Round 4 Discussion

[Northernsoul74]

Jacobs>Pittonet
Birchall>Sicily

Sicily is very frustrating to own.

 

[Hai_Newman]

Sicily is very frustrating to own.

Can't be worse than Laird.
He looks totally disinterested.

 

[Northernsoul74]

Can't be worse than Laird.
He looks totally disinterested.

Ha I have them both.

 

[vast]

Can't be worse than Laird.
He looks totally disinterested.

I think he is still trying but adelaide have stopped giving the ball to him around half back and everytime he is in a good receiving position around a ball up the opposition are winning the clearance. Unless he starts winning more of his own ball he is going to be inconsistent since the teammates cant and wont give it to him as much.

 

[Nelso]

I think he is still trying but adelaide have stopped giving the ball to him around half back and everytime he is in a good receiving position around a ball up the opposition are winning the clearance. Unless he starts winning more of his own ball he is going to be inconsistent since the teammates cant and wont give it to him as much.

Laird cant do much when the ball is being kicked over his head when the opposition scores a goal.

There is no midfield pressure at all.... it is like playing against a bunch of witches hats in the midfield.

 

[AFDogs]

Can't be worse than Laird.
He looks totally disinterested.

Not happy with his tonne despite being in a belting on the weekend?

 

[Hai_Newman]

Not happy with his tonne despite being in a belting on the weekend?

Over the moon actually.
He saved my anoos but I'm worried about picking him over Sicily TBH.

 

[Jiska]

Someone explain the double points round to me

Is it basically all Melbourne/Essendon players get a captain's score or do they get 2 games worth of scores and the higher score is included in your point total? Surely it's the former, right?

I can't understand why so many people are confused. It's really quite simple.

Melbourne play Essendon, Gawn scores 180
Melbourne play Bulldogs, Gawn scores 120

For that Supercoach week, he gets 300 points. If he's your captain, he gets 600 points.

 

[Jiska]

I think higher of the 2 scores is more fair.

How the **** is that fair? I had 7 donuts last week with 16 players including Whitfield, while the majority of SC'ers got best 18 and eliminated Whitfield's 8 points from their total.

 

[Changa10]

Over the moon actually.
He saved my anoos but I'm worried about picking him over Sicily TBH.

Don't stress Hai_Newman, Sicily will get reported for something stupid this weekend. The Kangas tend to bring out the worst in the Hawks for some reason!

 

[DT_35]

Definitely should be the Top score of the 2 games for Melb/Ess players. Too many ppl will take advantage of it if they do go down the double score rounds. I have 4 Melb/Ess players and unfortunately it’s just stiff s*** if you have more.
Fairest way to do it

 

[Jiska]

Definitely should be the Top score of the 2 games for Melb/Ess players. Too many ppl will take advantage of it if they do go down the double score rounds. I have 4 Melb/Ess players and unfortunately it’s just stiff s*** if you have more.
Fairest way to do it

No, the fairest way to do it would have been to give averages, or projected totals, or something last week. But they didn't. They gave Best 18 and committed to a double point round. So unfortunately if you don't take advantage and trade in melb/ess players then it's just stiff shit.

Can't change the goalposts now, they set the rules on Saturday night.

 

[Gigantic]

How the fu** is that fair? I had 7 donuts last week with 16 players including Whitfield, while the majority of SC'ers got best 18 and eliminated Whitfield's 8 points from their total.

"more" is the operative word.

I don't think any scenario is ideally fair for everyone.

Those 7 players get double points during the double-point week.

Say...
Gawn C gets 150 and 100 = 500
Oliver, Smith and Viney grab 100 in each game = 600
Rivers and Bennell grab 50 in each game = 200

That's already 1300 points with another 16 players to play.

 

[enobrien]

"more" is the operative word.

I don't think any scenario is ideally fair for everyone.

Those 7 players get double points during the double-point week.

Say...
Gawn C gets 150 and 100 = 500
Oliver, Smith and Viney grab 100 in each game = 600
Rivers and Bennell grab 50 in each game = 200

That's already 1300 points with another 16 players to play.

I'm sure you have a few of those players already...

Here's an idea, grab the ones you don't. Then you'll have the same advantage that all of us already with them will have.

 

[DaTBird187]

No, the fairest way to do it would have been to give averages, or projected totals, or something last week. But they didn't. They gave Best 18 and committed to a double point round. So unfortunately if you don't take advantage and trade in melb/ess players then it's just stiff sh*t.

Can't change the goalposts now, they set the rules on Saturday night.

I'm so ****ing angry with this decision.

Who would have thought AFL Fantasy would be showing the way on this issue.

 

[Jiska]

"more" is the operative word.

I don't think any scenario is ideally fair for everyone.

Those 7 players get double points during the double-point week.

Say...
Gawn C gets 150 and 100 = 500
Oliver, Smith and Viney grab 100 in each game = 600
Rivers and Bennell grab 50 in each game = 200

That's already 1300 points with another 16 players to play.

Yep, but I missed out on 700 points last week, only had 16 players including Whitfield (who dropped out for most) and dropped 40,000 spots

So balances out. Or would, except that everyone else has the opportunity to trade those players in now

 

[enobrien]

How the fu** is that fair? I had 7 donuts last week with 16 players including Whitfield, while the majority of SC'ers got best 18 and eliminated Whitfield's 8 points from their total.

Why so many donuts? I had 7 melb/ess + Whit/Dusty/Jelly. Still fielded 19 and got rid of Whitfields score.

Did you use your 5 trades from the break to correct non-playing rookies? What's your bench look like?

 

[Jiska]

I'm so ******* angry with this decision.

Who would have thought AFL Fantasy would be showing the way on this issue.

Yep it was a terrible one. It’s literally ruined the season. Those with heaps like myself and Nelso are screwed and those without are forced to compromise their teams to get them in or fall further behind. It’s totally screwed everything up.

And all because they were worried that people might trade Viney in at 8:30pm on Sat night to get an advantage with his average score.

A/ who has trades left at that stage of the round, not many

and

B/ so they burn a trade to get 40 points - who cares - better than some losing 700 and then having a double game week and stuffing the whole season over

Anyway, it’s done and it is what it is, but still fuming

 

[SELFCONFESDAFLNERD]

Yep it was a terrible one. It’s literally ruined the season. Those with heaps like myself and Nelso are screwed and those without are forced to compromise their teams to get them in or fall further behind. It’s totally screwed everything up.

And all because they were worried that people might trade Viney in at 8:30pm on Sat night to get an advantage with his average score.

A/ who has trades left at that stage of the round, not many

and

B/ so they burn a trade to get 40 points - who cares - better than some losing 700 and then having a double game week and stuffing the whole season over

Anyway, it’s done and it is what it is, but still fuming

No price changes either. Its farcical and even if i wasnt so badly affected myself/wasnt ranked as high as i was i think id still be pissed off at the way this was handled. I lost over 25% of my team, how the hell am i meant to redeem that? Could they inflate my score by 25% next round then?

EDIT: From round 2 to round 3 i lost 750 points. Now i didnt expect my melbourne players to score as highly as they did in round 2 against carlton but it would have made 500+ points difference. Yes, giving averages isnt entirely fair either but surely its the lesser of 2 evils?

 

[Jiska]

Why so many donuts? I had 7 melb/ess + Whit/Dusty/Jelly. Still fielded 19 and got rid of Whitfields score.

Did you use your 5 trades from the break to correct non-playing rookies? What's your bench look like?

Yep. I had 29 players playing (22 removing the 7 Melb/Ess)

I was ****ed because I had put the E on Melbourne players so had players like Noble and Brown scoring and on the bench locked with no E. At the very least they could have made it best 18 from your entire squad of 30. That would have made it a little bit more fair.

 

[Jiska]

No price changes either. Its farcical and even if i wasnt so badly affected myself/wasnt ranked as high as i was i think id still be pissed off at the way this was handled. I lost over 25% of my team, how the hell am i meant to redeem that? Could they inflate my score by 25% next round then?

Yep, agreed. They referenced the Phil Walsh game but that was totally different. It was before the round started so could move players off the bench and had two trades. Making the decision they did, after 6 games had taken place, was absolutely wrong.

 

[Gigantic]

Did AFL Fantasy go with the averages approach?

 

[SELFCONFESDAFLNERD]

Yep, agreed. They referenced the Phil Walsh game but that was totally different. It was before the game started so could move players off the bench and had two trades. Making the decision they did, after 6 games had taken place, was absolutely wrong.

Yep, apples and oranges. I don't even really know why they came up with best 18. I don't think many people would've thought that was a genuine option until it was announced. Very strange (shit) call.

 

[Jiska]

I honestly think they just took the easiest way out because the software was already programmed to take in to account Bye rounds

 

[Jiska]

Did AFL Fantasy go with the averages approach?

Yep