I am becoming remarkably worried about the process of player borrowing, indeed it has cost me one game so far this year... so instead of being 4 -1 i am 3 - 2. Now i know this is a game and all but wasnt the idea to pick quality lists that would fied a side each week? is it the other teams fault that they have a large number of quality players? i hardly think so... either way i am not particullaly fussed just dissapointed in the system...
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Player Borrowing.
- Thread starter bLuEMoOsE
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
inj, sus, and delistings and retireme.. have cost me...i got no depth...
Ive had alot of injuries. A few tiems ive had to field teams with less players than the opposition.And its cost me. But ive never borrowed a player. It just doesnt make sense at all.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Thread starter
- #5
yeah but when u have less players, russian gives u the highest coring players who didnt play for the other team...
which i think is a little unfair...
perhaps he should remove the other teams lower scoring players to make the numbers even...
or even randomly select 3 players to remove...
what happened to me was my opponent was 3 players short and so took the 3 next highest scores from my list, which were Gilmore Dunn and Grover i think who between them scored 200 odd points which meant i lost the game...
most disapointing.
which i think is a little unfair...
perhaps he should remove the other teams lower scoring players to make the numbers even...
or even randomly select 3 players to remove...
what happened to me was my opponent was 3 players short and so took the 3 next highest scores from my list, which were Gilmore Dunn and Grover i think who between them scored 200 odd points which meant i lost the game...
most disapointing.
rizzo
Brownlow Medallist
Veteran
10k Posts
The Fred Medal
Geelong Cats - Travis Varcoe 2014 Player Sponsor
Geelong Cats - Travis Varcoe 2013 Player Sponsor
Geelong Cats - Travis Varcoe 2012 Player Sponsor
Geelong Cats - Travis Varcoe 2011 Player Sponsor
Geelong Cats - Travis Varcoe 2010 Player Sponsor
- Sep 11, 2003
- 14,342
- 1,037
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Everton, Melbourne Heart, Raptors
Its deffinatly unfair if you lost beacause of it.
- Thread starter
- #7
Im glad some1 agree's
The system came in because some people were complaining that they weren't going to have 18 players because of injuries to their players and having recruited fringe players from clubs not struggling with injuries. Personally, I have no problems with the current system but I would also be happy to not have any replacements. If someone has a better system I'd like to hear it but I'm not going to keep changing things every time 2 or 3 people decide they don't like something, same as I didn't stop the trading because a few didn't like it. If there can be a general agreement, fine but it has to be more than the 4 people in this thread (don't know which side Cuneyt is on)
As for it being unfair because it decided a game
Either it's fair or it's unfair, not fair in some situations and not in others.
As for it being unfair because it decided a game
Either it's fair or it's unfair, not fair in some situations and not in others.
rizzo
Brownlow Medallist
Veteran
10k Posts
The Fred Medal
Geelong Cats - Travis Varcoe 2014 Player Sponsor
Geelong Cats - Travis Varcoe 2013 Player Sponsor
Geelong Cats - Travis Varcoe 2012 Player Sponsor
Geelong Cats - Travis Varcoe 2011 Player Sponsor
Geelong Cats - Travis Varcoe 2010 Player Sponsor
- Sep 11, 2003
- 14,342
- 1,037
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Everton, Melbourne Heart, Raptors
Originally posted by Russian
The system came in because some people were complaining that they weren't going to have 18 players because of injuries to their players and having recruited fringe players from clubs not struggling with injuries. Personally, I have no problems with the current system but I would also be happy to not have any replacements. If someone has a better system I'd like to hear it but I'm not going to keep changing things every time 2 or 3 people decide they don't like something, same as I didn't stop the trading because a few didn't like it. If there can be a general agreement, fine but it has to be more than the 4 people in this thread (don't know which side Cuneyt is on)
As for it being unfair because it decided a game
Either it's fair or it's unfair, not fair in some situations and not in others.
i rekon we give the opp team the lowest scoring play on your list for that round. if that player happens to be in your starting lineup then that player is replaced by the highest scoring player that wasnt named in your lineup
- Moderator
- #10
In my view, if a team has less than 18 players on the field that can score in any one week, I think that is just bad luck. I really disagree with the notion of "borrowing" a player for the week.
We do have full AFL lists and seeing the idea of trading and drafting was to increase depth, so that there was an opportunity to field a full scoring team each week, if that hasn't been done well, or there is a bad run with injuries, then that is just the fortunes of the game.
Carlton Lions doesn't have the strongest list around and our depth is pretty ordinary, partly due to some of the trading decisions of my predecessor. However I'll just have to wear that and I certainly won't be asking to borrow a player, even if I have half my team, incapable of scoring in any given week. That will be just our bad luck.
In my view in the interests of fair competition, any result which has been decided by the inclusion of a borrowed player, should be changed with the borrowed players contribution removed and the result and the ladder changed accordingly.
Player borrowing should not be allowed. It's unfair in all situations and I really can't see a justification for it.
We do have full AFL lists and seeing the idea of trading and drafting was to increase depth, so that there was an opportunity to field a full scoring team each week, if that hasn't been done well, or there is a bad run with injuries, then that is just the fortunes of the game.
Carlton Lions doesn't have the strongest list around and our depth is pretty ordinary, partly due to some of the trading decisions of my predecessor. However I'll just have to wear that and I certainly won't be asking to borrow a player, even if I have half my team, incapable of scoring in any given week. That will be just our bad luck.
In my view in the interests of fair competition, any result which has been decided by the inclusion of a borrowed player, should be changed with the borrowed players contribution removed and the result and the ladder changed accordingly.
Player borrowing should not be allowed. It's unfair in all situations and I really can't see a justification for it.
sante
Emu
This is why we are trading to get depth