Round 1 Captain

[timbo3195]

So with Round 1 nearly upon us, who's everyone picked as captain?

At this stage I'm going for either Ablett or Pendlebury.. Really not looking forward to having to make this decision every week.

Or do I pick Goodes this week? He could very well run riot against the Giants.

Or Cox v Minson?

Will Boyd continue his tantalising pre-season form?

Vote here to make us indecisive coaches life's easier.

 

[Jbomb967]

I'm going with Ablett... Just racks up big points every week and seems the safest pick... Risk reward would be goodes against GWS though...

 

[lamaros]

I'll prob go Mumford. Or Watson.

Maybe Goodes.

 

[Double the Fist]

Mummy will relish a younger side to monster

 

[skill1414]

does that vice captain trick still work for the partial lockout?
thinking of setting Deledio VC and if he scores well then put C on a non scoring player with cover as emergency. Otherwise Ablett FTW.

 

[Marlowe]

Was going to go with Ablett, but I reckon Mumford probably has a bigger upside this week.

 

[Stickers32]

Can't split Ablett and Mummy, both will get 150+

Probably go Mummy tho to make the game more exciting to watch.

Got a feeling Goodes will be subbed out at 3 qtr time

 

[V23]

I'll be setting Mumford as vice captain and, if he scores very well, utilise the vice captain "trick". If he doesn't fire, you can't go wrong with Ablett.

 

[Zim^zuM]

I'll be setting Mumford as vice captain and, if he scores very well, utilise the vice captain "trick". If he doesn't fire, you can't go wrong with Ablett.

I'm doing the same. Becomes a head **** though if every single player is named and you then have to bring in someone you know isnt playing

 

[Philzsay]

Another Ablett Captain, Mumford VC assuming I go with Mummy which I am still 50/50 on.

The real issue would become what if Mummy gets an inbetween score? If Mummy get less than 110 I will give Ablett the captaincy, if Mummy gets 150+ he gets the nod. But what is Mummy scores say 123? I'd still be tempted to give Ablett a crack!

 

[Grimmjow]

i dont understand the foolishness of carrying a rookie into R1 that wont play to utilise this splitround captain loophole.

or isit a case of people not understanding this?

if mummy goes boom 160 and everyone on field and bench is playing, you then put the C on ablett? defeats the purpose, or am i missing something here?

if the winning margin blows out to be >80 - expect goodes to bag most of it

 

[mrbewbs]

i dont understand the foolishness of carrying a rookie into R1 that wont play to utilise this splitround captain loophole.

or isit a case of people not understanding this?

if mummy goes boom 160 and everyone on field and bench is playing, you then put the C on ablett? defeats the purpose, or am i missing something here?

if the winning margin blows out to be >80 - expect goodes to bag most of it

You put the VC on Mummy/Goodes and if they get 140+ you then bring in a bench player that isn't listed to play put the C on him (but make sure you have a playing emergency in that area), so Goodes/Mummy gets the double points and you have your emergency covering the 0.

The trick doesn't work if you have everyone in your roster of 30 playing though. So you need a non-scoring player for the trick to work.

 

[Grimmjow]

^ it feels like i'm talking to 12 year olds

oh really? tell me the loophole theory again . img

 

[Damarus]

^ it feels like i'm talking to 12 year olds

oh really? tell me the loophole theory again . img

I don't understand at all how you aren't comprehending the theory of the system...

You either carry a rookie/player who isn't playing in round 1 (through suspension/injury, etc) but will play soon after (making it stupid to trade them in so early if you're that keen on getting them), or if the second week of round 1 comes around and it turns out that all your players are playing you give the C to your default safe choice. You've lost absolutely nothing by giving Mummy the VC, you just don't end up getting to make use of the loophole. It doesn't 'defeat' the purpose - the loophole is designed to be risk free, and you've taken no risk!

Carrying a bench 0 into round 1 is hardly foolish either - it's not like players don't make any cash ever if they don't play round 1... Could easily be a player that you are certain will line up from round 2 onwards so there's no harm being 1 game behind on their price rises.

 

[Colson]

clearly he is being sarcastic lol. stop explaining the theory.

What he is saying, which is how I feel aswell, why would you put a non playing rookie into your team of 30. its round 1. you don't want to have non playing rookies in your team already just for a possible advantage of say 50 points. doesn't make sense.

 

[kool kangas]

You put the VC on Mummy/Goodes and if they get 140+ you then bring in a bench player that isn't listed to play put the C on him (but make sure you have a playing emergency in that area), so Goodes/Mummy gets the double points and you have your emergency covering the 0.

The trick doesn't work if you have everyone in your roster of 30 playing though. So you need a non-scoring player for the trick to work.

Ok so let me get this right! e.g. Goodes is VC , S.Gibson(NM) brought in and made C , Playing emergency is Ablett. Goodes gets double points but the problem l see is if Ablett comes in and replaces Gibson he becomes C and Goodes loses the double point advantage......What am l missing???

 

[Grimmjow]

clearly he is being sarcastic lol. stop explaining the theory.

What he is saying, which is how I feel aswell, why would you put a non playing rookie into your team of 30. its round 1. you don't want to have non playing rookies in your team already just for a possible advantage of say 50 points. doesn't make sense.

this kid will do alright in SC

Damarus -How would one know how to pick a rookie before R1 lockout, that are certainty to go bang from R2 onwards? (let alone being selected to play from R2)

There is plenty of time to make cash? You could say that for 2011 with the extra bench players, but with 2 - you want to have the right rookies to jump start your aggressive trading, leaving you extra trades p/round to play with come byes.

Its not worth the ~50points.

* thought i was clear on my previous post, loophole strategy is only risk free on previous mid year split rounds with players already locked in your side. if you had a rookie already locked in and isnt playing - yes you could apply the loophole strategy. seeing this is an awkward R1 split round, unless the VC i select clocks 190+ i wouldnt even consider picking a rookie not playing. nothing worst then deadwood not making you mula.

 

[Damarus]

Ugh, I see my entire post flew over your head Colson...

Damarus -How would one know how to pick a rookie before R1 lockout, that they are certainty to go bang from R2 onwards? (let alone being selected to play from R2)

There is plenty of time to make cash? You could say that for 2011 with the extra bench players, but with 2 - you want to have the right rookies to jump start your aggressive trading, leaving you extra trades p/round to play with come byes.

Its not worth the ~50points.

You can't say with 100% certainty, but you could have a pretty good idea. Like I said, a player thats suspended round 1 perhaps (keeping in mind it doesn't need to be your rookie copping the round 1 zero - as I stated), or someone coming back from a light injury with all talk around them pointing to a round 2 start.

You don't make all your cash in round 1. I see where you're coming from with the falling a week behind theory, but if you're confident that you've got a rookie/fresh drafty coming in a week or two later that will make as much cash as someone you'd only pick because they're starting round 1, then why not take that chance? What's the point in filling your team with round 1 starters if they're potentially only going to make 20-40 points for a few weeks and get dropped? And don't tell me you're certain they wont - because you simply don't know that - in the same way I don't know a player is going to definitely start in round 2.

You're taking a chance with the rookies you select for R1, in the same way someone else might be taking a chance with rookies that they're fairly certain will come in soon after R1 and score more points. It's not as simple as an immediate 50+ point gain , vs long term loss. You'd have to assume every rookie priced player is going to play week in week out and score the exact same amount of points for that to be true.

In summary - I see where you're coming from but I don't see why you're fobbing off the loophole/potential bench 0 tactic as being a waste of time. I see it as being just as viable as any other tactic people are employing. At the end of the day anything you do is going to be a gamble, regardless of how safe you view it.

 

[mrbewbs]

Ok so let me get this right! e.g. Goodes is VC , S.Gibson(NM) brought in and made C , Playing emergency is Ablett. Goodes gets double points but the problem l see is if Ablett comes in and replaces Gibson he becomes C and Goodes loses the double point advantage......What am l missing???

I've never actually used the loophole as I've always had a Perma captain. But I've had it explained to me, and this is how it is done. As the emergency doesn't take over the C. I don't know why he doesn't but it works.

 

[Kerrby04]

Have to agree the risk is greater in trying to forecast a rookie that is going to be selected and play from Round 2. Once youve committed to this rookie, youre hoping he will play asap.

 

[Grimmjow]

I may have gone over with "defeats the purpose"

The loophole is definitely a strategy that is applicable and risk free. We've experienced this opportunity during the norm mid year split rounds. Being a special (and weird) R1 split round, the loophole strategy isn't exactly the same as you still need to consider your final starting squad.

Im not sure if there's an advantage of picking a non rookie player that is suspended/injured to apply the loophole. I'd assume a rookie would need to be fielded with this non rookie sitting out, then the extra points from the loophole could be lost for a mediocre rookie score. If someone is game to take this approach - my hat off to them.

I am confident with specific rookies in my initial squad, but I still await for teams to be listed before I confirm - this will be a juggling act with how many GWS rookies to start with, just in case the other rookies in mind may not get selected. Point being, you can ever be so confident until squads are finalised. You don't know that the starting rookies from R1 will continue to score mediocre scores week in week out, which also applies to the uncertainty of the non starting rookie will step in as of R2 and push decent scores (let alone the high possibility of the subvest, which normally occurs with players coming back from injuries)

For me, I feel picking a rookie to start R1 would have a better JS to play throughout til R7-9 (even if some mediocre scores) as bench 'cashcow' warmer. This would be less risky then picking a non starting rookie to step in immediately available. This rookie may play in R3 which puts you further behind in cash generating.

It really comes down to the VC selection. If we are fortunate enough to pick either Mumford/Goodes (still contemplating who to put VC on) to pull in a monster and then given the option to apply the loophole - the question is how many points is sufficient to risk picking a non starting rookie?

If we forecast GAJ to score a sub 120-125 (240/250) we need Mum/Goodes to pull a min 175+ (350) for me to consider a nonstarting rookie.

 

[Damarus]

I may have gone over with "defeats the purpose"

The loophole is definitely a strategy that is applicable and risk free. We've experienced this opportunity during the norm mid year split rounds. Being a special (and weird) R1 split round, the loophole strategy isn't exactly the same as you still need to consider your final starting squad.

Im not sure if there's an advantage of picking a non rookie player that is suspended/injured to apply the loophole. I'd assume a rookie would need to be fielded with this non rookie sitting out, then the extra points from the loophole could be lost for a mediocre rookie score. If someone is game to take this approach - my hat off to them.

I am confident with specific rookies in my initial squad, but I still await for teams to be listed before I confirm - this will be a juggling act with how many GWS rookies to start with, just in case the other rookies in mind may not get selected. Point being, you can ever be so confident until squads are finalised. You don't know that the starting rookies from R1 will continue to score mediocre scores week in week out, which also applies to the uncertainty of the non starting rookie will step in as of R2 and push decent scores (let alone the high possibility of the subvest, which normally occurs with players coming back from injuries)

For me, I feel picking a rookie to start R1 would have a better JS to play throughout til R7-9 (even if some mediocre scores) as bench 'cashcow' warmer. This would be less risky then picking a non starting rookie to step in immediately available. This rookie may play in R3 which puts you further behind in cash generating.

It really comes down to the VC selection. If we are fortunate enough to pick either Mumford/Goodes (still contemplating who to put VC on) to pull in a monster and then given the option to apply the loophole - the question is how many points is sufficient to risk picking a non starting rookie?

If we forecast GAJ to score a sub 120-125 (240/250) we need Mum/Goodes to pull a min 175+ (350) for me to consider a nonstarting rookie.

Haha, so it looks like we're much closer to being on the same page than I had originally assumed

I'm currently sitting with the VC on Goodes, but I don't know what I'll do in regards to the loophole. I'm inclined to agree that I would need him to score 175+ for me to end up selecting a nonstarting rookie - and if I do I will have to be very confident in a R2/R3 start and a high output (I've not done nearly enough research at the moment to confidently take this approach though). Otherwise like we've both said - you just end up playing your regular C and the loophole was a no risk strategy that didnt pan out.

 

[Deledio_Judd]

so..... Ablett anyone haha

 

[IDIG]

Damn i was going to do captains thread tonight?!?!

Oh well, Mummy vice for me which i'll assume will then become skipper. What's everyone's pass mark for Mummy/Goodes/Eski vc scores?

I'm thinking 130 would be a nice way to kick off the year.

 

[manboob]

For me mummy would need closer to 150 to be "made" captain