2011 - Supercoach with a bye?

[Snap the old Sausage]

Was discussing with some mates the other day, how does supercoach work if and when a 17th team come into the competition?

Do you get extra trades to deal with changing your team more often? An average score if your player's team is having the bye?

What do you guru's think would happen if this occurs?

 

[abs_of_STEELE]

An extra 2/3 bench players per position and an extra 2 trades IMO.

 

[TigerGlory]

I dont think there will be anything.

You'll just have to manage your bench more carefully, and make sure there are no huge gaps in your side. As well as not having to many players from the same side in order for you to accuratley replace them on a given week.

 

[Virgil]

I dont think there will be anything.

You'll just have to manage your bench more carefully, and make sure there are no huge gaps in your side. As well as not having to many players from the same side in order for you to accuratley replace them on a given week.

I really like this idea . Have been advocating it for DT, but I think I'm in the minority on that one.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

As long as it affects everyone equally, there's really no need to make allowances for it, however I've been an advocate of 22 trades (ie. one per week) since SuperCoach started.

 

[Snap the old Sausage]

As long as it affects everyone equally, there's really no need to make allowances for it, however I've been an advocate of 22 trades (ie. one per week) since SuperCoach started.

But thats the point I don't think it treats everyone fairly. I mean with the current 20 trades system your end goal is to have as many keepers as you can but there are always injuries and the like. This means that by the GF you may need to field some rookies or weaker players. Now if my keepers include 2 Geelong players but my opponents doesn't and they have the bye in the last round how is that fair on me. I have to field a further two bench quality players just because a certain team has a bye? I may lose the GF just because my keepers were in the team that had the bye in round 22. Not equitable at all IMHO

 

[Judd_Magic]

I agree this is a sh1t thing to happen in regards to Supercoach. They will have to do something to fix this up for sure.

 

[abs_of_STEELE]

I agree this is a sh1t thing to happen in regards to Supercoach. They will have to do something to fix this up for sure.

Get rid of North Melbourne, then when WS come in they can get rid of Melbourne. Seems fair to me.

 

[_Interpol_]

Get rid of North Melbourne, then when WS come in they can get rid of Melbourne. Seems fair to me.

Motion passed!

 

[TigerGlory]

Im thinking you'll be aloud unlimited sideways trades for players who arent playing that week.

Say I have Ablett and Bartel the week Geelong are having a bye, you could trade in two midfielders for equal or lesser value just for the week. Say... Judd and Kane Cornes.

Then the next week, Ablett and Bartel come back in.

That, or you get to nominate two emergencies, free of charge, to fill in when a player isnt playing in your side at the start of the season. The catch being that you cant ever put this player in your actual side, so you couldnt just nominate Ablett, Cox etc, if you fancied getting them later in the season.

Thats just a couple of ideas I had.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Now if my keepers include 2 Geelong players but my opponents doesn't and they have the bye in the last round how is that fair on me.

You both had access to the same fixture the better part of a year in advance. Any imbalance comes down to your own poor planning.

I like the idea of no change. Adds another layer of strategy and makes the game harder. As is, it's far too easy to just lift your team and trades off here and coast through to a mate-thumping result.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

You both had access to the same fixture the better part of a year in advance. Any imbalance comes down to your own poor planning.

Saved me having to post this exact sentence.

 

[Walesy]

You both had access to the same fixture the better part of a year in advance. Any imbalance comes down to your own poor planning.

I like the idea of no change. Adds another layer of strategy and makes the game harder. As is, it's far too easy to just lift your team and trades off here and coast through to a mate-thumping result.

Aye- I'm with ya. Adding an extra element of strategy to the gameplay.

The *most* tinkering I could imagine supporting is two extra trades... But even that's just a bit of a stop gap solution...