Got a random question? Ask it here.

[Waspy79]

Why don't the dream team and super coach league comps start in round 1?

This year (as with past years) saw the league comp starting in round four and this allowed teams to enter a team in the league after round two before player prices changed - this is obviously a massive advantage and unfair for everyone else who picks their team prior to round one 'deadline'.

Secondly, starting the season earlier would minimise the impact of the flukey end of season player selection issues that seem to hamper dream team coaches around the country. Teams begin to tank and players go in for surgery, or get rested, or play retirement games, depending on where the club is on the ladder.

In summary, I would be all for the AFL DT and Herald Sun SC league competitions starting in round 1, having the minor round conclude in round 15, and then playing finals in rounds 16 - 19.

There could then possibly be scope to have a seperate 'end of season' type competition from round 20 through to the Grand Final where a team can be picked afresh and different team selection, salary cap and trading rules can apply.

 

[magpies03]

Why don't the dream team and super coach league comps start in round 1?

This year (as with past years) saw the league comp starting in round four and this allowed teams to enter a team in the league after round two before player prices changed - this is obviously a massive advantage and unfair for everyone else who picks their team prior to round one 'deadline'.

Secondly, starting the season earlier would minimise the impact of the flukey end of season player selection issues that seem to hamper dream team coaches around the country. Teams begin to tank and players go in for surgery, or get rested, or play retirement games, depending on where the club is on the ladder.

In summary, I would be all for the AFL DT and Herald Sun SC league competitions starting in round 1, having the minor round conclude in round 15, and then playing finals in rounds 16 - 19.

There could then possibly be scope to have a seperate 'end of season' type competition from round 20 through to the Grand Final where a team can be picked afresh and different team selection, salary cap and trading rules can apply.

I can see what your saying...It would be interesting having leagues start in round 1 because it would force coaches to make a decision weather then were going to go for a league win or an overall win. Coaches FOcusing on a league win will burn trades during finals to try and have the strongest team on the park during the finals however could easily run out of trades between rounds 20-22 which could seriously decrease their overall position if they are copping dohnuts.

Teams Tageting an overall win (or trying to finish as strongly as possible and boost their ranking) may be forced to play with a weaker team during their league finals to ensure they dont run out of trades during rounds 20-22.

Personally i like the system how it is now. It gives coaches a good chance to set their teams up for the start of the league season. I personally dont pay much attention to my leagues during the season. Im a bit of a believer that if you keep concerntrating on your overall ranking and trying to make your team as strong as possible, your league success will follow.

If is frustrating how people can pick teams after round 2 and yes it may be a bit of an advantage but it certainly has its disadvantages as well such as:

1. Missing the first round or two will seriously decrease your overall ranking come season end. We had a guy in one of my leagues who started after round 1 i think it was. Was eliminated in finals, had a reasonable team but was ranked about 90000th!

2. You may become a sucker for early season bolters e.g. brennan in 07 i think it was. Had a massive first 2 rounds and went missing after that.

3. also on the reverse side you may start a team after round 2 this year and think hill is no good based on his first 2 performances and not pick him up. Then look how good he turned out.


So yes there are disadvantages and advantages of the system but i kinda like it how it is now coz it doesnt force us to make TO MUCH of a decision between a league win and overall win. I also think the disadvantages of starting a team late well out weigh the advantages...


Just my 2cents

 

[thommus]

Is it unethical to have more than one registered team?

This is something which I can't decide for myself and am curious as to which of the posters around here have two or more teams. Personally, I think I'll stick to just the one team, although it is rather tempting.

Disclaimer: This is not the oppurtunity to have a crack at DWD.

 

[Notorious_29]

Is it unethical to have more than one registered team?

This is something which I can't decide for myself and am curious as to which of the posters around here have two or more teams. Personally, I think I'll stick to just the one team, although it is rather tempting.

Disclaimer: This is not the oppurtunity to have a crack at DWD.

I believe it is.

But plenty of people do it and there is no way virtual sports can prove you have more than one team. "The brothers team", or "The missus team", is the only excuse you need really.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Definitely.

Not only is it against the rules, you're hedging your bets.

DT is about having the conviction to follow through with your opinions and gut feeling, and having two teams, one with either side of a 50-50 decision defeats the purpose.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Ive also found it alot harder to trade when having 2 sides. Heaps of people on here would have more than one side, but the reality is they will never get caught as Notorious said. Most people on here wont even say they have more than one side but they do. Im not saying that everyone on here has more than one team but you would be extremely suprised how many do if we knew.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Does that make it right, DWD?

I'd be interested to know how you justify it, rather than just the tired "everyone does it" excuse.

 

[thommus]

Definitely.

Not only is it against the rules, you're hedging your bets.

DT is about having the conviction to follow through with your opinions and gut feeling, and having two teams, one with either side of a 50-50 decision defeats the purpose.

Thanks for reassuring me of my original thoughts. Rather than the breaking of the rules, I fear that having two teams would suck the fun out of dreamteam.

 

[thommus]

Another thing I think is worth discussing:

Where do people stand when it comes to leaving cash in the bank after selecting your initial squad?

Probably depends on if you decide to go with a mid-pricer or rookie/gun strategy.. But yeah. Personally I think I'll aim to leave around 200k. Might be a bit tough though.

 

[JimmyRecard]

Another thing I think is worth discussing:

Where do people stand when it comes to leaving cash in the bank after selecting your initial squad?

Probably depends on if you decide to go with a mid-pricer or rookie/gun strategy.. But yeah. Personally I think I'll aim to leave around 200k. Might be a bit tough though.

max 50k to get any premiums that drop rapidly. Any more and your not maximising your scoring potential plain and simple. Remember your score in round 1 is just as imporant as any other round.

 

[Jab]

I have always had, and always will have only 1 team. I am not saying that I look down on anyone who has more than one team, I just choose to play that way and I enjoy it.

As far as the remaining cash strategy, mine changes from year to year. So does my starting rookies theory. I think that if I get set on a particular strategy that I will lose sight of the whole picture. Each year the mid pricer's and rookies change.

I just evaluate my options, my starting team and the quality available at the different price rangers.

Maybe that is not the best way to go about things but that's just how I play.

 

[Lakey91]

I think im gonna start with 30-50k in the bank this year. Last year, i had about 5k in the bank, and it just gave me no options when buckley/raines went down round one - i wasnt confident in hargrave or gilbert after just one game, and i didnt want to burn a trade on a player that might not of become a keeper (hargrave) or that i wasnt confident in (gilbert and his role - had played deep forward all PS). Thus, without the cash in the bank, i had to sit tight for a couple of weeks (luckily i had hill and suban on the pine) - that extra 50k would of done wonders though.

 

[chadleverington]

Where do people stand when it comes to leaving cash in the bank after selecting your initial squad?

probably worth a thread on its own to discuss the pros and cons. Last year i had around 200k in the bank with the thought that by round 5-6 players rising and falling would mean i would get 2 quick upgrades. In reality, that 200k was money 'doing nothing' and by round 5-6 i was too far off the pace.

So i think there needs to be a balance because your initial squad (baring LTI) you will probably keep for 5-6 rounds waiting for players to rise, premiums to fall, and to evaluate player roles. So your initial team needs to be able of scoring well enough to keep you 'within striking distance' which my team did not.

 

[thommus]

probably worth a thread on its own to discuss the pros and cons.

Yeah but it bugs me when apprentices start threads.

that 200k was money 'doing nothing' and by round 5-6 i was too far off the pace.

That's what I fear of happening. Then again, if there's nothing you can do with 200k then you must have been sitting pretty.

 

[chadleverington]

That's what I fear of happening. Then again, if there's nothing you can do with 200k then you must have been sitting pretty.

It wasn't that i couldn't do anything with it, but i needed to wait till round 6-7 for premiums to fall and rookies to rise.

 

[West123]

Another thing I think is worth discussing:

Where do people stand when it comes to leaving cash in the bank after selecting your initial squad?

Probably depends on if you decide to go with a mid-pricer or rookie/gun strategy.. But yeah. Personally I think I'll aim to leave around 200k. Might be a bit tough though.

My brother had something like 200k in the bank this year with a list that included heaps of cheapies as well as rookies, Spannger/Geary/Masten/Butler/Hentshell we said he had gone high risk (not to mention picking too many players from our favourite team). He was competitive early but not dominant, he did win our league however. I think it is a good flexibility if you tend to make bad trades on a tight budget.

On the other issue... I only have one team but my mum & my girlfriend had one each as well. Their teams copped a few donuts because I didn't check them after teams were released etc but they were good to get a gauge of how other selection's would have worked. I also don't put these teams into leagues.

 

[chadleverington]

On the other issue... I only have one team but my mum & my girlfriend had one each as well. Their teams copped a few donuts because I didn't check them after teams were released etc but they were good to get a gauge of how other selection's would have worked. I also don't put these teams into leagues.

Why would you check their teams? surely they would do that

 

[LemmingMaster]

Why would you check their teams? surely they would do that

I blame "The United States of Tara"!!!

How dare they make multiple personality disorder cool!

 

[favourites]

Yeah I set up a team that could win a weekly prize under my dads name last season, lets just say it worked a treat...

If you are thinking of winning a weekly prize I suggest plenty of unique picks. And don't stress if you get a 0, you're goal is to win a prize late season. If you have a 4 week injury just hold it out, even if you dont have a replacement.

 

[Dunn - Well Done]

Yeah I set up a team that could win a weekly prize under my dads name last season, lets just say it worked a treat...

If you are thinking of winning a weekly prize I suggest plenty of unique picks. And don't stress if you get a 0, you're goal is to win a prize late season. If you have a 4 week injury just hold it out, even if you dont have a replacement.

My brother had something like 200k in the bank this year with a list that included heaps of cheapies as well as rookies, Spannger/Geary/Masten/Butler/Hentshell we said he had gone high risk (not to mention picking too many players from our favourite team). He was competitive early but not dominant, he did win our league however. I think it is a good flexibility if you tend to make bad trades on a tight budget.

On the other issue... I only have one team but my mum & my girlfriend had one each as well. Their teams copped a few donuts because I didn't check them after teams were released etc but they were good to get a gauge of how other selection's would have worked. I also don't put these teams into leagues.

And they are starting to come out, how many will follow.

Respect for saying you have multiple teams instead of hiding it like so many.

 

[West123]

I have no moral issue with multiple teams. I have certain rules

1. Don't enter them in leagues -DT Talk BigFooty etc.
2. Don't try and tell my mates that although my team sucks my other team is doing well and my actual team is just unlucky.

I may have a moral issue if I ever looked like I might win something.

 

[Stubz]

IMO whilst I don't judge people that make multiple teams as its obvious people do it, I honestly think the minute that someone starts more then one team, DT becomes more than a "game", which is what essentially it is and how I treat it.

I spend more then enough time procrastinating and stressing over one team's decisions, I couldn't begin to imagine the amount of time I'd spend on DT if f I had 5+ teams with different strategies, unique players, permutations etc.

 

[HibSam]

What are peoples thoughts on how many rookies you should start? I know there are many varibles for different seasons such as strategy and draft depth, but the odds are that there will always been some decent rookie pick-ups no matter the year. I know some people generally have a rule on how many they start and I'm wondering the reasoning behind your choices.

 

[favourites]

I have no moral issue with multiple teams. I have certain rules

1. Don't enter them in leagues -DT Talk BigFooty etc.
2. Don't try and tell my mates that although my team sucks my other team is doing well and my actual team is just unlucky.

I may have a moral issue if I ever looked like I might win something.

Yeah mine actually wasn't deliberate. My dad entered a team and then realised he had no idea and was just going to leave it alone. So instead of deleting it I took it on and changed it so it was nothing like my team.

My team started with Ablett Bartel Swan, had Goddard Cox ect

his team started with Corey, Montagna, Selwood and had Enright Sandilands

It worked perfect as it didn't have buddy either. It won a weekly prize but finished like 4,000 overall.

http://afl.virtualsports.com.au/?p=other_teams&tid=75285&lid=1

Not sure what round it was but Chappy killed Adel and I had him captain. Scored around 2600.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

DWD, again you are saying that everyone does it, therefore it's OK, but you ignored my question:

How do you justify the fact that you are essentially getting an extra crack at the car compared to everyone else, but also that you are removing the element of backing yourself in from the game?

I'd be interested to see the other side of the coin to my thoughts (as posted above).