2010 Perfect Starting 22 (No Trades)

Lakey91

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 14, 2008
6,869
4
AFL Club
Sydney
Back, due to popular demand, is the 2010 team that would have claimed the car without a solitary trade – the ideal starting squad for last season (see 2009 version here: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=627387).

Below is the team, that without a single trade, would have won the 2010 DT competition by 14 points. I am sure there are different combinations with different points and even larger margins, but this will do (don't forget to scroll across and up/down).

Code:
Pos  	Name         	Starting Price  Team  	Total Points    Rounds Played   Rounds Missed and who Covered
 
B Goddard, Brendon	$455,700	SK	2382		21		15 (Stratton)	
B Sam Gilbert		$391,500	SK	2051		22
B Hodge, Luke		$366,800	HW	2166		21		22 (Stratton)
B Mackie, Andrew	$365,100	GE	1846		21		21 (Stratton)
B Lake, Brian		$356,900	WB	2195		22
B Malceski, Nick	$242,800	SY	1885		22
B Waters, Beau		$152,800	WC	1838		21		19 (Stratton)

B Davis, Phil		$94,500		AD	762		15
B Stratton, Benjamin	$89,500		HW	1186		20

C Swan, Dane		$523,500	CO	2708		22
C Pendlebury		$454,700	CO	2343		22
C Rischitelli, Michael	$309,600	BL	2118		22
C Jack, Keiran		$272,400	SY	1992		22
C Scully, Tom		$157,500	ME	1661		21		10 (Howlett)
C Barlow, Michael	$105,800	FR	1428		13		10 (Martin), 15-22 (Howlett and Martin)

C Martin, Dustin	$149,500	RI	1501		21
C Howlett, Ben		$77,800		ES	1184		15

R Sandilands, Aaron	$419,800	FR	1860		19		19-21 (Warnock)
R Leuenberger, Matthew	$202,100	BL	1702		22

R Warnock, Robert	$101,800	CA	638		11
R McNamara, Seamus	$77,800		0	0		0

F Chapman, Paul		$494,500	GE	2388		21		13 (Grant)
F Goodes, Adam		$434,800	SY	2083		22
F Harvey, Brent		$388,900	NM	2084		22
F Thomas, Dale		$336,300	CO	2096		22
F Douglas, Richard	$289,000	AD	1940		22
F Rockliff, Tom		$101,100	BL	1657		19		1-2 (Gumbleton), 6 (Grant)
F Podsiadly, James	$77,800		GE	1389		17		1-2 (NONE), 8/18/22 (Grant)

F Grant, Jarrad		$96,700		ES	948		17
F Gumbleton, Scott	$94,500		WB	1270		17
 
 
        SUB TOTAL            		43812
	Points from Coverage        	1820
        Swan Permanent Captain       	2708        
 
        TOTAL                		48340        
 
        WINNER                		48326       
 
        MARGIN                		+14
Firstly, note how durable the side is. 11 of these 22 players played every single game during the season, whilst another 7 played 20+. It was only Barlow, Pods, Rockliff (all great value for the output they produced) and Sandilands (dominant in his position) who were not in this bill. BUT, even when these players (and others) did miss games, this team has exceptional coverage with Stratton, Martin, Howlett and Grant in particular scoring very well from the bench when it was required.

How many hype players were in this squad? A few - Malceski, Waters and arguably our old favourite Thomas (though he wasnt that popular). But, where is Josh Hunt? Kennelly? Dangerfield? Shaw? Hille? Tippett? These players were all very popular this time last year, and though many of them did their job as cash cows and the like (though some didnt!), none of them were good enough to make it into this side. Yet this side is hardly full of uniques either - in fact I would say that outside of Jack and Rischitelli who many didnt consider (mainly due to the fact mid pricers in the midfield are generally frowned upon) most of these players are pretty common. Most of us would have strongly considered each and every one of these guys.

STRUCTURE

Code:
	Premiums/Keepers	Mid Pricers	Rookies		Total
Backs	5 			1		1		7
Centre	2			2		2		6
Ruck	1			1		0		2
Fwd	3			2		2		7
	11			6		5		22
This year there were many more rookies, with the midpricers being sacrificed for these guys. We were very much blessed with guys like Scully, Barlow, Podsiadly and Rockliff all producing at outstanding levels for their price tags.

Like last year, I have also split it up into a club by club view:

Code:
AD 1
BL 3
CA 0
CO 3
ES 0
FR 2
GE 3
HW 1
ME 1
NM 1
PA 0
RI 0
SK 2
SY 3
WB 1
WC 1
TOTAL 22
9/22 from teams ranked 1st-4th
6/22 from teams ranked 5th-8th
3/22 from teams ranked 9th-12th
4/22 from teams ranked 13th-16th

That equates to 15/22 from top 8 sides.

But also look at those who improved and those who declined significantly in the 2010 season. Collingwood (4th to 1st) had 3/22, as did Sydney (12th to 5th), whilst Freo (14th to 6th) also had 2. These 3 sides combined were the most improved (particularly for Freo/Syd who went from well outside the 8 to middle of the 8) and they combined for 1/3 of this side. Alternatively, Adelaide (5th to 11th) and Essendon (8th to 14th) fell significantly, and only contributed one player between them. So perhaps we should look to avoid players who are part of a team we think will (or could) drop, whilst trying to pick those who could potentiall jump up the ladder in our attempts to find a Nick Malceski or Dale Thomas type.

Finally, I put together a list of how these players improved in 2010:

Code:
Player			2010 	2009	Difference

Goddard, Brendon	113.4	103.7	9.7
Gilbert, Sam		93.2	89.1	4.1
Hodge, Luke		103.1	83.4	19.7
Mackie, Andrew		87.9	83.7	4.2
Lake, Brian		99.8	81.2	18.6
Malceski, Nick		85.7	55.2	30.5
Waters, Beau		87.5	NA	
					
					
Swan, Dane		123.1	119.1	4.0
Pendlebury		106.5	98.3	8.2
Rischitelli, Michael	96.3	70.4	25.9
Jack, Kieran		90.5	62	28.5
Scully, Tom		79.1	NA	
Barlow, Michael		109.8	NA	
					
					
Sandilands, Aaron	97.9	95.5	2.4
Leuenberger, Matthew	77.4	46	31.4
					
					
Chapman, Paul		113.7	112.5	1.2
Goodes, Adam		94.7	98.9	-4.2
Harvey, Brent		94.7	82.6	12.1
Thomas, Dale		95.3	76.5	18.8
Douglas, Richard	88.2	65.7	22.5
Rockliff, Tom		87.2	NA	
Podsiadly, James	81.7	NA
Like in the 2009 version, basically every single player improved on their previous years output. The only exception was Goodesy who's durability in an otherwise injury wrought forward line means he still made the cut. On average though, each player in this side improved by 14ppg - even those supposed "fully priced premiums" of Swan, Gilbert, Chapman and co managed small increases that are so valuable.

So, some things that maybe we should consider in 2011 when making our DT squads:
- Durability really is king, however good cover is also very important, particularly with the buys to occur in 2011. How durable is your plan side looking then?
- Make sure every player in your starting squad is someone who you think will improve - even if it is only a couple of points. Of course, this side shows that even guys like Swan/Chapman who are streets ahead of those in their position are very valuable.
- Look for breakout contenders in improving sides - particularly those looking to break into the top 8
- Underpriced keepers are gold
- Being unique doesnt mean just having unique players (though the odd one or two helps), it can also mean a unique combination of players. Nothing in this side is overly surprising, yet it would have won easily.
- How many of the BF hype players paid off? Not many. So how will Otten, Knights, Adcock and co go in 2011?
- How many players from the improve sides (saints, freo and sydney) did you have in your initial 22 in 2010?

All that with 20 grand and 20 trades up my sleeve!

Enjoy
 

footylover18

Club Legend
Mar 19, 2006
2,927
686
AFL Club
Essendon
That's a great post mate. Well done.

In response to your question "How many of the BF hype players paid off? Not many. So how will Otten, Knights, Adcock and co go in 2011?"

My answer is hopefulyl as well as the Malceski/Waters type players went in 2010. ie, Whilst i agree that one must be careful to avoid group think, it's also necessary, as you explained earlier, that we make the most of underpriced keepers. Making sure we get those players that are priced in that 200-300k range that end up being keepers is critical. Unfortunately they don't come without risk, but missing out on them all together could be catastrophic.

It's nearly impossible to follow the "rules". ie, I agree durability is key, but those that are severely underpriced are almost always either injury prone or coming off a major injury. Do you avoid those injury prone players and in the process potentially miss out on those underpriced keepers? Are you really going to avoid Otten, Knights and Acock because they are all coming off injuries and have been "hyped" by BF only to miss out on 3 potential underpriced keepers.

The durability factor really applies to your guns, I think it's necessary to take risks elsewhere in your team but your guns HAVE to produce for you, and in particular produce early in the season.
 

Dunn - Well Done

Cancelled
Mar 30, 2008
4,734
0
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Buddy
Its interesting and a great post again Lakey, your a star.

First ill talk about the BF hype players and i disagree with what (lakey) said, most of them were very good picks and proved to be during the year. There wernt many that wernt. Having a look at the BF hype players (Hunt, Ladson, Kennelly, Malceski, Waters, Hille, Dangerfield, Tippett) IMO all paid there dues for durability or improving value which is what we bought them for, even more so some were lucky enough to become keepers. The only real BF hype player i can think of that didnt cut it was Tippett and if we actually looked at his big scores and saw that they were coming only from games when he kicked big bags we wouldve known not to pick him.

I say this OP is interesting for 2 reasons. Rischitelli, Jack, Douglas none werent thought of much at all IIRC in the pre season. Also interesting because of the way they scored and what people woudlve done with them had they been lucky enough to pick them in the first place.

Rischitelli avg 90 in his first 10 rounds (11 less than his back 12 rounds). But he scored 47 and 86 in rounds 8 and 9 and i reckon that just about everyone wouldve then traded him and missed out on the 101 last 12 round finish. He had made significant value 20+ point increase, wasnt quite looking like keeper material so most wouldve traded him after 2 avg weeks in a row and a highish BE.

Similar goes for Jack
he was priced at 62 and avg 83 in his first 15 rounds. So again he had made value which wouldve been the goal with selecting him from the start. So he reached his goal and he didnt look like a keeper. Most wouldve traded him after avg weeks in a row 71 and 60 in rounds 14/15. But they wouldve missed out on his last 7 rounds of 107 avg.

Douglas only avg 63 in his opening 6 rounds priced at 65. So he wouldve been considered a mistake and a player to trade after very avg rounds 58,54,65. He wasnt making money nor going to be a keeper. However in his last 14 rounds he avgs 99 and becomes a keeper in the forwards.

Although these guys ended up being great picks to start with shown by the OP alot of people who even did select them, wouldve likely had to trade them vor value or a poor start - so they wouldnt have seen the great picks these players were.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Falcon Strike

Hall of Famer
Nov 18, 2008
34,103
25,333
AFL Club
West Coast
So, some things that maybe we should consider in 2011 when making our DT squads:
- Durability really is king, however good cover is also very important, particularly with the buys to occur in 2011. How durable is your plan side looking then?
- Make sure every player in your starting squad is someone who you think will improve - even if it is only a couple of points. Of course, this side shows that even guys like Swan/Chapman who are streets ahead of those in their position are very valuable.
- Look for breakout contenders in improving sides - particularly those looking to break into the top 8
- Underpriced keepers are gold
- Being unique doesnt mean just having unique players (though the odd one or two helps), it can also mean a unique combination of players. Nothing in this side is overly surprising, yet it would have won easily.
- How many of the BF hype players paid off? Not many. So how will Otten, Knights, Adcock and co go in 2011?
- How many players from the improve sides (saints, freo and sydney) did you have in your initial 22 in 2010?

All that with 20 grand and 20 trades up my sleeve!

Enjoy
Genius Lakey - will be adding that to the bible for this year.
 

Lakey91

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 14, 2008
6,869
4
AFL Club
Sydney
With the BF hype players, I guess I used a bit of a hyperbole. I think Footylover was on the mark when he said that you pick them because its too much of a risk not too - and besides, the ones that turn sour are offset by those that flourish. Look at 2009 - we had Raines (dud), Krakouer (average) and Higgins (star). In reality, we all have to pick the raines to get the higgins, and in the end this is worth the sacrifice. Im not saying that these players didnt do their job (I said that they did!), just that even these mid pricers who we rate has having great value early in the year still struggle to make this final side which is made up of the key selections.

Now DWD, I think what you are seeing here, is what has been a DT notion in the past. That is, that you really need to persevere with your starting squad picks - even if they struggle for the first 4-6 weeks in the comp, sit tight; you picked this guy for a reason, so wait to let him show that. Unfortunately, the game has become so competitive over the past 12-24 months that it is now impossible to remain up there whilst pursuing this - now days you have to cut your losses ASAP, bite the bullett and start working to making up lost time. An example of this is Skank trading in Pods after his first price rise - something that would haven't been done in 2007-2008 IMO, but is now days essential since every man and his dog has him.

Durability is a funny one. Typically, the guys we see as value are this way because they have had an injury riddled season meaning their either have a discount, or they played injured in the previous season and thus scored badly. So for value guys, we willingly sacrifice durability for value and upside. With the premiums however, durability is really important. But think about this - if you pick someone like Knights or Adcock, there is a strong chance that they have the potential to score enough to be a keeper. But can they remain on the park long enough? Probably not. Thus we pick them fully aware that they will have to be traded. This is very different to the team about where the mid pricers do have the upside, but also have the durability to allow them to be held all year.

Food for thought.
 

Dunn - Well Done

Cancelled
Mar 30, 2008
4,734
0
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Buddy
Now DWD, I think what you are seeing here, is what has been a DT notion in the past. That is, that you really need to persevere with your starting squad picks - even if they struggle for the first 4-6 weeks in the comp, sit tight; you picked this guy for a reason, so wait to let him show that. Unfortunately, the game has become so competitive over the past 12-24 months that it is now impossible to remain up there whilst pursuing this - now days you have to cut your losses ASAP, bite the bullett and start working to making up lost time. An example of this is Skank trading in Pods after his first price rise - something that would haven't been done in 2007-2008 IMO, but is now days essential since every man and his dog has him.

Food for thought.
Very well said and i agree with it all.

Just like to make comment on being patient or persevering with your starting picks. I still think there is a time and place for it.

Surely you would be better off keeping Rischitelli, Jack and Douglas than trading them after the rounds i mentioned? Do you believe that to be the case or do you think you would be better off trading them at that time to a true premium or true keeper.

I think there is still a place for patience.
 

Lakey91

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 14, 2008
6,869
4
AFL Club
Sydney
Well, the problem is challenging. As I alluded to in the OP, guys like Rischitelli and Jack would have never really been on anyones radar due to the bracket they were in - mid priced midfielders. Most people in the midfield look at the premiums, guys just below keepers who they think can become premiums, and then rookies. Very rarely do people selection mid pricers in the midfielder because we are so often blessed with rookies like Palmer and Barlow who score as well as these mid pricers might, but are rookie priced.

As I said in my other thread, today the midfield is so competitive, and most have them looking at 95 for their 6th mid as an absolute minimum - normally more in the range of 100. As you said, it would have been very easy to trade these guys out early. Its typical to see a lot of players finish the year strong once they work hard over the season to build up their motor, or an injury means they play a new role and flourish, etc - Varcoe fits this bill for 2011 IMO.

The key with patience is not to be irrational - if there isnt a trade that seems bleedingly obvious, dont be afraid to hold another week or two. Dont be rash and feel like you have to cut the losses and make up any ground ASAP - be patient, wait for the right option, and then take it. If Knights comes out and scores 80 a week for 8 weeks, and then you bight the bullet and upgrade to a 100ppg player and then you see knights average 100 over the rest of the year, is this a bad trade? Not in principle no, but in reality it turned out to be one. From this you can see that its a tough one. In theory you traded him for the right reasons, but in practise what you forecasted didnt eventuate.
 

Walesy

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 2, 2007
8,855
3,486
AFL Club
Essendon
The key with patience is not to be irrational - if there isnt a trade that seems bleedingly obvious, dont be afraid to hold another week or two. Dont be rash and feel like you have to cut the losses and make up any ground ASAP - be patient, wait for the right option, and then take it. If Knights comes out and scores 80 a week for 8 weeks, and then you bight the bullet and upgrade to a 100ppg player and then you see knights average 100 over the rest of the year, is this a bad trade? Not in principle no, but in reality it turned out to be one. From this you can see that its a tough one. In theory you traded him for the right reasons, but in practise what you forecasted didnt eventuate.
Patience is difficult to pull off, I still remember my effort in 2008- Jarrad Waite, scored a 40, 50 and 46 over the first 3 weeks, lost $30k and was promptly traded out to stem the hemorrhagic.

He then went on to score a 118 and 103, while averaging 86 for the rest of the season (Which is those days was the equivilent of the 6th highest scoring defender in the comp).

The problem is- his poor score was to a role change, so based on the assumption that it wasn't working, I bailed. It wasn't irrationality that killed me, but it was a lack of patience, and maybe even a little over thinking it.

That said- great post Lakey- love these articles. :D
 

Ollies

Club Legend
Jan 12, 2009
1,111
0
AFL Club
St Kilda
Patience is difficult to pull off, I still remember my effort in 2008- Jarrad Waite, scored a 40, 50 and 46 over the first 3 weeks, lost $30k and was promptly traded out to stem the hemorrhagic.

He then went on to score a 118 and 103, while averaging 86 for the rest of the season (Which is those days was the equivilent of the 6th highest scoring defender in the comp).

The problem is- his poor score was to a role change, so based on the assumption that it wasn't working, I bailed. It wasn't irrationality that killed me, but it was a lack of patience, and maybe even a little over thinking it.

That said- great post Lakey- love these articles. :D
Yes there are examples like Waite each year aren't there? And then there are those like Mitch Clark last year where holding our nerve week after week became a real dillema. In hindsight Clark should have been cut early but most would have held for several weeks too long. Then there's those like Brennan last year (remember him Lakey:D) where each week we ask will he be back next week and hold another week. Can be a coacktail of luck and skill.
 

Dunn - Well Done

Cancelled
Mar 30, 2008
4,734
0
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Buddy
Patience is difficult to pull off, I still remember my effort in 2008- Jarrad Waite, scored a 40, 50 and 46 over the first 3 weeks, lost $30k and was promptly traded out to stem the hemorrhagic.

He then went on to score a 118 and 103, while averaging 86 for the rest of the season (Which is those days was the equivilent of the 6th highest scoring defender in the comp).

The problem is- his poor score was to a role change, so based on the assumption that it wasn't working, I bailed. It wasn't irrationality that killed me, but it was a lack of patience, and maybe even a little over thinking it.

That said- great post Lakey- love these articles. :D
See i dont reckon i wouldve traded Waite out in the circumstance, purely because you probably picked him as a keeper. Although as you said he had a role change and he wasnt scoring as well as what you had thought. This isnt overthinking just bad luck. Although if you pick a player as a keeper than you should at least give them more than 3 weeks to show what they can do.

If Swan was to play a HFF role next year and his first 3 scores were 70,80,80 would people trade him out. I know i wouldnt, maybe not the best example but still involves the same thinking.

The more and more you watch games to determine if roles are affecting the scores the more your going to get right than wrong. You wont get all right - its dreamteam. Luck plays its part. But certainly the better DTers give themselves the best chance at getting it right.

Also it seems wrong to trade out a player who has just lost 30k, it can be considered that your not only losing a trade but losing quite a bit of money, so i assumed he was meant to be a keeper.

But a similar thing happened with Riewoldt and Brown last year. I traded Riewoldt to Brown - terrible,terrible trade in concept. Brown had gone up heaps in money and was always going to get cheaper at some point. It wasnt a bad trade because he than got injured ect, it was a bad trade because i bought him at peak price. Really wish i traded to Goodes in that trade, many went to Brennan which was also a good trade, but ended in bad luck.
 

Walesy

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 2, 2007
8,855
3,486
AFL Club
Essendon
See i dont reckon i wouldve traded Waite out in the circumstance, purely because you probably picked him as a keeper. Although as you said he had a role change and he wasnt scoring as well as what you had thought. This isnt overthinking just bad luck. Although if you pick a player as a keeper than you should at least give them more than 3 weeks to show what they can do.
It was partly bad luck- but the main lesson learnt was to back judgement and give my boys more time.

Also it seems wrong to trade out a player who has just lost 30k, it can be considered that your not only losing a trade but losing quite a bit of money, so i assumed he was meant to be a keeper.
Not when he was tracking to lose another 70k over the next few weeks and average 45 for the year. :) Looking back now, the trade looks stupid- but at the time, there was a role change, a vast drop in scoring and hey, I was a lot greener back then as well. :)
 

deedog2

Club Legend
Dec 12, 2006
1,854
4,076
AFL Club
Melbourne
The key with patience is not to be irrational - if there isnt a trade that seems bleedingly obvious, dont be afraid to hold another week or two. Dont be rash and feel like you have to cut the losses and make up any ground ASAP - be patient, wait for the right option, and then take it. If Knights comes out and scores 80 a week for 8 weeks, and then you bight the bullet and upgrade to a 100ppg player and then you see knights average 100 over the rest of the year, is this a bad trade? Not in principle no, but in reality it turned out to be one. From this you can see that its a tough one. In theory you traded him for the right reasons, but in practise what you forecasted didnt eventuate.
Great point. These are the trades I made last year:

ROUND 22

OUT Didak ($431,300)
IN Boyd ($456,400)
OUT Hodge ($348,400)
IN Mackie ($338,100)


Injuries and straight trades.


ROUND 21
OUT Fyfe ($271,200)
IN Roughead ($267,000):thumbsdown:


Fyfe injured. Thought Rought 'might' fire up. Steering well clear this year.


ROUND 20

OUT Davis ($267,700)
IN Kirk ($262,100):thumbsdown:


Leon gone. Thought Kirk might have a sting in the tail upon hi retirement.


ROUND 18

OUT Shaw ($313,200)
IN Gilbert ($357,800):thumbsdown:
OUT Bartel ($422,600)
IN Simpson ($377,100):thumbsdown:


I had trades so got rid of players as they were dropped/injured. Too straight replacements. I will not be picking Gilbert or Kade Simpson at the start of this year, would only trade them in if the where massively underpriced during the course of the year.


ROUND 17

OUT Gumbleton ($212,100)
IN Riewoldt ($355,000):thumbsu:
OUT Farmer ($216,800)
IN Harwood ($89,500):thumbsu:


At this point the damage of earlier trades had been well and truly inflicted. Gumbleton and farmer had peaked. Harwood i picked for mid cover and Riewoldt because despite injury was still underpriced.


ROUND 16

OUT Martin ($314,300)
IN Bartel ($436,300):thumbsu:
OUT Nason ($219,800)
IN Smith ($94,500):thumbsu:


Martin had peaked and though he might tire. Nason as well. Bartel was playing ok. Though Ash Smith might get some game time.


ROUND 15

OUT Roberts ($77,800)
IN Tarrant ($94,500):thumbsdown:
OUT Barlow ($454,600)
IN Chapman ($459,600):thumbsu:


Barlow injured. Roberts clealry not coming back. Once again made a 'Heath trade' with Tarrant, even with bad luck with hi injusry, North clearly wanted to give him game time. Bit the bullet with Chappy which and he didn't go 'ping!'


ROUND 12

OUT Shuey ($140,100)
IN Gysberts ($117,500):thumbsu:


Shuey was clearly a long way from coming back and I needed cover. Gysberts would have been a good pick except of course for the back issue. Intrigued to see when people actually traded Shuey during the course of the season.


ROUND 10

OUT Trengove ($290,500)
IN Montagna ($439,500):thumbsu:
OUT Kennelly ($254,700)
IN Heath ($94,500):thumbsdown:


Kennelly injured. I know a lot decided to keep him (mistake?) Picked him as a keeper/underpriced upgrade so had to go. jack Trengove I though had peaked (don't think he rised above $310,000). Montagna was fine. Heath desperation pick. Had no faith he would play all games from this point but had dollar signs in my eyes which was a big mistake. This is a really important rule for trading; money is no different from a player. I looked at dollar signs when I looked at Heath but should have looked at Heath the player instead.


ROUND 7

OUT Maguire ($239,300)
IN Hargrave ($292,100):thumbsu:
OUT Hitchcock ($144,100)
IN Fyfe ($89,500):thumbsu:


Maguire had peaked. Hargrave underpriced. Hitchcock injured. Everyone picked Fyfe. Ok week.


ROUND 6

OUT Dangerfield ($228,700)
IN Davis ($346,100):thumbsdown:
OUT Peterson ($200,200)
IN Davis ($94,500):thumbsu:


Shocking trade week. I though Peterson had peaked (which turned out I wasn't too far off. Dangerfield is the perfect example of running out of patience. Picked him as a keeper (averaging at 85+) however after 6 rounds I'd had enough. Enter Leon. Didn't get rid of him until round 20 and at a loss of about $75,000. Phil Davis was going to get at least 10 games.


ROUND 4

OUT Riewoldt ($445,000)
IN Brown ($441,600) :thumbsu:

It's easy to say this was a mistake however had I had my time over again I would done the same thing. It would have been a wasted trade to try and make money out of this one plus a loss of points. There was nothing huge to suggest that Brown would drop off so badly at this point.



So to add to this discussion even 1-2 trades only can cause utter chaos. Players are much more important than money. Money is a means to an end. Heath was $94,000 because he had never played before. I never considered him at the start so why did I consider him now? Cash. There may have been someone at $150,000 who had a better chance of playing regular footy however last year the cash difference would have meant that I would not have gone with such an option.
 

Parasite

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 19, 2007
7,624
4,210
AFL Club
Fremantle
It was partly bad luck- but the main lesson learnt was to back judgement and give my boys more time.



Not when he was tracking to lose another 70k over the next few weeks and average 45 for the year. :) Looking back now, the trade looks stupid- but at the time, there was a role change, a vast drop in scoring and hey, I was a lot greener back then as well. :)
[YOUTUBE]hpiIWMWWVco[/YOUTUBE]

:)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RolyPolyRioli

Debutant
Dec 5, 2009
95
1
AFL Club
Essendon
So every year is there a team that can win without trading? What about previous years?

Takes a fair chunk of entertainment out of the game, and would require ridiculous discipline. In other words....can't be done without the benefit of hindsight :)
 

Lakey91

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 14, 2008
6,869
4
AFL Club
Sydney
Nah no 2008 version - wasnt into the DT back in those days. Might be able to scratch something together through TooSerious (theres your plug Walesy ;)), but it would take a lot of time and effort.
 

Walesy

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 2, 2007
8,855
3,486
AFL Club
Essendon
woohoo! a plug. :D

It would be interesting to code though, surely there's something formula that could work it out- those missed games are the tricky part though. :)

If there's any way I could cut the data to make that easier though- send through a PM. :)
 

SkankDanker

Club Legend
Mar 23, 2008
2,622
122
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Spirit, Man U
Nah no 2008 version - wasnt into the DT back in those days. Might be able to scratch something together through TooSerious (theres your plug Walesy ;)), but it would take a lot of time and effort.
Yeah I did the 2008 version lakey ;)

Will dig it up, I still have the spreadsheet but didn't do the in-depth analysis on each player that you did.
 

SkankDanker

Club Legend
Mar 23, 2008
2,622
122
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Spirit, Man U
Pos Name Club Points
B FISHER, Sam STK 1981
B MCMAHON, Jordan RIC 1854
B NEWMAN, Chris RIC 1801
B MATTNER, Martin SYD 1744
B BIRCHALL, Grant HAW 1740
B IBBOTSON, Garrick FRE 1328
B MOORE, Kelvin RIC 1427
C BARTEL, Jimmy GEE 4982
C COREY, Joel GEE 2405
C SWAN, Dane COL 2256
C THOMPSON, Scott ADE 2188
C STEVENS, Nick CAR 1977
C PALMER, Rhys FRE 1751
F DELEDIO, Brett RIC 2147
F FRANKLIN, Lance HAW 2122
F RIEWOLDT, Nick STK 2088
F JOHNSON, Steve GEE 2025
F MEDHURST, Paul COL 1932
F ROUGHEAD, Jarryd HAW 1748
F RIOLI, Cyril HAW 1460
R COX, Dean WCE 2348
R SIMMONDS, Troy RIC 1842
Winning total 45146

Shows how different the game was 3 years ago, that team would have finished @ 9680 last year.
 

SkankDanker

Club Legend
Mar 23, 2008
2,622
122
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Spirit, Man U
That team assumed all the bench players were rookies - a few of them played so for any donuts they would have subbed but I didn't bother doing all those calcs. Lakey's 2010 team allowed for substitutes for guys like Barlow I think.

What is common between the years is that you don't need to have the gunniest of gun midfields, but you do need to pick a few breakout players.

Stevens, Simmonds were great value as discounted players in 08, and of course Palmer. This even allows for the fact that I think Palmer missed round 1.

In 2010 Jack, Rischa, Barlow, Leuey, Thomas, Waters, Malceski and in particular Rocky and Pods all played well above their starting price.

Yet no one would have held on to Rischa, Scully, Jack, much more exciting to get in Montagna, Boyd etc. I was also surprised to see Mackie in the 2010 team, I didn't think he was good value through the year.
 

Lakey91

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 14, 2008
6,869
4
AFL Club
Sydney
Nice Skank - pretty interesting side. From memory, McMahon, Simmonds, Deledio, Stevens and Franklin were the big improvers that year that all gave that side plenty of leverage. Then there is always the solid rookies to push them through too.

Mackie certainly is an interesting choice I admit! Obviously there would be thousands of combinations for these teams, but he did improve (~4.2ppg) and was overall pretty durable. Gilbert also made the cut with very similar improvement figures and durability.
 

RolyPolyRioli

Debutant
Dec 5, 2009
95
1
AFL Club
Essendon
Ah the days of the bargain ruck, Simmonds was a must have, then Hille, then HMac. No one this year?

I would have expected more rookies in the 2009, 2010 teams...there looks to be 3 in the 2008, 1 in 2009, 4 in 2010. But as Lakey said there would be heaps of teams and combinations.

Looks like people are looking to include more midprice options this year, but with the mature age rookies plus GC I would expect the perfect 2011 side to have a few more rookies, maybe even 6-7.
 

Top Bottom