his status as a forward-midfielder, we can expect to see more rotations through the middle from the talented Lion â€" something that will likely see a bump in overall average.
Brendon Goddard (ES â€" C) â€" Add B
In news that will bring big smiles to Ultimate Footy coaches around Australia, Brendon Goddard will once again don the ‘DEF’ tag and Dual-Position status in 2016. With recent events likely to see him take on a bigger role in the midfield, this update is a welcome surprise and catapults Goddard into first or second round calculations. This could also affect keeper leagues with a switch from forward to backline.
So as you can see only a few may effect us overall hence why I would like to go with UF all the way. Goddard, Christensen and Griffen with maybe Oxley and Ah Chee the most relevant.
I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 05:59:10 PM
I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?
What criteria is used when deciding on new positions?
There are several factors used to determine whether a player should gain position eligibility. A player must be deemed to meet all of them in order to successfully be awarded a new position.
1. The player must have played "primarily" in the new position over the last 3 rounds.
Primarily means at least 70% of game time and does not apply to players who may split duties between two positions. For example in 2012 Cox and Naitinui were ruck-eligible only despite sharing ruck and forward duties in a 50-50 split. Since neither played the majority of their games forward neither qualified for a change.
2. The player must be expected to continue to "primarily" play in this position on an ongoing basis.
Not only do they need to have been playing in a new position, they need to be expected to continue playing this position for the foreseeable future. Players playing out of position temporarily to cover injuries do not qualify under this condition.
3. There must be clear and obvious evidence of the player playing primarily in a new position.
We try to gather as much visual evidence as possible but also check several statistical measures to support any changes. Statistics such as inside 50's, rebound 50's, centre clearances, "score-rate" (percentage of disposals that result in a score) and hitouts are all looked at to provide further evidence of a players role.
If there are any doubts around the points above we may opt to wait another 3 weeks before making a change in order to gather more evidence.
What factors are NOT considered when determining changes?
There are also several factors we do not consider when making a change, such as:
Players are assessed individually and not relative to any other players. So even if player X is a Centre and plays more time forward than player Y who is a Centre/Forward this is not grounds to make a change.
Positions players are eligible in other fantasy games. Initial positions are set independently from any other competitions and so are any changes that are made.
These factors do not necessarily mean a player is eligible as per the above criteria so are not considered.
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 05:59:10 PM
I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?
However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with
Quote from: iZander on January 22, 2016, 06:05:50 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 05:59:10 PM
I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?
What criteria is used when deciding on new positions?
There are several factors used to determine whether a player should gain position eligibility. A player must be deemed to meet all of them in order to successfully be awarded a new position.
1. The player must have played "primarily" in the new position over the last 3 rounds.
Primarily means at least 70% of game time and does not apply to players who may split duties between two positions. For example in 2012 Cox and Naitinui were ruck-eligible only despite sharing ruck and forward duties in a 50-50 split. Since neither played the majority of their games forward neither qualified for a change.
2. The player must be expected to continue to "primarily" play in this position on an ongoing basis.
Not only do they need to have been playing in a new position, they need to be expected to continue playing this position for the foreseeable future. Players playing out of position temporarily to cover injuries do not qualify under this condition.
3. There must be clear and obvious evidence of the player playing primarily in a new position.
We try to gather as much visual evidence as possible but also check several statistical measures to support any changes. Statistics such as inside 50's, rebound 50's, centre clearances, "score-rate" (percentage of disposals that result in a score) and hitouts are all looked at to provide further evidence of a players role.
If there are any doubts around the points above we may opt to wait another 3 weeks before making a change in order to gather more evidence.
What factors are NOT considered when determining changes?
There are also several factors we do not consider when making a change, such as:
Players are assessed individually and not relative to any other players. So even if player X is a Centre and plays more time forward than player Y who is a Centre/Forward this is not grounds to make a change.
Positions players are eligible in other fantasy games. Initial positions are set independently from any other competitions and so are any changes that are made.
These factors do not necessarily mean a player is eligible as per the above criteria so are not considered.
That seems more relevant to during the season. I'm talking more for the start of the season (i.e. these extra ones)
Quote from: nostradamus on January 22, 2016, 06:07:06 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 05:59:10 PM
I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?
However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with
Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 06:07:47 PM
Quote from: iZander on January 22, 2016, 06:05:50 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 05:59:10 PM
I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?
What criteria is used when deciding on new positions?
There are several factors used to determine whether a player should gain position eligibility. A player must be deemed to meet all of them in order to successfully be awarded a new position.
1. The player must have played "primarily" in the new position over the last 3 rounds.
Primarily means at least 70% of game time and does not apply to players who may split duties between two positions. For example in 2012 Cox and Naitinui were ruck-eligible only despite sharing ruck and forward duties in a 50-50 split. Since neither played the majority of their games forward neither qualified for a change.
2. The player must be expected to continue to "primarily" play in this position on an ongoing basis.
Not only do they need to have been playing in a new position, they need to be expected to continue playing this position for the foreseeable future. Players playing out of position temporarily to cover injuries do not qualify under this condition.
3. There must be clear and obvious evidence of the player playing primarily in a new position.
We try to gather as much visual evidence as possible but also check several statistical measures to support any changes. Statistics such as inside 50's, rebound 50's, centre clearances, "score-rate" (percentage of disposals that result in a score) and hitouts are all looked at to provide further evidence of a players role.
If there are any doubts around the points above we may opt to wait another 3 weeks before making a change in order to gather more evidence.
What factors are NOT considered when determining changes?
There are also several factors we do not consider when making a change, such as:
Players are assessed individually and not relative to any other players. So even if player X is a Centre and plays more time forward than player Y who is a Centre/Forward this is not grounds to make a change.
Positions players are eligible in other fantasy games. Initial positions are set independently from any other competitions and so are any changes that are made.
These factors do not necessarily mean a player is eligible as per the above criteria so are not considered.
That seems more relevant to during the season. I'm talking more for the start of the season (i.e. these extra ones)
Cant help you there mate, not sure :P Cant be that bad, not many on that list surprised me at all
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 06:10:44 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on January 22, 2016, 06:07:06 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 05:59:10 PM
I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?
However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with
Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.
Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it
Goddard plays behind the ball a lot. I would argue that Goddard plays more behind the ball than what Montagna did in front of the ball in 2015 ;)
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 06:10:44 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on January 22, 2016, 06:07:06 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 05:59:10 PM
I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?
However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with
Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.
Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it
So you're against the changes because of 1 change, despite thinking the other 12 are good changes? Never going to get 100% of the calls correct in everyones opinion :)
Quote from: iZander on January 22, 2016, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 06:10:44 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on January 22, 2016, 06:07:06 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 05:59:10 PM
I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?
However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with
Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.
Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it
So you're against the changes because of 1 change, despite thinking the other 12 are good changes? Never going to get 100% of the calls correct in everyones opinion :)
I had previously asked for the full list of changes, I only got to view them now for the first time. Wasn't that obvious? Have I said anything against the changes after agreeing with 12 of the changes?
Or did you mean "are you" instead of the accusatory, "you are"?
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 06:54:53 PM
Quote from: iZander on January 22, 2016, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 06:10:44 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on January 22, 2016, 06:07:06 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 05:59:10 PM
I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?
However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with
Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.
Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it
So you're against the changes because of 1 change, despite thinking the other 12 are good changes? Never going to get 100% of the calls correct in everyones opinion :)
I had previously asked for the full list of changes, I only got to view them now for the first time. Wasn't that obvious? Have I said anything against the changes after agreeing with 12 of the changes?
Or did you mean "are you" instead of the accusatory, "you are"?
After the last 5 pages of discussion is largely you, id assume you had read the actual changes. To argue for that long about it without seeing the changes seems strange to me. My apologies i did not realise.
I did a podcast about 10 days ago where we had Matt James from Footy Prophet. We were discussing the likely DPP additions for Ultimate Footy prior to them being released. The link is below. Matt is on at the start of the pod and explains it. Matt and I also speak about Goddard and we both agreed that he would be likely to gain Back status.
https://soundcloud.com/coachespanel/what-to-do-with-essendon-ultimatefooty-dpp?in=coachespanel/sets/preseason-2016
At the end of the day though I would say it is a redundant point. There will always be someone that is lucky or unlucky to gain/or not to gain DPP.
Quote from: Rids on January 22, 2016, 06:33:12 PM
Goddard plays behind the ball a lot. I would argue that Goddard plays more behind the ball than what Montagna did in front of the ball in 2015 ;)
If that is your reasoning, that is how CD choose their positions and didn't give it to him :P But whatever, one or two "mistakes" are ok, 13 would not be all-right.
Quote from: iZander on January 22, 2016, 06:57:34 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 06:54:53 PM
Quote from: iZander on January 22, 2016, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 06:10:44 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on January 22, 2016, 06:07:06 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 05:59:10 PM
I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?
However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with
Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.
Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it
So you're against the changes because of 1 change, despite thinking the other 12 are good changes? Never going to get 100% of the calls correct in everyones opinion :)
I had previously asked for the full list of changes, I only got to view them now for the first time. Wasn't that obvious? Have I said anything against the changes after agreeing with 12 of the changes?
Or did you mean "are you" instead of the accusatory, "you are"?
After the last 5 pages of discussion is largely you, id assume you had read the actual changes. To argue for that long about it without seeing the changes seems strange to me. My apologies i did not realise.
And some of you guys were willing to argue back without also seeing the list? If they were incredibly odd choices, it would have been the same situation
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 07:01:47 PM
Quote from: Rids on January 22, 2016, 06:33:12 PM
Goddard plays behind the ball a lot. I would argue that Goddard plays more behind the ball than what Montagna did in front of the ball in 2015 ;)
If that is your reasoning, that is how CD choose their positions and didn't give it to him :P But whatever, one or two "mistakes" are ok, 13 would not be all-right.
Quote from: iZander on January 22, 2016, 06:57:34 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 06:54:53 PM
Quote from: iZander on January 22, 2016, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 06:10:44 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on January 22, 2016, 06:07:06 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 05:59:10 PM
I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?
However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with
Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.
Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it
So you're against the changes because of 1 change, despite thinking the other 12 are good changes? Never going to get 100% of the calls correct in everyones opinion :)
I had previously asked for the full list of changes, I only got to view them now for the first time. Wasn't that obvious? Have I said anything against the changes after agreeing with 12 of the changes?
Or did you mean "are you" instead of the accusatory, "you are"?
After the last 5 pages of discussion is largely you, id assume you had read the actual changes. To argue for that long about it without seeing the changes seems strange to me. My apologies i did not realise.
And some of you guys were willing to argue back without also seeing the list? If they were incredibly odd choices, it would have been the same situation
Cant image there were too many people who didn't read the list before debating about them, think you might be alone there :)
Quote from: Rids on January 22, 2016, 07:00:58 PM
I did a podcast about 10 days ago where we had Matt James from Footy Prophet. We were discussing the likely DPP additions for Ultimate Footy prior to them being released. The link is below. Matt is on at the start of the pod and explains it. Matt and I also speak about Goddard and we both agreed that he would be likely to gain Back status.
https://soundcloud.com/coachespanel/what-to-do-with-essendon-ultimatefooty-dpp?in=coachespanel/sets/preseason-2016
At the end of the day though I would say it is a redundant point. There will always be someone that is lucky or unlucky to gain/or not to gain DPP.
This is a great link .............. also kind of ironic that yourself and Matt James called Goddards DPP early, with Matt being from Footy Prophet he's really living up to the name :P
Quote from: iZander on January 22, 2016, 07:15:39 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 07:01:47 PM
Quote from: Rids on January 22, 2016, 06:33:12 PM
Goddard plays behind the ball a lot. I would argue that Goddard plays more behind the ball than what Montagna did in front of the ball in 2015 ;)
If that is your reasoning, that is how CD choose their positions and didn't give it to him :P But whatever, one or two "mistakes" are ok, 13 would not be all-right.
Quote from: iZander on January 22, 2016, 06:57:34 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 06:54:53 PM
Quote from: iZander on January 22, 2016, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 06:10:44 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on January 22, 2016, 06:07:06 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 05:59:10 PM
I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?
However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with
Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.
Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it
So you're against the changes because of 1 change, despite thinking the other 12 are good changes? Never going to get 100% of the calls correct in everyones opinion :)
I had previously asked for the full list of changes, I only got to view them now for the first time. Wasn't that obvious? Have I said anything against the changes after agreeing with 12 of the changes?
Or did you mean "are you" instead of the accusatory, "you are"?
After the last 5 pages of discussion is largely you, id assume you had read the actual changes. To argue for that long about it without seeing the changes seems strange to me. My apologies i did not realise.
And some of you guys were willing to argue back without also seeing the list? If they were incredibly odd choices, it would have been the same situation
Cant image there were too many people who didn't read the list before debating about them, think you might be alone there :)
Haha you're full of it mate. There were plenty of times when discussing that someone could have brought it up and no one did. If they could have used that to end an argument they would have, so I'm sure I wasn't the single only person to not view the list.
GL just said before that he agreed with all except for Goddard, so he hadn't read it either. And there will be others.
Do you feel better about yourself now? :)
Hey guys keep it civil please. I will just confirm though that link was posted in my initial post on this issue so it could invoke comment.
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 07:22:08 PM
Quote from: iZander on January 22, 2016, 07:15:39 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 07:01:47 PM
Quote from: Rids on January 22, 2016, 06:33:12 PM
Goddard plays behind the ball a lot. I would argue that Goddard plays more behind the ball than what Montagna did in front of the ball in 2015 ;)
If that is your reasoning, that is how CD choose their positions and didn't give it to him :P But whatever, one or two "mistakes" are ok, 13 would not be all-right.
Quote from: iZander on January 22, 2016, 06:57:34 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 06:54:53 PM
Quote from: iZander on January 22, 2016, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 06:10:44 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on January 22, 2016, 06:07:06 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 05:59:10 PM
I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?
However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with
Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.
Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it
So you're against the changes because of 1 change, despite thinking the other 12 are good changes? Never going to get 100% of the calls correct in everyones opinion :)
I had previously asked for the full list of changes, I only got to view them now for the first time. Wasn't that obvious? Have I said anything against the changes after agreeing with 12 of the changes?
Or did you mean "are you" instead of the accusatory, "you are"?
After the last 5 pages of discussion is largely you, id assume you had read the actual changes. To argue for that long about it without seeing the changes seems strange to me. My apologies i did not realise.
And some of you guys were willing to argue back without also seeing the list? If they were incredibly odd choices, it would have been the same situation
Cant image there were too many people who didn't read the list before debating about them, think you might be alone there :)
Haha you're full of it mate. There were plenty of times when discussing that someone could have brought it up and no one did. If they could have used that to end an argument they would have, so I'm sure I wasn't the single only person to not view the list.
GL just said before that he agreed with all except for Goddard, so he hadn't read it either. And there will be others.
Do you feel better about yourself now? :)
Lol, everyone had seen the list
Quote from: Ringo on January 22, 2016, 07:25:03 PM
Hey guys keep it civil please. I will just confirm though that link was posted in my initial post on this issue so it could invoke comment.
Civil...It doesn't matter if I agree with the majority or not, someone will and has attacked me. I'm perfectly fine arguing over a difference of opinions but random pot shots with nothing to antagonise should probably be dealt with no? Feel free to look over the last few pages and deal with them appropriately. There already was warnings given so I'm not sure how many get given before anything gets done.
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 07:43:58 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 22, 2016, 07:25:03 PM
Hey guys keep it civil please. I will just confirm though that link was posted in my initial post on this issue so it could invoke comment.
Civil...It doesn't matter if I agree with the majority or not, someone will and has attacked me. I'm perfectly fine arguing over a difference of opinions but random pot shots with nothing to antagonise should probably be dealt with no? Feel free to look over the last few pages and deal with them appropriately. There already was warnings given so I'm not sure how many get given before anything gets done.
he just did deal with it by saying keep it civil it wasn't just directed at you
feel like you're been super defensive lately
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on January 22, 2016, 07:47:23 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 07:43:58 PM
Quote from: Ringo on January 22, 2016, 07:25:03 PM
Hey guys keep it civil please. I will just confirm though that link was posted in my initial post on this issue so it could invoke comment.
Civil...It doesn't matter if I agree with the majority or not, someone will and has attacked me. I'm perfectly fine arguing over a difference of opinions but random pot shots with nothing to antagonise should probably be dealt with no? Feel free to look over the last few pages and deal with them appropriately. There already was warnings given so I'm not sure how many get given before anything gets done.
he just did deal with it by saying keep it civil it wasn't just directed at you
feel like you're been super defensive lately
I know the civil was directed to everyone, but again, second warning.
Have I been super defensive though KB?
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 05:32:44 PM
Do not think you realise with going UF and customising we get to use their scoring systems and saves me a great deal of work as I will explain.
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 19, 2016, 05:45:33 PM
When I kindly asked for 1% and spoiler stats. You told me to find them myself. So I will leave you to find them! They've actually been said on the forum itself, but if you're really struggling i'd try twitter. Pretty easy to find them there :)
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 07:05:53 PM
For Heavens sake stop trying to side track this discussion by bringing in other factors and not sticking to the facts. the Stanton and Heppell will be addressed with the mini draft as decided so no need to bring them into this discussion.
Only trying to work out which DPP we use and the consensus so far is go with UF with players locked at Round 1.
Quote from: GoLions on January 19, 2016, 07:09:19 PM
Him and Riska both should have the same amount of years left to play, thinking a straight swap? ;)
Quote from: Ringo on January 19, 2016, 07:28:23 PM
That was because Sportal used CD now we are changing to UF we should be governed by them. None of you have been involved in Admin to know how much has been involved over the years. If you want to use CD then go to the other xvs. We have an opportunity to get something unique and because you do not benefit you seem to be against every enhancement we try to do to make the competition fairer. So you need to consider the whole competition not the Hedgehogs which I as administrator do.
JB you have not read the whole discussion on this as it was my original suggestion tto try and keep the admin job a little easier.
Quote from: nrich102 on January 19, 2016, 07:39:25 PM
We don't even need discussion on this, it should be Ringos decision with whatever makes it easiest for him.
Quote from: Spite on January 19, 2016, 07:35:22 PM
Also your response to JB is quite mean. I think he did read it and he gave his opinion and you shut it down because you didn't agree with it. There was nothing he said that showed he hadn't read through the thread.
Did you actually read what he wrote? Pretty clear he didn't read it
Quote from: nrich102 on January 19, 2016, 08:04:15 PM
If 13 positional changes are so bad, how about we just lock in positions and never change a players position throughout their career.
Quote from: nrich102 on January 19, 2016, 08:24:45 PM
What difference are these positions going to make? You just seem to be pissed that another team will benefit and you won't.
Surprised you're against perma locking positions, because 15 changes are such a big issue.
Quote from: iZander on January 22, 2016, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: Spite on January 22, 2016, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 06:10:44 PM
Quote from: nostradamus on January 22, 2016, 06:07:06 PM
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 05:59:10 PM
I'd like to know how UF actually does their positioning. Rids/Ringo, would one of you guys be able to find that out?
However it's done there seems to be a healthy dose of common sense .......... there isn't one player on the list of 13 that l disagree with
Can't say I watched many Essendon games, so could someone tell me how much time Goddard spent playing in defence? He's probably the only one in this list that I was surprised at, so if there's a good reason for it then I'm all good with it. But if, for example, they expected him to play more defence this year (as kind of mentioned in iZander's post), then that would be kinda stupid, as he'll play pure mid this season now you'd think after the Bombers suspensions.
Tbh after seeing the list as a whole, I also agree with all of them except for Goddard. I watched pretty much all of Essendons games and still don't see it
So you're against the changes because of 1 change, despite thinking the other 12 are good changes? Never going to get 100% of the calls correct in everyones opinion :)
Pretty much all of these have a negative tone towards me and only one from nrich was because of something I had said to him right beforehand, all the others were completely out of no where.
That's quite a few comments directed at me, still think I am being super defensive unnecessarily man? I mean belittling what happened would actually fit the theme if you were trying to do it on purpose, but I know you're not in this case.
I'm like 99.99% sure Dave's post about the trade was in jest hahaha. Dave doesn't make serious posts.
Quote from: Nige on January 22, 2016, 08:25:48 PM
I'm like 99.99% sure Dave's post about the trade was in jest hahaha. Dave doesn't make serious posts.
It was 100% serious until I worked out Riska's avg today under the proposed scoring system :P
And a lot of this arguing is pointless. We are all basically agreeing that at least 12 of the 13 changes are fair enough it seems. Plenty of people have said stuff that they probably shouldn't have, so just calm down.
Guys end it now or thread will be locked.
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: Nige on January 22, 2016, 08:25:48 PM
I'm like 99.99% sure Dave's post about the trade was in jest hahaha. Dave doesn't make serious posts.
It was 100% serious until I worked out Riska's avg today under the proposed scoring system :P
And a lot of this arguing is pointless. We are all basically agreeing that at least 12 of the 13 changes are fair enough it seems. Plenty of people have said stuff that they probably shouldn't have, so just calm down.
Of course it's pointless, I had agreed and thought it was done before being attacked again... When you say "Plenty of people have said stuff that they probably shouldn't have", all those things that were said were pretty much directed at me :P I don't even think I started any comment, I just retaliated to some out of line comments.
Quote from: Ringo on January 22, 2016, 08:30:36 PM
Guys end it now or thread will be locked.
End the attacking or end the complaining about the attacking?
End both please
Some of the averages under this new system are insane. Bring back SC+DT/2 I say.
Quote from: Nige on January 22, 2016, 08:43:39 PM
Some of the averages under this new system are insane. Bring back SC+DT/2 I say.
How does licking my tinea toes sound?
Quote from: Nige on January 22, 2016, 08:43:39 PM
Some of the averages under this new system are insane. Bring back SC+DT/2 I say.
it's getting closer back to sportal how it should be though for example Rocky averaged like 160 in sportal
everyones averages are higher so it doesn't really mean that much just higher numbers
Just remember back 2 years what our average scores were under Sportal our scores last year dropped around 2/300 points per team per game. We did not see the 2200 games we did under Sportal. So expect to see similar this year with UF.
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 22, 2016, 08:46:05 PM
Quote from: Nige on January 22, 2016, 08:43:39 PM
Some of the averages under this new system are insane. Bring back SC+DT/2 I say.
How does licking my tinea toes sound?
heard they good the ketchup
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 22, 2016, 08:46:05 PM
Quote from: Nige on January 22, 2016, 08:43:39 PM
Some of the averages under this new system are insane. Bring back SC+DT/2 I say.
How does licking my tinea toes sound?
I volunteer Dave as tribute.
Quote from: Pkbaldy on January 22, 2016, 08:46:05 PM
Quote from: Nige on January 22, 2016, 08:43:39 PM
Some of the averages under this new system are insane. Bring back SC+DT/2 I say.
How does licking my tinea toes sound?
Hahahaha
Quote from: Nige on January 22, 2016, 08:43:39 PM
Some of the averages under this new system are insane. Bring back SC+DT/2 I say.
What players averages are you unhappy with?
Quote from: Nige on January 19, 2016, 09:02:28 PM
I say to stop all the drama and not have to worry about change, we continue to use SC+DT/2. O0
Nige is just obsessed with SC+DT/2 but it's not happening lol
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on January 22, 2016, 09:11:00 PM
Quote from: Nige on January 19, 2016, 09:02:28 PM
I say to stop all the drama and not have to worry about change, we continue to use SC+DT/2. O0
Nige is just obsessed with SC+DT/2 but it's not happening lol
Did win the premiership under it hahaha. :P
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on January 22, 2016, 09:06:49 PM
Quote from: Nige on January 22, 2016, 08:43:39 PM
Some of the averages under this new system are insane. Bring back SC+DT/2 I say.
What players averages are you unhappy with?
With his side, I'd imagine most of them
Quote from: GoLions on January 22, 2016, 09:39:34 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on January 22, 2016, 09:06:49 PM
Quote from: Nige on January 22, 2016, 08:43:39 PM
Some of the averages under this new system are insane. Bring back SC+DT/2 I say.
What players averages are you unhappy with?
With his side, I'd imagine most of them
You're not wrong.
what happens with co coaches on UF btw
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on January 24, 2016, 12:37:35 AM
what happens with co coaches on UF btw
Share the password? or Create a new email account & share the password then?
That is correct you will have to share the email account and password. Or alternately just have the one coach enter the details into UF.
maybe Rids could suggest this idea to them allowing teams to have co managers
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on January 24, 2016, 05:56:01 PM
maybe Rids could suggest this idea to them allowing teams to have co managers
Does it matter? I would've assumed it would be easier to just share login details.
Quote from: GoLions on January 24, 2016, 09:10:20 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on January 24, 2016, 05:56:01 PM
maybe Rids could suggest this idea to them allowing teams to have co managers
Does it matter? I would've assumed it would be easier to just share login details.
Yeah I mean I've shared mine for AF before because I had to get someone to do a trade for me due to not having good net access to do it.
Your assistant coaches are obviously people you trust so sharing login details shouldn't matter too much.
so what happens if you win prizes on UF and you're logging into multiple accounts looks like cheating with multiple teams?
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on January 24, 2016, 09:23:53 PM
so what happens if you win prizes on UF and you're logging into multiple accounts looks like cheating with multiple teams?
I'm so confused. It's the 1 account with the 1 team. Am I missing something?