DT 2010 Squad Structure

[anf06]

After the great news that the Prospectus gave coaches today, i've had a think about how the 'duel-positioned' players are going to work out.

From what i have read currently in posts, i think the general belief is that you are going to need to have a direct fit for players to swap them around.

Ie. If you have Adam McPhee (F/B) in the Forwards and Drew Petrie (F/B) in the Backs, you could toggle with their positions and swap them directly.

However, I think it will work slightly different. There seems to be less duel-positioned players this year than previously. Especially in the mids, which leads me to my way of thinking....

I think that the way they will work it is like it is in the real AFL.

You will have a squad of 30 players as per normal, and the salary cap will remain unchanged.

However, the thing i think they will change is the amount of players that can be picked in any one position.

I feel that the way they will operate it this year is allowing you to pick unlimited players from any one position.

How does this work you ask? Wouldn't everyone just pick mid-fielders and have an even 22 man squad of Centres?

You would still be required to fill 7 defenders, 6 centres, 2 rucks and 7 forwards each week at a maximum, however, the players that fill these positions, like the AFL can be done completely at will, depending of course on their ability to play there.

So in theory, you can purchase 22 players that have Centre eligibility, but unless 7 of them are C/D, 7 C/F and 2 C/R then you will cop plenty of donuts, and a heap of players sitting on your pine. This would create a far more competitive atmosphere and a bit of thinking in your list management with more freedom.

(I hope this is all making sense)

Take this smaller sample squad for example:

McPhee (F/B) , Ladson (C/B) , Ryder (B/R) , Clarke (F/R) , Ziebell (F/C) , Davis (F/B) , Hodge (C/B) , Swan (C) , Ablett (C) , Brown (F) , Enright (B)

Single positioned players are restricted, so Swan, Ablett, Brown and Enright are stuck to play in their respective positions. However, you will have unlimited flexibility with the other positions.

In theory, they will let us play McPhee, Ladson, Ryder, Davis, Hodge all as backs if we like without replacing them with other players in their old positions. They should be left as blank spaces on the field, copping zeros.

Therefore, should you not manage your list correctly, you may not have the flexibility of moving players to different positions as needed through injuries, suspensions etc.

In summation:

The scoring players on field will not change.
However, instead of having to pick out of:

- 9 defenders to cover 7 spots
- 8 mids to cover 6 spots
- 4 rucks to cover 2 spots
- 9 forwards to cover 7 spots

You will now have 30 players in your squad to place in any position that they are able to to the same restrictions of numbers, but not of possibility.

Discuss further, but i feel like this may be the way it will work.

(I know this may be hard to understand, or let me know if it sounds stupid, or you need further clarification )

 

[deledio_gun]

I can see what your saying, but as a whole it will not make much difference to the proposed swapping positions would it? I can't see the difference in the two as you still need to field the same in each position as before?

If im missing something im sorry its early haha

 

[anf06]

Haha, it's okay. I wrote it very very late also.

Basically what i could have said was..

Instead of having 2 bench positions for each position on field, you now will have a communal bench of 8 players that you can put anywhere you like.

The only difference is that you would be able to purchase a number of players from any one position and they could just sit on the bench. Whilst this sound silly, hear me out.

I tested this out on a team that i created last night.

Midfield was Swan, Pendlebury and then 6 rookies all of whom are MID only.

For I believe that the group of 6 would be the best cash cows and i would not want to miss out on them.

Normally this would mean that you would have to field 4 rookies at any one time, no?

The rest of my team is littered with C/B and C/F and depth right the way through to the bench.

Goddard, Embley, Broadbent, Ladson, Shaw, Hodge, Pavlich, Ziebell

IF some of the rookies are not performing well enough. I would easily be able to switch Goddard into the mids, drop one of the rookies to the bench WITHOUT replacing Goddard.

Without a replacement, this would mean that there were now 8 defenders (under the normal structure) and 3 on the bench in the MIDS.

However, because of the communal bench system, it would be allowed.

If this is how people have been thinking already, I've wasted so much of my time. But, just from what i have been reading, people have been considering purchasing a C/F or a C/B in the mids, just incase they need to swap them out. This needent be the case if they construct DT 2010 like i have (so terribly) stated above.


EDIT: I forgot one key selling point. Because you are not forced to pick 4 rucks. Essentially you would be allowed to purchase say, Ryder(R/B) and Kreuzer as your two rucks with no rookies on the bench, instead purchasing, forwards and backs on the bench to cover more important areas of the ground.

To aid this, you would obviously buy someone like Clark (C/F) in the forwards to cover one should they get injured.

 

[deledio_gun]

Yeah I can see the difference now the thing you need to think about though if your situation occured is in order to move goddard to your mids and drop your underperforming mid rookie, your backline rookie which is needed to replace goddard needs to be performing better which although possible is unlikely.

I'd be more inclined to use it by having a mid instead of my 4th ruckman as they are very rarely used even if they are playing so your adding another cash cow in a usually unused position.

 

[anf06]

Yeah I can see the difference now the thing you need to think about though if your situation occured is in order to move goddard to your mids and drop your underperforming mid rookie, your backline rookie which is needed to replace goddard needs to be performing better which although possible is unlikely.

I'd be more inclined to use it by having a mid instead of my 4th ruckman as they are very rarely used even if they are playing so your adding another cash cow in a usually unused position.

Exactly my point.

Using my team as an example, Ryder could be moved from the rucks to the backs, Clark moved from the forwards to the Rucks and a player like Tapscott, whom is a forward only, is essentially covering the hole left by the MIDs.

 

[deledio_gun]

Yeah all makes sense, you could be onto something but who knows its all speculation at the moment. All should be revealed February 1st.

By the way, with your prediction, would a back emg be needed to cover a zero in the backline? If this is not the case it allows a structure where 8 mids can score which i think happened a few years ago with a similar thing where bench players could cover any position.

 

[anf06]

Yeah all makes sense, you could be onto something but who knows its all speculation at the moment. All should be revealed February 1st.

By the way, with your prediction, would a back emg be needed to cover a zero in the backline? If this is not the case it allows a structure where 8 mids can score which i think happened a few years ago with a similar thing where bench players could cover any position.

I do remember back in the day where they allowed any emergency to cover any zero in the squad. However, people (myself included) were purchasing all premium CENTRES and RUCKS (There were midfielders in the rucks back then also) and deliberately left holes for them to cover.

This would not be the case. You would still need a DEF to cover a DEF hole.

I'm currently creating a team that i will post in a sec which will show the theory in action.

 

[anf06]

Goddard (C/B)
Embley (C/B)
Shaw (C/B)
Hodge (C/B)
Ryder (B/R)
Broadbent (C/B)
Ladson (C/B)

Swan (C)
Prismall (C)
Trengove (C)
Martin (C)
Cunnington (C)
Bastinac (C)

Tippett (R/F)
Clark (R/F)

Brennan (F/R)
Goodes (F/C)
Pavlich (F/C)
Harvey (F/C)
McPhee (F/B)
Tippett (R/F)
Hurley (F/B)

BENCH

Kennelly (B)
Smith (B)
Davis (B/F)
Shuey (C)
Banner (C)
Talia (B/F)
Tapscott (F)
Gumbleton (F)

This structure, if what i predict will occur will be very good at plugginf the donut holes.

 

[favourites]

Clarke will prob just be a ruck, and brennan a mid/fwd imo.

Have you got any evidence to back this up or are you just taking a stab?

 

[WeninRome]

Goddard (C/B)
Embley (C/B)
Shaw (C/B)
Hodge (C/B)
Ryder (B/R)
Broadbent (C/B)
Ladson (C/B)

Swan (C)
Prismall (C)
Trengove (C)
Martin (C)
Cunnington (C)
Bastinac (C)

Tippett (R/F)
Clark (R/F)

Brennan (F/R)
Goodes (F/C)
Pavlich (F/C)
Harvey (F/C)
McPhee (F/B)
Tippett (R/F)
Hurley (F/B)

BENCH

Kennelly (B)
Smith (B)
Davis (B/F)
Shuey (C)
Banner (C)
Talia (B/F)
Tapscott (F)
Gumbleton (F)

This structure, if what i predict will occur will be very good at plugginf the donut holes.

two tippets?

4 rooks starting in the mids..sheez

 

[warnie]

The players need to match - ie. all of those B/C's will need to have a partner in the centre line.

 

[favourites]

Thats the way a look at it to Warnie. He is saying it will be one big bench and you can put anyone in the C as long as they have the C next to them.

 

[Walesy]

It would be a beautiful pipe-dream.

And would work if you had a *lot* of dual positions available.

But if it was to go in as you're hoping, then you would find a boat load of teams that have a good percentage of their list made up from the select few dual position players.

Heck, I would probably go into the season fielding 5 midfield rookies knowing that I could bring players in from the back, forwards and rucks to cover for them if it went badly.

 

[anf06]

The players need to match - ie. all of those B/C's will need to have a partner in the centre line.

Righto then.
I was just speculating as i thought one day, if they wanted to make it as close to the real thing as possible that they may try this.

Close thread. DT Talk crushed my hopes

All good. But to be honest, if there is a requirement that all players need to match exactly, it won't be a massive change to previous years. I mean, you wouldn't want to start C/F in your mids generally, as there are just so many better scorers who have Mid only classification.

Might be useful in the Forwards and Backs, but I, for one, wont have any Mids with double classification.

 

[Virgil]

Might be useful in the Forwards and Backs, but I, for one, wont have any Mids with double classification.

It could certainly be beneficial to start with dual-classified players in the midfield. If you were to start with Goddard (C/B) in the middle and Ladson (also C/B) in the backline, for example, and when it comes time to upgrade Ladson you'd be able to swap Goddard to the backline and sell Ladson for a gun midfielder. That way you could end up with Goddard and Gibbs instead of Goddard and Hargrave. Same could be done in the forward line with Pavlich and Ziebell.

 

[Scottydude]

It could certainly be beneficial to start with dual-classified players in the midfield. If you were to start with Goddard (C/B) in the middle and Ladson (also C/B) in the backline, for example, and when it comes time to upgrade Ladson you'd be able to swap Goddard to the backline and sell Ladson for a gun midfielder. That way you could end up with Goddard and Gibbs instead of Goddard and Hargrave. Same could be done in the forward line with Pavlich and Ziebell.

Genious, then that could technically be a double upgrade

 

[Jonny27]

It could certainly be beneficial to start with dual-classified players in the midfield. If you were to start with Goddard (C/B) in the middle and Ladson (also C/B) in the backline, for example, and when it comes time to upgrade Ladson you'd be able to swap Goddard to the backline and sell Ladson for a gun midfielder. That way you could end up with Goddard and Gibbs instead of Goddard and Hargrave. Same could be done in the forward line with Pavlich and Ziebell.

Didnt think of that, however I still dont want to start any backs or forwards in the midfield because they dont have anywhere near as good value.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

After the great news that the Prospectus gave coaches today, i've had a think about how the 'duel-positioned' players are going to work out.

not sure it is great news - ultimately this game is about getting your ranking as high as possible. The top say 5000 of last year are all going to be implementing similar flexible strategies.

Everyone plays by the same rules - so scoring might be easier - but all of a sudden your competition is getting higher scores as well.

I in a way think it is a bad move - half the skill of picking your initial squad is choosing for durability - with extra flexibility - this becomes less of a skill.

Anyway - i'd rather see rules come in that make it harder and not easier

 

[anf06]

not sure it is great news - ultimately this game is about getting your ranking as high as possible. The top say 5000 of last year are all going to be implementing similar flexible strategies.

Everyone plays by the same rules - so scoring might be easier - but all of a sudden your competition is getting higher scores as well.

I in a way think it is a bad move - half the skill of picking your initial squad is choosing for durability - with extra flexibility - this becomes less of a skill.

Anyway - i'd rather see rules come in that make it harder and not easier

I was being sarcastic. And i do fully agree with you.

 

[anf06]

Genious, then that could technically be a double upgrade

Sorry about the double post. But it isn't really a double upgrade..

..You could just start with Goddard in your Defenders and Ladson in your mids, and then just upgrade Ladson in the first place, without the need for positional changes.

I the end, even with this switch you are still only gaining one premium.

Unless I am missing something, I don't see the benefit in doing this, mathematically.

 

[Hodges]

Exactly what I was about to post. No difference to just starting Ladson in the mids.

 

[Virgil]

Yeah, you're both right, there's no difference between buying either one in the midfield. The difference was between buying one in the middle as opposed to buying both in the backline.

 

[mitchell12345]

i have been away for a while and haven't recieved my prospectus yet so would somebody be able to fill me in wat news we got from the prospectus. i pretty much know all the positional changes but were there any other things that i should know about.

 

[BigSledge]

Backs are always the hardest to fill anyways so I don't want to try to spread them across the midfield as well. I think this will bring about a bit of a false dawn amongst inexperienced DT players who start picking dual types for the sole reason of swapping in and out as injuries come and go. I think there will be some who use this strategy well plus it is dependant on having a type for type (F/B for a B/F for example) Say you're team consists of a structure similar to this


F,F,F,F,F,F F/R (eg Tippett) & your Rucks are R(Cox), R/F (eg Kruezer) (R&R emrg)

Then it still really won't help you unless it is either of your dual types that go down because you still won't be able to cover them any other way without a trade



But if you were planning to cover for if Cox goes down then you would need a Ruck line of something like Cox & Kruezer(F/R) and a bench of (R/F&R/F) at least one of them to be a Ruck Forward at least so you can shift Tippett into your Ruckline without having to take Kruezer out of it

Which would give you a Ruck line of Kruezer & Tippett with a bench of Cox & R or R/F

I don't really seeing this of being of huge value unless you litter your side with dual types which probably means you will miss a few gems which a singular types. At this stage I will probably look at picking the best player I can for each spot whether they are dual type or not and back myself to pick a strong enough bench to cover any injuries

 

[54Dogs]

No difference whether Ladson or Goddard starts in the mids. The advantage of having one in each position is purely choice. The ability to trade in the best back OR the best mid when it's time to upgrade Ladson.