Round 9 Lockout Chat

Discuss your moves up until lockout and everything across the weekend in the comments.

Catch up on the important articles leading into the round:


Click here to subscribe on iTunes.

Don’t miss the Moneyball contests this weekend and be part of our awesome promotion where you can enter the FREE contest for a chance to win a trip to the AFL Grand Final.

Round 9 Guaranteed Contests

  • AFL $10,000 Adelaide vs WBD Special
  • AFL $500 All Of Round Special
  • AFL $5,000 Saturday Special
  • AFL $1,500 NME vs GWS
  • AFL $1,500 Essendon vs Geelong
  • AFL $1,500 Sydney vs Fremantle
  • AFL $1,500 St Kilda vs Collingwood
  • AFL $1,500 Carlton vs Melbourne
  • AFL $1,500 Brisbane vs Hawthorn
  • AFL $5,000 Sunday Special
  • AFL $1,500 Brisbane vs Hawthorn
  • AFL $1,500 West Coast vs Richmond

* $2 entry beginner contests available for every round 1 match-up


Click here to subscribe on iTunes

213 Comments

  • 482/3, with laird, Seedsman & macrae (c)

    • So 482/4…

      • Well, no, because the captain score is doubled…

        • Well, no. The scoring player is x, which makes the captains score 2x, not x+y.

          Therefore, yes, 482/4.

        • Using your argument 482/2+C is a more accurate representation than 482/3+C, which is literally the least logical option of the 3, as you’re both alnowledging the captain as a single player, and more than a captain at the same time. That’s having a bet each way. Either way, you’re wrong.

          This was sorted like 5+ years ago.

          • So… 482/3 ?

          • So your argument is you instead have 23 players, not 22 players? Are you perhaps just angry that you don’t have or didn’t captain Macrae and are taking it out on innocent people on the internet?

          • Angry because I don’t have McRae as Captain and taking it out on people on the internet? Fck off Burns you w4nker.

          • I understood J’s message perfectly. It made a lot more sense than the gibberish you’ve served up, including the captain being counted as two people. It’s not often you see a comment here that fails nature as well as logic.

          • The only thing that lacks logic is a shorthand scoring system that over complicates it. That’s entirely counter intuitive to the purpose of it in the first place. But I’m not surprised that it’s beyond your ability to comprehend.

          • 482/3*
            resolves the non issue

      • Does there NEED to be a F wit crapping on about this EVERY season?!??!

  • Well done J great start to the week for you mate.

    My team is doing ok but not that good as my score so far after one game is 352/4 Laird, Jacobs, E-Yolman and Doedee. I was thinking of Trading out Doedee, but I was happy with his score tonight. Just hope Mitchell doesn’t get taged as he is my Captain. Good Luck to all.

    • Despite the start, my ranking fell, suggesting others inside the top 1000 have a bigger start, and captained macrae

  • 4/567. Macrae (C), Laird, Doedee and McLean. Probably my best ever start to a week.

  • I can’t stand watching Macrae dominate and not be in my team. He’s going to get over 900k soon. Going to be hard to get.

  • I could’ve brought in Macrae this week but thought rocky and Daisy Thomas would’ve been a better choice for value and extra banked cash. Oh well, gotta hope another pig rises up

  • 602 from Macrae (c), Gibbs, Laird, McLean. Glad I dumped Parker for Macrae a few weeks back

  • Pre season I did a team 2 team trade in draft.
    Kreuzer to Macrae…looked like unders at the time but [c]
    has been on Mcrae since.

  • Where’s my namesake? Seems there’s too many Oscars going round.

  • Geez it’s a pretty small crowd at the Shanghai game. And it looks bizarre seeing so many umbrellas up at the footy :/
    On the bright side, Rocky’s doing well 🐷

  • Happy to bank away Rocky’s likely ton, even though he’s not playing next week. Points in the bank. Clarke will cover him next week. I don’t fully get the idea he should only have been brought in after the bye. What if there’s crazy carnage in 2 weeks that prevents that?

    • People get precious about what is and what aint correct policy..and the misinformation usually starts with the Ttraders.

    • what if there is carnage next week though and Clarke gets dropped (which is quite possible atm)

      • Point is not really about Clarke, but FYI I don’t have him. Was planning to maybe for next week to replace waterman. If he doesn’t hold his spot I have options to bring in anyone else I want.

        BTW, this relates to another bit of silly advice I didn’t get – that is the traders advising to bring him first game. Why wouldn’t you spend one week having a look. Often fantastic VLF, WAFL, and NEAFL numbers don’t translate to fantasy because afl coaches often envision a different role for the player in the afl side compared to the state league side.

        • The traders have always advised to wait a week on rookies, however as the season progresses and good downgrades become scarce sometimes you have to take a punt. Clarke ticked a lot of boxes so was a calculated punt. 46 in first afl game is not that bad in any case.

        • Because why would you pay 210k for a player qhen you can pay 170k for them? Averaging 130 in the VFL is enough of a vouch towards a players ability to score. If 2 months of crushing it in the VFL isn’t enough to convince you, then nothing is, and you’re going to be paying a premium for every rookie you bring in.

          The people writing Clarke off after 1 week are hindsight prophets looking to backup their incorrect decision in not bringing him in. It’s not worth worrying about the opinions of morons.

          • Your comment is clearly indicates you are riled up over this, so much so that you, like others, argue for a red herring point peripheral to the main point I raised (regarding Rocky, not Clarke). I’m certain that if I didn’t raise Clarke as part of that point, not as many would get their knickers in a knot: Go back and read properly, before taking the thread out of context.

            If I have to explain myself, with limited trades per week, I thinking before lockout was to choose between the options of either Rocky (I expected 100+) or Clarke (I was actually looking for a ~70). I choose Rocky because it made sense to back a good score for one week more than when most people would get him, and basically it OUTWEIGHED paying more for Clarke in 2 or 3 weeks.

            I’ve already explained why good state-level numbers in rookies don’t necessarily translate to them being instance fantasy piglets, for many different reasons. If we all followed your logic, we’d all be stacked with worthless NEAFL rookies in our sides that average 45 in the AFL. Muffin, we have different value systems, but you also are misrepresenting my argument. For rookies, I’d prefer to pay 170K, but if squeezed between paying basement price and 210K the next week if it means more points on ground in a given week as a result of other choices being available, I’d certainly prefer to pay more.

            I didn’t say anything about writing Clarke of after 1 week, if you intended to misrepresent me further than what you have.

          • It’s not misrepresenting you at all, as you stated:

            “BTW, this relates to another bit of silly advice I didn’t get – that is the traders advising to bring him first game. Why wouldn’t you spend one week having a look. Often fantastic VLF, WAFL, and NEAFL numbers don’t translate to fantasy because afl coaches often envision a different role for the player in the afl side compared to the state league side.”

            You then reiterated that again while adding something about how if he goes big in the future then the hindsight heroes will no doubt say I told you so.

            That’s not misrepresenting you at all, they are explicit statements, you’re just trying backtrack and dig your way out of it like a littlr weasel.

            In fact the only person misrepresenting someone is you, with your bullshit strawman about having a team full of 45 point averaging NEAFL rookies. So yeah, get lost with your weasel words and gaslighting.

      • I doubt if Clarke will be dropped. Watching the game he looked good – I’m sure Woosha will appreciate his five tackles and good pressure around the ball. His debut performance against the Cats’ midfield was impressive.

        Ridley had a terrific debut! I reckon I’ll be one of many coaches grabbing him next week.

    • Clarke to cover next week lol. The guy is on 17 after 3 quarters…lol.

    • It’s a trade off of $$$ for points. Get him in before the bye save some cash, but lose points in Rd 10 when you have an extra rook on field. Versus don’t have an extra rook on field, but lose some cash when you get him.

      If there’s carnage in Rd 10, you may wish you didn’t have him since he won’t be playing… so a 50/50 there depending on when the hypothetical carnage hits.

  • Get Clarke they said, Hes a good scorer they said….

    • Where’s Alan?

      • Right here mate.. I never said I was right, I just said don’t blame luck for your rookies not performing as well as you wanted too.
        Clarke obviously wasn’t as good a pick as his fellow first gamer, but I’ll wear that instead of blaming luck..

      • Righto message board hero.

  • The traders have always advised to wait a week on rookies, however as the season progresses and good downgrades become scarce sometimes you have to take a punt. Clarke ticked a lot of boxes so was a calculated punt. 46 in first afl game is not that bad in any case.

    • Meant to reply to J above

    • 46 suits me fine. Means his price won’t go up much so I’ll still probably still get him next week if he holds his spot, but much cheaper than expected, but probably won’t play him on ground.

      But disagree about defending them on this point – did you not notice the hype around the double downgrade with Clarke being safe to bring in first game, on the back of vfl form?? (noticed you didn’t debate that aspect). Clarke may well come good in subsequent weeks, which would be awesome, and pretty sure the hindsighters will then say ‘told you so’.

      • Would you be as chirpy if he smashed out a ton?

        • Settle down muffin. I already mentioned why it makes sense to have a look first, and I was planning on getting him next week – so him putting out a ton has no bearing on the point I was making. But maybe now that I’ve seen his role and score, maybe I’ll go Ridley instead – a guy the experts were advocating avoiding.

          • Congratulations, you pay 200k to bring him in when everyone else payed 170k, you outsmarted everyone, good job.

            If you’re planning on getting him, it makes sense that you do it at his lowest price. Either way ‘having a look’ makes no sense, as he either scores big and goes up a lot, scores low and goes up 30k+, or you wait another week by which point he’s gone up 70k. There is no circumstance where ‘having a look at’ a player you know you’re going to get in, is smart coaching, as you’re wasting cash by not paying the base price.

            You’re just trying to be a hindsight genius and sly bragging by acting as if it was the correct decision not to get him in this week, because he scored 50 instead of 100.

          • ^ put a sock in it muffin. no one cares for your opinion.

          • Dame, I don’t care if you care for my opinion.

          • Na, he will go up 10k if he stays in the side

          • This muffin fool clearly can’t read. There’s no hindsight at play – how many f#$%en times do I have to explain the decision was between fielding Rocky’s potential score or Clarke’s potential score: all the rationale already explained was around making that choice there. Typical to see you’ve twisted and generalized this into point that no one is specifically arguing against – who the hell wouldn’t pick up a rookie at his cheapest, given no other limitations in trades?

            How’s that strategy of choosing VFL/NEAFL piglets straight of the bat working for your rank, muffin? The game isn’t about saving a measly 20 or 30K here and there – it’s about fielding the best scoring team. Clearly you’ve failed in this aspect, given all the whining you’ve done in the past two weeks about your own team going south. Are you so sour about that, that you’re trying to mislead and sabotage others now?

          • Accuses you of misrepresenting and twisting an argument while twisting misrepresenting an argument. Ok j.

            And I personally don’t feel I was whining, seeing how I’m still ranked above the vast majority of people around here. I thought it would help losers like you to feel better about yourselves by not pointing out week after week how awesomely my team is going, and how much better of a player I am than you, by instead highlighting some other aspects, you know, just to help your fragile self esteem for being such a shit player. I guess I’ll just go back to rubbing your nose in your own mediocrity.

            Yeah, my team’s still going pretty good actually. Top 300 pre lockout and should still score over 2100 this round. How bout you, what’s your rank? How does it feel being ranked below someone like me?

          • Bring back the biffo.

  • Fyfe wtf?! Injured, tagged?

    • Not 100%. Came close to missing the game. Only playing because he’s currently in Brownlow contentionr

      • Fair enough. What’s his problem specifically?

        • I think the injury rumour was either ankle or knee. Something lower leg.

          • Thanks for that.
            Well, he seems to have come good anyway and produced a respectable enough score :) I actually have a theory that he doesn’t like being pipped by Neale for fantasy points

    • Tagged by Hewett for some of the match at least.

      • Hewett’s becoming quite a tagger isn’t he? He did a good job of shutting down Titch last week too if I remember correctly.
        I bloody hate taggers lol

  • 1761 with Sicily, Titch, Gawn and Stef to go, bit worried…

  • 1405 with 9 left. About par for this round?

  • So many salty dumb c u n ts blaming the traders for following their “advice” when in reality, when lockout arrives, you can only blame yourself for bad decisions. Gotta follow your gut instead of relying off other peoples opinions.

    Muffin, you’re a perfect example, same with half the people on this site. Give advice but only you can alter your team.

  • 1801 with 4 to play, Yeo, Titch, Gawn, Fritsch. Clarke really junked up Q4 to save a low score

  • If you could make a fantasy with all the commentators I would choose James brayshaw as my set and forget captain. I love his broadcast and think he is top notch

    • Jason Dunstall for me. His command of the language and footy analysis are on point. But Brayshaw goes alright.

  • To all Collingwood supporters,

    Could someone please explain to me what Mick Malthouse was taking about here please???

    In my opinion I think he was either good mates with bomber Thompson or he was an escapee from a menta institution … thanks in advance , please see 23 second clip below.

    https://youtu.be/pQZQLgpuBVI

  • Captained Hogan over Titch :( Titch’s score after one quarter is already as much as Hogan’s score for the entire match. When Melbourne kicks 25 goals you expect at least five of them to be from their key forward (Hogan). Hogan is very lucky he kicked his first goal in the last minute of the match, otherwise he’d be an instant rage trade.

  • BTW, well done to all the folks who have both Macrae and Mitchell but had the balls to CHOOSE to captain Mitchell.

    • Anyone that has Mitchell as Captain has CHOSEN to do so.

      • 1. Easy “choice” for you to make Muffin – Mitchell’s probably your only decent player averaging above 100, among 21 other rookies you’ve picked in your team based on VFL/NEAFL hype.

        2. My congrats doesn’t apply to a hack like you Muffin – read carefully: it’s only for the guys you have both Macrae and Mitchell. You’re just a sour grumpy baby with dirty diapers because you don’t have Macrae. Back in your crib.

        • Your on drugs if you think it takes balls to capt mitchell

        • Yeah, ranked 300 odd with 1 good player and still higher than you.

          And I know who your passive agressive comment was directed at, because you’re salty. Set and forget is a strategy well above your level, because you haven’t got the minerals. You’re just another mut that chases hub caps. The only bloke that’s a sour jelly baby about things is you.

          Good luck for 2019, because you’ve got no hope this year.

        • Tried to tell people that JungleMuffin was a pri-k, but no one would listen to me. Now you know for sure. He’s a filthy moron.

          • Oh look, boris signed up abother account!

            How come boris? Looking to have another rage at Warnie? What’s it like down at rank 80,000? Have they elected you king of the ghost ships yet?

            Keep sooking it up you little fairy.

          • JungleMuffin, I know who I am, do you really know who you are?

            I can tell you, if you like:
            You are a fat, self-interested sad guy, who has never had a real partner, no family who really love you, and you are someone who will die a sad lonely death with no one there to see you off.

  • Junglemuffin call me. I’m s@xually attracted to you.

    • I told you, I only date people ranked inside the top 1k. Everyone else is pleb with poor DT genetics.

  • 2150 with Yeo and Nicnat still in, and the gods smiling on me (relatively for once).

    Not that Billings to Sicily was much good.

    How is everyone going? I reckon I am a shade above par

  • #FLYEAGLESFLY

  • Who goes between Gowers and Ratugolea for Ridley??

    And should create a warne chest for the upcoming bye rounds or spend what I got??

Leave a Reply


To get your own unique avatar for DT Talk comments, please go to www.gravatar.com and sign up with the same email address you have signed up here with.