Tbetta’s Bullets: Round 18

  • Moving Forward

Ever since the Team Sheets dropped on Thursday, Round 18 was always going to be an important week. The continued absence of Buddy Franklin and Mitch Robinson was compounded with the news that Steele Sidebottom (suspected rest) would miss the Giants clash. Coaches proceeded to scramble for cover, searching the depths of their forward line bench and using DPP magic to bring a versatile midfielder into the fray. Not everyone had the luxury of a full team this week, which was the first sign that Round 18 would be critical.

The next omen was the Geelong vs Adelaide affair, the most polarising clash of the weekend. Stevie J barely got started before he was off with concussion, while in-vogue ruckman Sam Jacobs pulled out late with hamstring soreness.

But, if you survived all this, you were likely in for a big week. Most of the popular forward-line cover options produced some impressive numbers; Treloar (121), D. Smith (100), Elliott (95) and Adams (85) were all exceptional, while Dickson was solid with 62. True to naked intuition, the weekly winner had a massive score of 2668, boasting unique scoring options in Swallow (160), Gibson (133), Giles (118) and Cloke (125). Enjoy the 500 big ones mate.

 

  • Makers and Breakers

Forwardpocalypse had many coaches in a bind this weekend, with all and any cover called in to replace the plethora of Premos we had out. If that cover was Treloar, then you couldn’t be any happier. The youngster smashed out 121 points, his second ton on the trot – and that was whilst playing a defensive role on one of the best players in the AFL in Pendlebury. He’s stood up at absolutely the right time and has given the coaches who kept him as DPP cover a significant boost on those who cashed him in mid-season.

Finally, a big score from Cloke. Yes, it was against a hapless Giants outfit, but this, coupled with his stalled contract negotiations, could be the catalyst that gets him back into the All-Australia form he displayed towards the end of 2011. 125 points was a nice little win for those who jumped on a few weeks back.

133 points from Whitecross completes a month of solid form for the Hawk wingman. He’s averaged 110 in his last 4 games after enduring a quiet few weeks mid-season. At less than 10% ownership, WhiteX gave his owners a critical unique leg-up this week.

Watching a player you gave the flick pump out huge scores is never enjoyable, which is exactly what Waters did to all the coaches that traded him out after knee surgery. If, for whatever reason, you held him, then you have the right to be overjoyed. Beau had 124 this week playing his customary plus-one role down back, finishing with 30 touches and 8 marks.

This list is not complete without Swan’s noggin in the banner these days. The Pig had an incredible stat line of 37 touches, 8 marks and 5 sausage rolls as the most popular Captain option in Round 18. It could have been even huger than 159 points had he totalled a few more tackles (just the one)… With a 5-round average of over 140 points per game, can you say ‘Perma-Captain’?!

Honourable Mentions: Swallow 160, Ablett 152, Gibson 133, O’Keefe 131, Giles 118, D. Smith 100.

 

No surprise here that the biggest Breaker this week was Stevie J with a sausage. For those who missed it, he played about 6 seconds before KO-ing himself on Thompson’s bicep. The worst part about it is that he was under an injury cloud and considered a possible late withdrawal (until all Geelong emergencies played in the VFL, anyway), and in that scenario, at least his owners would have received an emergency score – if they had such cover, that is.

Brent Stanton has been far from the sky-reaching midfielder that once surpassed the magical $600k barrier. His form slump has caused his price to plummet to $407k at the moment, with more projected to come. He’s averaged just 76 in his last 4 efforts, but if you think he can turn it around, he’ll be ridiculously cheap sometime over the next fortnight.

Streaky is the best way to describe Lion defender Pearce Hanley. He went on an incredible run of 119+ three weeks in a row between Rounds 13 and 15, but has averaged just 66 in the three matches since. Whether opponents are giving him more attention (an unfortunate side-effect of excellent form as a backman), or whether he’s just in a funk, I’m not sure.

Lucky he lived up to his junk-time specialist reputation; otherwise Birchall’s score could have been much, much worse. He scored just 5 points in the first term and looked disinterested all game – not qualities I look for in a DTer. Hopefully this was just a one-off.

Sam Jacobs is unlucky to get a gig here, but the fact is, he was a walking donut this week. None of Stephenson/Redden/Campbell made it onto the park in Round 18, which means that if you had the Big Sauce, then his late withdrawal was a guaranteed zilch.

 

  • One MBR

In continuing with a recent theme of the Bullets, I’m going to talk a little bit about the big picture of DT. At this stage of the year all of the casual DTers have faded away, so hopefully if you’re still reading this, you’re invested enough in DT to care about what happens next season.

One MBR Block

So the big news out of AFL headquarters this week in the revelation that the fixture will be almost identical to what we’ve experienced in 2012. That means one block of MBRs, same as this season; much to the dismay of the AFL Player’s Association, who were gunning hard for two Byes through-out the year.

Repercussions For Us

There aren’t many. In a lot of ways, this is actually great news. Firstly, we don’t have to suffer through six Rounds of frustration, temptation and depression. Secondly, it gives VS a chance to get the mix right, using the 2012 as a test case. That means that the amount of trades, the magic number, bench slots, etc. will still be tweakable but with the added advantage that we can have some idea of the consequences of such changes this time around.

Status Quo

With the AFL keeping things the same, we can expect the VS will largely follow suit. I believe that means that we will again play through the MBRs, but with a few added tools to fight off the stream of donuts. A few extra trades and bench slots is fast firming as the leading solution, but it’s all a bit sudden (after expecting two MBR blocks all year), so stay tuned to DT Talk for more meta talk over the next few weeks.

What are your preferred changes to DT next season? Or perhaps you think we shouldn’t change a thing? As usual, let us know in the comments!

 

  • Bridging The Gap

With most coaches down to less than 4 trades, there isn’t a lot of flexibility to make any downgrade-upgrade manoeuvres. So if you’re looking for a replacement at any stage, or even a D8 or F8/M7 (thanks to all our DPPs this year, it’s basically the same thing), then you’re going to have to work with what you’ve got. So here’s a list of a few guys you can get at a steal and hopefully bridge the gap with a little less cash.

DEFENDERS

Sam Fisher – $289,200 – 87 avg L2

Thanks to a horrible 18 point in Round 16, Fisher has dropped below $300k and looks ripe for the picking. He’s carved out a 79 and 95 back-to-back, and heads into Round 19 with a BE of 24 – if you need to cheap defender who can average 80+, then Fisherman’s the way to go.

Chris Yarran – $291,900 – 74.2 avg L5

I know, he was cheaper a few weeks ago, but if you’re stuck Yarran is still an option. He had just the 44 last week, but produced 94, 94, 67 and 70 in the weeks before that. As Carlton regain some of the defenders they’ve lost over the last fortnight, Yarran should be freed up again and it will help keep his scores above 70.

Nick Malceski – $317,500 – 79 avg L4

Since he returned to the side a month ago, he’s looked more like the Malceski we’ve come to know than the imposter lurking around the bye period. He’s a bit more expensive than the guys above, but he probably has less of an element of risk about him. Remember, he is a former Premium who has a proven track record so there’s no reason he can’t put together five high-quality games leading into the finals.

RUCKS

Mike Pyke – $307,800 – 79 avg L4

Pyke has been playing 2nd stringer on paper, but with Mumford still not fully fit, they’ve been splitting a lot of minutes in the middle. In the last month, he hasn’t scored less than 72 points which is excellent for someone at his price. I don’t like the idea of chasing an R3, but if you’re looking for a replacement for Mumford/Jacobs (if their niggles turn into injuries, that is), then keep Pyke in mind.

FORWARDS

Allen Christensen – $330,200 – 80 avg unsubbed

Bundy’s been in the wars this year, having to return from injury on three separate occasions in 2012. As a result, he’s actually cheaper now than he was pre-season! Christensen looked in great touch with 95 this week and is probably the best forward option in a point-per-dollar sense.

Travis Cloke – $296,900 – 75.8 avg season

A lot has been said about Cloke these last few weeks, but there’s no doubting his DT potential when he gets his head straight. With his contract negotiations on hold, and the Pies seemingly looking for him at every opportunity to get him out of this slump, could he be worth a punt? Great F8 cover regardless, as displayed by his huge 125 this week.

Who are you looking at bringing in this week? Let me know in the comments or on Twitter!

  • Burst Fire

Let’s check out the snippets that caught my eye this week but weren’t quite able to get their own Bullet:

#  When two of the most generous DT opponents come up against, what do you get? 13 tons, that’s what. The GWS versus Collingwood clash was an absolute DT buffet. Both teams were in the Top 3 for disposals and Top 5 for marks for Round 18, so it’s no wonder that there was an extra 300 points on offer than the average game.

#  With a massive 17 tackles, A. Swallow notched the second-most amount of tackles in a game since the stat was officially recorded (Jude Bolton is the record holder with 19 last season). He’s no stranger to a little man-hug, having notched 15 in a game back in 2010.

Matt Campbell had an incredible 15 running bounces this week. How is that even possible?! Especially as he only had 11 possessions… He had more bounces in just this one game than he had in 4 of his last 5 seasons.

Stevie J is officially the most inconsistent DTer in the competition according to VS, boasting a Consistency Rating of 45.25. On the other side of the coin, Matthew Scarlett has the lowest C.R. (of anyone who has played more than 10 games) of 4.9, displaying supreme consistency.

 

  • Count It

Let’s look ahead to Round 19 in a slightly different way this week – these are the five ‘sure things’ that we’ll see next weekend:

1. Steele Sidebottom will play. The club listed him as a ‘quad’, but the Eagles did something similar with Glass, Rosa and Priddis all the way back in Round 3 against the Giants, and they were all back the next week. Sidey has been down on form in the past month, so I have no doubt the Pies gave him a week off to freshen up for the run home.

2. Shane Mumford (or Pyke if Mummy is out for another week) will top 35 hit-outs this week against the Blues. Maric had 49 on them this week, Minson had 54 the week before and Goldstein had 38 the week before that. The Blues have been in a bit of a ruck rut lately, and even Kreuzer’s return couldn’t halt the avalanche of hit-outs going the other way in Round 18.

3. Dane Swan as Captain. He might not be the highest scoring option in any given week, but he’ll never let you down. The only time he’s score less than 100 (which was a 95) this season was when he did his hamstring and was subbed off at 3Q time. Lock him in.

4. Stanton will top the ton this week. At the time of writing he was the most traded-out player so far this week with 6.5% of trades – how many times have we seen a Premo punish his ex-owners after the fact? (EDIT: Stanton had hamstring issues and may miss Round 19. Keep an eye out, especially those concentrating on Leagues)

5. What do Jobe Watson and Ryan O’Keefe have this week? They both play in milestone games. Expect both of them to dominate – we’ve seen players like Brendon Goddard (120 in his 200th this week) and Matthew Boyd (133 in his 200th in Round 16) pump out big scores in high-profile matches for them personally.

Alright guys, good luck for this Round 19. It was a bit of a condensed version of the Bullets, because with so few trades remaining there isn’t much room to make big changes – it’s all about strapping in and riding the roller-coaster for the remainder of season 2012. Remember, it’s the last game before finals; so if you’ve bundled out of the race for the FJ Cruiser, then wise up and study your opposition. We say it every year, but have a close look at you League situation and make the call whether it’s smarter to hold or trade this week in your quest for head-to-head glory!

Tweet me at @Tbetta9 for all things fantasy.

70 Comments

  • Great article

  • Opinions on fyfey for a forward option this week. tempted to grab him for devon smith, yay or nay?

    • Maybe give him 1 more week, he tired in the 2nd half on the weekend, just needs a bit more match fitness.

      • True dat – but he still had the highest number of disposals for the Freo Dorkers.
        The guy is a gun, proven DT gun.
        I’d look at his BE and make your decision from there.

  • Super keen to have a full team this week – Robbo, Sidey, Buddy I’m talking to you.

    Good result for football (and Unfyfenbelievable) that Thompson and Roughy were cleared by the MRP this week.

    League heating up – playing 3rd on the ladder – I currently sit 2nd – a win should guarantee a GF spot.

    Project to get 2404 – lets hope so.

    Cheers Tbetta – good read as always

  • If we get an extra bench, no need for more trades I reckon. We’ll have so many rookies that making cash won’t be a problem. Will be reminiscent of 2011.

    • I’d like a couple more trades to make use of the ‘extra’ cash cows on your bench, personally; especially if the Magic Number is increased as expected.

  • Nice article Tbetta.

    Surprised that there was no mention of one Nat Fyfe.
    Had 89 in his comeback game which could have been more if not for a 2 point quarter.
    He’s $380k which will probably be the cheapest he’ll be with a B/E of 70.

    Another FWD bargain will be Stevie J. I know you mentioned his inconsistency and I personally think he only scores well against bad teams but in 2 weeks time he’ll also be $380k which is obviously a bargain for a player of his standards.

    Thoughts?

    • If I had 10 more grand I would of bought him in for Van Berlo.

      I was keeping a very close eye on him. I’m not sure why he slowed down, I assume a lack of match fitness? You would assume he will run out games better and score more consistently over 4 quarters the more he plays

    • Great comment – I didn’t see the Freo game unfortunately but I gather he had a huge first half then faded significantly, which I guess is to be expected. As for this article, he didn’t quite do enough to get a mention in the Makers, nor was he cheap enough to consider in the Bridging The Gap section.

      $380k is great value, but with many coaches regaining at least two of Robbo, Franklin and Sidey this week, will they even be considered? If there’s an LTI is the next fortnight though, these two will definitely get a look in.

      • Yeah, definitely didn’t think he deserved a mention in the Makers but I though he would be in some section or another. He was 65 at HT but had a 2 point last quarter which I would expect would be from a lack of match fitness.

        I could go Gibson -> Fyfe which will give me great cover an invaluable MID/FWD dpp but considering Gibson’s form of late, it would be a sideways trade. However, I could go Hall -> Fyfe. This doesn’t give me a dpp link and will put me 3 trades down with a completed team but is it worth it?

        • I’d definately wait a week or 2 for the Gibson -> Fyfe trade.
          Gibson’s B/E is in the negatives

  • I just realised that I could go Smedts to Cloke in 1 trade since he is only 15 grand more and I have 20 grand cash.

    I was thinking of getting rid of Van Berlo for Fyfe but didn’t have enough cash, but if I do the Cloke trade I could move someone like Beams in my midfield, have Van Berlo as mid number 7 as back up, then in the forwards with Porps awesome form of late I have a choice of Cloke or Porps as forward 7/8, depending on who is in the best form.

    I have 5 trades left

    • I brought in Cloke this week (For Gibson, with a little DPP voodoo), and I haven’t regretted it yet that’s for sure.

    • Ah damn, there goes that idea….Just went to do that trade (knowing I could reverse it if I changed my mind) but Cloke is actually 296,900, not 269,900…..obviously a typo, way to get my hopes up TBetta :D

      Because you write such an awesome article I think I can forgive you :)

    • I just looked at the Smedts Cloke trade. Have exactly the right amount of cash.

      Leave me with zero trades and zero $$$

      Meant to be?

  • Now that we know that 2013 will look the same as 2012 with the fixture… we need to seriously think about what next year looks like for DT. What improvements need to be made?

    Our hits have had a bigger drop off than any other year for the second half of the season (that is, post byes for this year)… and I wonder how that would look for Virtual Sports and their games.

    Not sure what our solution is going to be… but it needs a tweak from this year.

    Personally I’m all for going to a 6-5-1-6 on field structure for the three MBRs. No need to extend benches as it’s only 3 of 23 rounds that are effected. Just drop an onfield position in each line. I know that VS aren’t all that keen on this one, but really, it is a simple solution that doesn’t change the way the game is played too much. Trades can stay at 24… and you CAN do 3 if you want to in the MBRs, but it isn’t a necessity with the structure I am suggesting. Hopefully we won’t burn the trades so bad.

    Will the injury crisis of 2012 just be a blip on the radar, or is it the start of a trend. Hmm… I would hate the game to change things such as trades (making it too many) thanks to a ‘freak’ year. Hopefully the AFL cracks down on information from clubs in the future.

    Another great read @tbetta. You are a champion!

    • Reduced on-field structure was my preferred option for this year – hopefully they go with it!

      It was always the simplest option from an outsiders POV, although apparently there was some difficulty with the coding… So VS haven’t ruled it out for this season like they did last year @Warnie?

      • Not sure… but I will push it, when the talk about options for 2013 ramp up (whenever that will be). Issues were with the complexity of explaining it. I don’t think it would be that hard to be honest – people will understand it… just as much as the reverse changes button I have stuffed up anyway! ;) haha.

        I might set up a bit of a poll for some options soon (one day I have some time) to get a few opinions… might have some time on Thursday for that…

        • Would prefer 5-7-1-5 ;)

        • I think a unified bench, like DreamteamPro would make things easier/interesting.

        • Hi guys,

          Long time reader – first time poster…

          Just thought I’d put something out there which I haven’t seen mentioned before (apolopgies if it has and been poo poo’ed…)

          The MBR’s wouldn’t be an issue if we didn’t play in them!

          The problem arose this year with the extended league numbers up to 18.

          If our league number goes back to the original 16, we need 19 rounds of footy to be able to play out our league (15 league head to heads and 4 rounds of finals)

          That leaves 4 spare actual AFL rounds which we wouldn’t play DT league matches. Use one of those in round 1 and the other three over the MBR’s.

          It removes the headaches for the serious DT coach in terms of MBR list management, and avoids any ‘unlucky’ weeks losing to lessor players who happen to have a loaded team over an MBR round.

          It makes it easier for the avergae punter who doesn’t spend hours over spreadsheets at the start of the season or reading weekly Bullets or Raves (which I looove by the way – thanks guys).

          It removes the fact that two people don’t play any form of finals this year (17th and 18th miss out).

          Minimal programming changes for VS too I’d assume.

          I love my DT. I’m in a couple of serious leagues, but some less so. All the added complexity associated with the MBR’s and potential solutions will fall in the ‘too hard basket’ for many and people might jump ship. I’d hate to have a prospering league falter with half the people pulling out (even though 2 would have to be cut…)

          Anyway – enough waffle from me…

    • I love simple solutions. But reducing the number afield just rewards teams with less depth. Something which I personally value. But that’s just me.

      I don’t really see anything wrong with copping donuts. Embrace it. But I suppose VS want punters and the average punter has lost interest this year because he used all his trades after round 12.

    • I know people are a fan of limited trades but I still think the best solution would be to have 2 trades that you can use each round (3 during MBRs), meaning that you can trade every week.

      I manage my trades well enough and will finish relatively high (rank ~2,500 atm) but once it gets to this point of the season with 3 trades left it’s largely cross my fingers and pray time, meaning I hardly look at my dream team except for on Thursday night.

      Having trades to use every round would change this and imagine the strategy discussions going into a grand final, trying to decide what two trades to make, looking at your opponents team, gambling on a point of difference. It would be a lot more interesting and certainly keep player participation up.

      • Yeah imagine that. Oh wait I don’t have to because I will have 1/2 trades for the GF.
        More trades takes the strategy out of it. We already have a team full of premiums come the finals anyway. Which really sucks in my opinion. I hate the fact every team has the same 15 players as another.

        Sorry for the negativity. But more trades = more people with a Swan, Ablett, Watson, Boyd, Pendlebury, Murphy midfield. People won’t use them to pick uniques.

        How about some of the price reflecting the popularity of the player? If a player had a $50k discount for only being in 1% of teams etc.

        So many ideas. I really like the NFL system where there is a draft in your league and no players can share the one player. Could this work for AFL? Hmmm

        • You already get the draft system playing DT Gold when you pay $$.
          For casual players it will be too hard to line everyone up via email to have that draft pick..
          Crikey It’s hard enough to get your workmates into a league when they arnt 100% focused on DT :)

  • Nice article tbetta. I like the idea to Warnie, although does it make the byes too easy? Making them hard gave ppl who cared a leg up.

    On a cheap defender note. I have $355,000 to spend to get rid of Broughton. Who should I get? Dempsey? Hurn? Malceski? Fisher? Yarran? All suck to me, so need some help.

  • stanton can’t get a ton if he’s out with a hammy….

    • +1

      If Stants doesn’t play, I think Sam Gibson is more than a good replacement.

      Do people reckon that Winderlich may get more midfield time for the Bombers with Stants maybe out this week?

  • on that if stants is out with only two trades left should I get fyfe or murphy?

  • Anyone else tanking this week for a better finals draw?

  • how about having non-league rounds during the MBRs? I know that doesn’t help coaches who play for ranking, but a huge chunk of DT coaches play for bragging rights.

    • Unfortunately that doesn’t work with the maths. There are only 2 non-league rounds… but 3 MBRs.

      Only way around it is only playing 16 league matches or reducing leagues to 16. This won’t happen as Virtual Sports are keen to keep it inline with AFL and their 18 teams and getting everyone to play each other once.

  • Love your work Tbetta. Highlight of an otherwise shit Monday as always!

    Personally I like the idea of an extra bench player on the DEF MID and FWD lines and an extra couple of trades. More depth on the bench may go some way to coping with late withdrawals which have screwed a lot of us this year as well as the myriad injuries to DT-relevant players (or so it feels like for me anyway). I guess it’s a fine line between keeping the game interesting and challenging for us diehards but at the same time slightly easier (e.g. extra trades) for the average punter to maintain interest over the course of the year.

    Whichever way VS go I’ll be here next season (but it wouldn’t hurt to get in there ear fellas)!

  • Don’t know if this is the right place to be asking this but with the season seeming to be a curse for ruckman, any word on Ryder at present? Holding onto him for now until finals if he’s not back?

  • Hey Tbetta,

    Long time reader first time poster.

    WRT the MBRs for ’13. What do you think of being able to trade (all) the players with the bye that week, with all trades “reversed” after the conclusion for the round.

    For example, if you had Pendells and the pig in the guts and they had a bye, you could do a one week trade to Baby Jesus and Boydy. Once the round is over your team looks as it did before the MBRs.

    It means you can’t ‘upgrade’ over the period (a risk) but at least we can all stay interested and not burn trades while we still have a sniff of the car, to end up still being competitive at business time.

    • It’s an idea that has been floated… but an idea that has been shot down. Coding, how confusing it would be to the regular Joe punters, etc is why that hasn’t grown any legs. There are people who have banged on about it (cue @mollyfud) but I don’t think it really is a viable option. I don’t like that you are just borrowing players for the week. Takes a bit away from it being YOUR Dream Team.

  • Those who brought up Stanton – thanks. Totally missed the tight hamstring news both when I watched the game and when I reviewed the Round. Bit ordinary on my end!

    Will be interesting to see whether he missed or not, especially with Essendon already under fire with so many soft-tissue complaints.

  • Word is broughton may be out for a month, if this is the case who should i get in as a replacement. I have a huge game this week, if i win, i make the top four with a potentially easiest** run possible into the finals. My backs are:

    DEF: Deledio, Scotland, Suckling, Goddard, Heppel, Carrazzo, Broughton (Morris, S.Shaw)

    I have 4 trades left, ill have 390k to use if i trade broughton. Most ideal replacements are outta reach, but i am looking getting H.Shaw in, but not sure if its worth swapping one rollercoaster for another. My other option i am looking at is play S.Shaw this week & get someone like Birchall next week when his price drops, hopefully below 390k as his BE is 130. Not keen on using a double trade either. Advice would be appreciated.

    • Apparantly he has a finger injury!

    • Same boat, I’m thinking Michael Johnson.

    • I’m in the same pickle, except I’ve only got $355000. I’m tossing up between double trading (leaving me with only 2 trades) to get Waters in for Broughton and Bell for Sam Shaw against going straight to someone like Dempsey for Broughton.

      • I have considered double trading but honestly dont think it is worth it, trades are premium with the injuries & possible resting of players from now on. Think we might have to settle for second best… can only think of Dempsey, Grima, Hurn or Guerra for that price

    • he is gone for the season…I have very good information

  • Great article tBetta.

    I always wondered why we just don’t get a full list and salary cap that all normal AFL teams have and then you don’t get any trades throughout the year (or maybe introduce a mid year draft) just like all the other teams.

    I know it takes the trading factor out of the equation but it would make it more like reality (if that’s what VS is going for).

    • LOL like it used to be back in the old days, before it was called Dream Team, anyone else remember these?

      Anyway, terrible idea, everyone loses interest super fast.

  • What should i do with sexton?, have 54,000 in the bank and 5 trades left.

    • If he’s on your bench just leave him, nothing you can do really. If he’s on your field you’re a bit screwed. Look at Sheringham in the Mids perhaps.

  • First time poster, long time DT tragic. Thought I would give my two cents on the whole MBR.

    The way I see it, MBRs don’t really negatively affect the overall competition (not too much anyway) but can severely affect league results. eg: For the overall, everyone faces the same issues over those 3 rounds. I would even argue the MBRs help the better player going for overall ranking, who plans out the bye rounds and upgrades bye week players to players who have already had their byes over this period. So I don’t think the game needs to be changed in regards to the overall competition.
    But for leagues, the MBRs can be catastrophic and come down to the luck of the draw. eg: You could do the best bye planning in the world and minimise your donuts to one a week, but if you have the misfortune to come up against a team with a full squad every week you could lose every one of the MBRs. It happened in one of my leagues. One of the teams (would usually be top 4) came up against 3 full teams over the bye rounds who were sitting in the bottom 5 on the ladder. Lost all games and has put a top 8 spot for a solid DTer in jeopardy.

    The best suggestion I heard (although I first thought it was stupid until I thought about it) is a “super” round which covers the 3 MBRs. So the whole 3 rounds are counted as one match for the 4 premiership points. If you want to trade over that period to maximise your score then so be it. If neither team trades over this period then each team is perfectly equal in the number of players missing because of the byes. I think that it takes the luck out of the MBRs and will reward good planning. It will also provide a good risk/reward ratio in that if you want to trade aggressively over this period then you can but at the end of the day it is only for 4 points.

    This would also provide the excitement of going for a monster score of the Bye Round. We’ll probably get scores of 5,000 plus. Any serious Dter will know that this is an anomaly but I think it will retain interest over the bye rounds for the casual Dter.

    This would of course mean that the DT season would have to start at round 1 to fit in all the games.
    I haven’t considered the effect of injuries because injuries are just bad luck and part of the AFL game (therefore should be part of DT).

    This may stop people burning trades over the MBR and therefore retain trades and interest longer into the season which benefits both the game and the sponsors.

    Anyway, please pick apart this idea. What am I missing? Constructive criticism encouraged!

    • +1

      Ripper post mate, share your thoughts more often! :)

    • The Super Round is a great idea – I like it and it would work massively for a lot of coaches… however some of the logistics is where it might hurt. VS don’t want 3 rounds where engagement is limited… it can be updated over the rounds, but the way the rounds will be structured won’t really help us too much,

      Interesting thought and I like it, but it might be one of those ‘too hard’ things for VS.

      • Fair call. This idea only works if the 3 MBRs are bunched together like they were this year. If they are spread out then this isn’t workable. And understand that there may be coding or other issues that may be insurmountable.

        Perhaps a larger cash prize for the “Super Round” could get the engagement they’re after?

        If it did go ahead, I kind of like the idea of facing my arch rival in the MBRs in a DT “Test Match” over the 3 weeks. With the ups and downs each week and the banter surrounding possible upgrade trades it could be quite entertaining!

        In the end I don’t envy VS having to work something out as I don’t think there is going to be a perfect answer to this one.

        • I think they will be structured the same as this year…. but with trading through them, I think it opens up a can of worms… like with any form of subbing or trading from week to week would throw things out of the water.

          The test match style would be fun – especially with a prize… but it would need to be a set and forget for the 3 weeks for it to work I think. This is what VS will have a problem with. Brings more luck into it in all reality I think.

          • Yeah, without the ability to trade as normal throughout the period it would totally bring more luck into it and massively affect engagement levels. It would have to be a normal week to week trading (and I would suggest trades are held at 24 for the year under this idea) scenario for this to work. As it is now but with 1 total score at the end of the 3 weeks.

            Sounds like too many issues for VS to work through but food for thought.

            The other idea about the reduced number of players on the field has some merit. Have to consider whether it would make teams more unique or less. Probably more (which is a good thing) although haven’t thought it through. Perhaps with less field spots to upgrade this could cause more teams to be complete earlier (plus need less cash to upgrade to a full team) and all have Swan, Ablett, Boyd etc.

            A poll/discussion group of suggested options at the end of the season would be good as I’m sure there’s alot of good DT thinkers out there with something to add.

    • Not to fussed how it goes next year but would like an emergency for each position.
      With clubs continually telling porkies, seems only fair.

  • no suspension for roughy :)

    MRP actually being reasonable for once! :o

  • I have another suggestion on the structure of DT 2013 and I don’t think I’ve heard it anywhere before. It’s eseentially a tweak on the extended bench idea:

    I’d call it a “Mid season draft.”

    Essentially we keep this year’s structure (24 trades, same bench, cap, etc for Round 1.) Operates as per this year until the first MBR at which point:

    1. Everyone gets an additional salary cap (say $900k?)
    2. Before Lockout you can draft an additional MID, FWD & DEF to your team to cover MBR damage.
    These players would then form your extended bench for the rest of the season and can be
    subbed and traded the same as any other players from then on.

    Benefits:
    1. VS keep site activity up
    2. Stops the burning of trades
    3. Extra cap allocation could get a premo and a couple of rooks or 3 mid pricers.

    Haven’t thought it through a great deal but just throwing it out there for consideration.

    • That’s actually a pretty good suggestion.

      How about having that extended bench + salary cap for just the MBRs though?

    • That’s actually a pretty good idea.

      Just throwing out another option that sparked from reading your post, how about coaches having to choose either an extended bench during the MBRs OR more money for the salary cap? This would provide coaches with the option of either conserving their trades to upgrade later on and using their extended bench players to cover their MBRs, while other coaches could choose to upgrade their existing players in this period to cover the MBRs and improve their team overall.

    • Ignore my first comment. Internet went psycho.

  • Great stuff tbetta!
    The important thing to remember is that we are all in the same boat.

    Sadly, luck plays a huge role in DT…..more trades are not the answer imho.
    Navigating our way through the MBRs was not a think of skill, rather a thing of luck….good for some bad for other, horrific many.
    Whether you planned for the MBRs or chose to hide your head in the sand….sadly it mattered very little.

    Extra trades would still put coaches with, “better luck” at an advantage, especially at the pointy end of the season.

    The funny thing is the game is there to attract the casual DTer, and they’re will the ones that will drop off first, hence the word “casual”…..

    What if all the carnage this year happened to non-relevant players?

    Reducing playing numbers during the MBRs would disadvantage teams that are able field a full team- not a fan of that idea at all!!!

    I’m 11k…was 46.6K prior to MBRs, copped heaps of donuts over them, and would love for it to stay the same tbth!!!

    The fact that the higher scoring players came from teams with the round 12 bye didn’t help either.

    I would like to see extra flexibility with the dpp and trading.

    E.g. Trade out Giles, sub Roughy to Rucks, Smedts to forwards, Carrazzo IN.
    So effectively, Giles to Carrazzo in 1 trade.

    • RE: Giles to Carrazzo, I’ve been wondering why that wasn’t there this year!
      But then I realised it would pretty much take out a lot of strategy from the game, you could trade anyone from any line to anywhere, which means most people will just try to get DPPs, plus it’s not as fun if it’s so easy.

  • love the bullets tbetta

    ROUND 13
    OUT Sexton ($172,400) IN Beams ($527,100)
    OUT Treloar ($315,100) IN Gibson ($85,800)
    OUT Hargrave ($322,200) IN Waters ($438,900)
    ROUND 12
    OUT Morris ($245,300) IN Adcock ($379,500)
    OUT Clarke ($307,700) IN Shaw ($104,200)
    OUT Stephenson ($221,200) IN Cox ($473,200)
    ROUND 11
    OUT Smedts ($186,300) IN Riewoldt ($378,500)
    OUT Horsley ($308,700) IN Sexton ($129,500)
    OUT Bugg ($275,100) IN Heppell ($430,200)

    9 trades in 3 weeks, personally I ,loved the MBR’s but if we have 6 or more next year I for sure will need more trades lol.

  • I think the best thing about next season will be the abscence of a huge amount of rooks.
    Gonna be so much more smoke ‘n’ mirrors banter on the web about trying to picking the right players, and mid-pricers will be much more prevelant.

    RE: Changing structure and trade numbers for next season?, I think VS could simply leave trades where they are. I don’t see 24 as being too small.

    One idea I’ve seen is that rookies can be subbed into any position on the ground, or at least two making them all DPP – whereas players who played before are stuck with their position. This would make the bench cover much easier, make upgrade trading easier, and you’d waste less trades. I’m sure it won’t happen, but I like the odea for sure!

  • In regards to the byes coming up, what ever happened to the split rounds they used to have? From a Fantasy perspective, they were better, as you didn’t have anyone out from a bye. From a player perspective, they still got the rest they wanted. From all other perspectives, its the same as a multi-bye round……..so I don’t see many negatives.