Dear Footy Tragics,
What an electrifying start to DT 2010 it’s been. The excitement that comes with a new season has hit fever pitch as we pore over any piece of pre season footy news we can get hold of. We are now just two days away from the commencement of the NAB Cup, which promises to shed some light over which players we should select in 2010.
As a new season starts, we all promise ourselves that we won’t make the same mistake we made last year, or that other mistake we made two years ago. Depending on how good your memory is, you may have also convinced yourself that you won’t make that same mistake you made three years ago, or even four.
The reality is, not only do we often repeat previous mistakes made, we also find ourselves making new ones, particularly when the rules changes. Regular visitors to our site will no doubt be aware of the “new rule” in 2010. The rule where the dreaded ZERO, becomes a thing of the past.
For those not familiar with this new rule, allow me to explain it in plain English.
STEP 1 - Select two dual position players. Note that they must both be defender / forward or midfielder / forward etc. You can’t have one defender / forward and one midfielder / forward.
STEP 2 - With these two players you have selected, choose one in each position.
STEP 3 - You can now swap these two players around at any time, without using one of your trades.
It looks like the days of the donut are gone, right? WRONG!
This could possibly be the most confusing and utterly useless rule I’ve seen. The reality is there are not many duel position players I’m interested in for 2010. What about Paul Chapman, Alan Didak and Shaun Higgins you ask? All three are quality dreamteam players, but I still want them in my forward line. Why would I choose Alan Didak as a midfielder and cost myself Leigh Montagna in the process? I’m greedy, so I want both.
Let’s run a case study. I’ve worked out this new rule and 2010 is definitely my year. I’ve picked up Alan Didak as a midfielder and Shaun Higgins as a forward so I can swap them around to cover injuries. It’s Round 6 and Gary Ablett is injured. What’s more, my 7th and 8th midfielders are running around in the VFL this week as part of “workload monitoring” in their debut AFL season. My rock solid midfield of eight last week is now down to five, but wait, I can swap Didak and Higgins around can’t I? Yes you can, but you’ve still only got five midfielders (with one of those five being Higgins, rather than Montagna).
The next scenario takes us to the Thursday night prior to Round 22. Didak and Higgins have both being picked to play their 22nd game of the season. As you see their names selected on the official team sheet you think to yourself, what a futile exercise that was. Why did I weaken my all important midfield to cater for a strategy that can only be used in extraordinary circumstances?
We only get four premium midfielders, why reduce it back to three? I’m not compromising my midfield to gain some peace of mind in my defence or forward line. Choose your cheap defenders and cheap forwards wisely, and then back them in to get the job done. I prefer to attack, rather than defend. I’m not costing myself Brent Stanton, Brad Sewell or Jimmy Bartel to maybe cover a zero in Round 16.
I must confess I was going use this rule to swap Andrew Moore a $125,500 defender / forward (already in my side) with a suitable defender / forward. The problem being, there is no viable option under $140,000. If you can find one, please let me know.
As you may have gathered, I’ve decided to not use this new rule at all in 2010. I see it as an unnecessary distraction, with any potential benefit being far outweighed by the cost incurred in straying from my core strategy. My core strategy is to choose 30 quality players, not 29 quality players and an average defender / forward.
My advice, don’t let this new rule cloud your judgment over which players to select. If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
Good luck!
13 Comments on Article #3 - The New Rule
Thank the lord! I thought i was one of the only ones thinking this way. Every player eligible for this you either want in your forward line, or is not up to scratch. The rule will be useful sometime in the future, but not the 2010 season for me.
I have left my midfield to pure midfielders, rather than forward/def-mids which i have always picked in the front part of the ground.
I have thought about the Lobbe / Tippett experiment but that is the only one to have crossed my mind. Have you tinkered with this?
Davis from Adelaide a suitable option for Moore? 94k def/fwd. Thoughts?
Murphinator,
I have thought about the Lobbe / Tippett experiment along with many other combinations, but none sit well with me.
When selecting my players, I’m looking solely at their ability to get the job done for me. The convenience of being able to swap two players around as allowed with this new rule should be seen as nothing more than the icing on the cake.
While I do believe Phil Davis has the potential to play solid footy for the Crows this year, I don’t like him for DT. I prefer smaller forwards in my team, rather than key forwards standing at 195cms.
Totally agree Ben, the new rule just adds icing (and im not sure even that much icing to be honest). For mine, I see the rule change as having only limited advantage. The only two possible benefits I can see might be:
1) Possible better cover (in certain situations): Take the ruck position for example. You have two good rucks on the ground, and your bench is Lobbe and Warnock (and say both Lobbe and Warnock either arent getting a game or arent putting up start worthy scores). If one of your starting rucks gets a short term injury (ie concussion) and misses a week or two what do you do? Well I think rather than making a trade, or starting a bench player who might only return a 50 score, this rule might be used as an advantage as you could substitute Mr. Lobbe-Lobbe for, say, Tippet in the forward line (obviously providing there is adequate cover up forward) and the 0-50 you would otherwise have had from Lobbe might turn into a 70 or 80? At the same time hopefully Lobbe is still making money.
2) Upgrading a cash cow: For example, you have two interchangeable cash cow dual-position players (ie fwd/bak and a bak/fwd) but the back is going great guns, and the fwd only average. The back’s value has increased by $200k, but the forward has only increased by $100k. However, your backline is fairly set with good performers, and so the dual-position player is on the bench there. At the same time your forward line needs work, so instead of simply doing a straight upgrade on the +$100k fwd, you interchange the two players (giving you average cover on the bench in the backline) and then upgrade the fwd line with the +200k player, giving yourself an extra $100k to make the upgrade to a premium.
I know, the chances of these scenarios happening are both pretty slim, but maybe something to consider. Hope that all made sense.
I for one have have formed my team 100% on merit and not by this rule, as I feel it will persuade you to pick shyte players you “REALLY” don’t want just to cover trades..
If you have done your homework correctly at the start of the year and use your trades wisely during the year, you should not need this rule..
I have never had a O, nor have I ever run out of trades..
By the way, I finished 298th last year, so my comment would hopefully carry merit..
I am only saying this as a piece of advice to hopefully help others realize, pick the best team AVAILABLE !!!
The way I manage my team is:
*Save 6 trades for your finals,(to upgrade or cover injuries)…
*NEVER trade after round 1(you have studied form all pre season, do not judge on one bad round
*Doing this leaves you with 14 trades to do 17 rounds,you just need to be wise…
Hope this helps people in my way of thinking…
GOOD LUCK TO ALL !!!!
No doubt based on my previous comments you know that I’ll completely disagree. I’m not going to litter my starting squad with dual position players for the sake of it, because to be honest without even considering this rule I had already picked nine dual position players. That’s seriously without even considering the rule.
Admittedly none were picked in my midfield, but there are plenty of reasons to give myself this flexibility. Just say I put Hodge in as my fourth mid, instead of my third back. Currently I have Mark McVeigh as my fourth mid. Yeah, Hodgey is worth more, but he would actually score more.
Later in the year if Mitch Farmer starts getting a game for Richmond (likely IMO) I can trade Farmer into my back line and then sub him for Hodgey. All of a sudden Hodgey is a mainstay in my back line. Just because I start him in the mids doesn’t mean he ends that way and early in the season you naturally accept lower averages anyway. Besides, I anticipate Hodgey will actually outscore most $367K midfield options anyway, apart from maybe McLean. I can start him there and move him back later.
I love that this rule gives us the flexibility in trading more than anything. I feel this allows me to pick up guys with bigger injury risks. Not that I’d start him at his starting price, but Chappy becomes an option to trade in and I have never had him in DT. If his price dips and I trade him into my forward line if I’ve got a MID/FWD player in my midfield then if Chappy goes down then I can use his $400K+ price tag to bring in an elite midfielder. Not that you’d want to waste two trades on one player, but it’s a risk/reward game you can play with a stud like Chappy, while having a bit more peace of mind.
You guys are playing down the likelihood of all of these events happening, but they’re more likely than I reckon you are saying. There’s heaps of attractive dual position prospects that are bigger risks to miss games. Sylvia, Hodge, Didak, Chappy, Pav, Higgins, Boomer. You don’t even need to put an elite dual position player into your midfield to give yourself flexibility. Starting someone like Dangerfield as a 4th of 5th mid opens up a world of flexibility without necessarily compromising points with whoever else you were going to have in that spot.
Dan, skipping past your comments on the new rule, i noticed in your comment that you are looking at McLean and McVeigh - not massive news, but both just seem so much like players you wouldnt normally consider… I’ve got Spike in my team at the moment and am toying with McLean (scared he will be used purely as an inside mid to free up Judd ala Hadley), can i ask you your thoughts on those two? Farmer im very tempted by too… We need to have our Footy Tragic dinner to blow out all the off-season cobwebs! haha
palmer 277
mcveigh 268
redden 265
hill 255
frontbum 254
crowley 242
young 230
sloane 175
think there is potential in each to be value (and an easy upgrade). Picking which 1-2 of these though is the challenge. McVeigh being suspended doesn’t help either.
Dan,
As much as I love Dangerfield, I’d still prefer him in my forward line rather than as my 5th midfielder.
If I choose Dangerfield in the midfield, I’m still costing myself a quality midfielder either around the same price or even one at a cheaper price (Scully, Trengove, Martin etc). It’s the same story with Luke Hodge, I’d prefer him in defence.
What I do like about this rule is the way it divides opinion and creates robust discussion.
I have played a bit with this rule today around my rookies - the main time i can see it worthwhile for me this year. Looking at rookies such as Davis, Trengrove, Farmer, Moore, Lobbe, Rohan, Talia, etc… all of whom can be switched between a couple of positions. They are the types of players who wont play 22 games and therefore it is more likely you may need to replace them using the new rule (the switcheroo) for a week or two! Swapping premium players (As tuney described above with his Didak example) is not as likely to be needed
The only thing that scares me with McLean is his body. That said, my structure doesn’t really dictate that I take someone in his price range at this stage. I have three elites, McVeigh and two rookies. I’m kinda glad that I don’t have to be tempted by him, because I recognise that he could go bang in a big way, but I’m shit scared he could be only good for 15 games.
Ben, I can still end up with Danger in my forward line. Just because I start him in my mids (hypothetically), doesn’t mean he ends up there. With so many quality fwd/mid players that are injury risks it’s not unreasonable to expect one of them to go down. I would just have cover for that. Instead of sideways trading to another forward, I can use their price tag to get a gun mid if I’ve got someone to sub them for.
I’ve gone the four elites at this stage… My thought process is that the elite mids are always going to score me the highest points… Plus, im finding it impossible to drop one of them! Doing so would free up stacks of cash though! So many decisions - it will be good to study the NAB cup and see who is really worth it and which rookies will be worth starting on the field…
There’s so much value this year and the increased cap makes it so easy to load up on premiums, but I prefer having more room to move early in the season. I couldn’t see myself committing to four premiums from Round 1 because I want to have more control how I shape my midfield. To some extent a starting line-up is a bit more of a crap shoot.
Oops, the increased cap is more of a SC comment. Regardless, it’s a lot easier to fit more guns in from the start this year…
Leave a comment on Article #3 - The New Rule
You must be logged in to post a comment.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI