I think it worked by using the two best scores of each player as every team plays at least two games. Not sure who suggested it (if anyone ) but it seemed to make sense at the time
My mistake, the post was for an additional round over the byes where we use the players best score. This could then allow us to have a four week finals series. There would still be the opportunity to put this in place and have a bye during the China junkett but finals would stay as is. Agree that without a double chance we need to do something for the top teams. I think the choosing opponent option is the best one but just to throw out an alternative to think about different ideas, what if we were able to create a round across the byes and then have a 4 week finals series? Something like how the scoring is done for Man v Nature and then you have an extra week to get a 4th round of finals and be able to follow the AFL finals structure Read more at http://tooserious.net/forum/threads/2018-discussion-thread.90015/#wgJlDUZdlxSFSKYH.99
FvCK YOU Brad Scott (directed at him right now, but generally applicable for all coaches). The same FvCK YOU to the North Melbourne team selection committee. Majak Daw gets "rested" after playing 2 consecutive games, and 6 of 9 for the season. Bullshit he gets "rested" - he's not tired, he's been dropped and you're too much of an arse to actually say that! Why can't we just stop being so politically fvcking correct, and just call it like it is! There doesn't need to be participation certificates for everyone, no winners and no losers, and this bullshit about never saying anything negative - just call it like it is, and move on. SHITS ME NO END
Not a bad idea. A little worried if its "unfair" to give teams across these byes two shots at their players performing well, or if we have some form of rolling lockout or what (its easier for the MvN battle as we're picking the best 40-50 players in the league, guaranteed to play nearly every week). Yeah, its also unfair for teams missing players due to the Port & GC bye, but that's more of a known quantity, and doesn't present a rolling lockout issue. Not a fan of this personally, but I'll leave it to the rest of the 'FU to add their opinions.
Sick of these late outs. Viney was named knowing he was not going to play. quote from afl website today " "Jack alerted our medical team to some discomfort he was experiencing in his toe late on Friday," he told melbournefc.com.au. "A scan on Friday showed signs of stress in his toe. Whilst there is no crack, given his recent injury history, we have decided the best course of action is to withdraw Jack from today’s clash with the Western Bulldogs."
Yeah, I'm all for clubs being fined if they willingly lodge team lists on Thursday / Friday (when final teams are named), knowing that the player has an injury and won't play. This is a prime example. I'm fine with the Dees naming Viney on Thursday, but when they find out he has a problem on Friday, send him off for scans, and then make the decision that he won't play - without replacing him in the side with one of the emergencies prior to "final" teams being published - then they should definitely be fined for defrauding the fans and the general public who pay for their very handsome paychecks.
To add to this, Heath Grundy is now a late out as he is being “managed”. I don’t understand how being managed should be a late decision, surely clubs know early in the week. You don’t see this happening in American sports because they understand the importance of it for fans - the AFL is going to struggle to grow without accepting where the money is
No, to be fair I’ve only really followed baseball and NFL, but guess I had NFL at the forefront of my mind with this post. My limited knowledge of basketball seems to recall that the stars do get managed frequently but isn’t that usually known in advance?
The next big question arising from that, is: what exactly are players getting "managed" for? We now have a mid-season bye and an end-of-season bye for those playing in finals - how much more "management" do these players need? If they really do need to be "managed" then we should get rid of the byes and tell the coaching staff and the medical staff to just "manage" every player on their list through 22 consecutive weeks of regular season footy, and up to 4 weeks of finals. If they can't "manage" that, then neither the players, nor the coaches, nor the medical staff (and sports scientists and whoever else they employ these days) are really cut out for the big league, are they? The fans are paying their salaries, yet the fans' opinions are not relevant and they get screwed over at every turn. (Change the word "fans" for "constituents" and tell me if you've heard this story before)
Can someone fill me in here on how Supercoach scoring works..... I've been watching the Carl v Hawks game and noticed Fisher went off injured before 1/4 time and hasn't returned. He had 8 possesssions and 39 SC points at 1/4 time. At 1/2 time he had gone to 9 possessions and 47 pts and now at 3/4 time he's on 50... Anyone??? And at FT, he's gone to 52.....(before scaling)
It'll have something to do with the state of the game. The value of SC points when its close, versus when its not. 1st quarter scoring is worth more in blowouts...
Yep what jpk said. When it’s a 10 goal margin, possessions and goals aren’t worth as much as when it’s close. Higher emphasis put on game-affecting actions rather than doing stuff when the result is already a given
OK. then if they're not worth as much, how does his score increase when he's not on the field...surely his score should stay the same or decrease, seeing as he's on his way to hospital and not playing..you blokes are probably correct but I just can't get my head around the fact that his score keeps fluctuating when he's not playing...
Well I don't usually whinge but I feel whingey this week. FFS, Jordan DeGoey now out for a couple of weeks and the rest of the FU home and away season. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-07-26/pies-star-to-miss-blockbuster-and-longer How is a young Cow Bay outfit meant to improve its wins from last year when half the effing side and all my better averaging players are out injured? Libba - ACL Patton - ACL Blakely - Knee, out for the rest of the season Martin - Calf, 5 weeks McKenna - Groin Acres - Was out of action now for yonks and is now stuck playing VFL?!?! I was hoping for 6-7 wins this year. I hate you injury gods.
It's time for a new Old Man Whinge - and this time I'm going to take aim at the AFL and the Draft. This really shits me! Freo getting three top-10 selections when they didn't earn them. Yeah, Freo had picks 7 and 8, but Carlton owned pick 9. When Carlton bid for Liam Henry, apparently Freo could just say "yeah, but a couple of our picks, including those that we just traded in not 5 minutes ago, are worth just as much as pick 9, so we'll take Liam Henry, thankyou very much". What kind of bullshit draft tampering does the AFL allow? This kind! The only thing worth close to pick 9, is pick 9 itself! Not even pick 10 is worth as much as pick 9 - and adding a couple of other picks to the list still doesn't make it pick friggin nine! Then to make matters worse, Carlton, who owned pick 9 (which somehow became the 10th selection in the draft) then lost out on another player, when GWS, who had pick 10 (that magically became the 11the selection) decided that they wanted to take their original pick 10, and the AFL allowed it (plus more back-room mathematics for the alleged value of other picks...). So maybe pick 10 is worth as much as pick 9 after all...??? So Carlton, who went into the draft with the 9th selection, and to that point hadn't made a trade, then decided to trade away Melbourne's 11th selection to the Gold Coast. I'm yet to understand how Melbourne felt about this, but apparently the AFL thought it was ok. Now Gold Coast have another top pick (ok, they traded for it, so I'm fine enough with that), and they take Melbourne's 11th selection, following GWS somehow retaining their 10th selection, which then forced Melbourne to take the 12th selection. The AFL has to stop this - NOW. Not only is it hard for the fans to understand, and the players (I saw a couple of interviews where the draftees seemed quite confused about what was going on or where they'd end up), but its also ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT. ...or am I the only one who thinks this way?
@JPK You'll have to do some light reading mate, on how many points is each draft pick worth. Each draft selection now has a points value attached to it, starting with Pick 1 (worth 3000 points) down to Pick 73 (nine points). Picks from 74 on wards are worth nothing. https://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/biddingsystemfeedback.pdf
I know this is an ORFFU forum so apologies if my thoughts aren't welcome.... I'm also not extremely satisfied with the current system but have a few points: clubs are investing their own time and money into developing local talent (not sure how local they actually are in reality) so need to be given some leeway when it comes time to drafting these players, otherwise clubs wouldn't take the time to make the investment in the academies and local development so the AFL as a whole would lose out GWS being able to get Tom Green (top 5 player minimum) at the equivalent of Pick 10 is the one I don't like. The system relied on another club making a bid to keep GWS honest but obviously until Carlton no-one was prepared to. There needs to be a better way to determine these players worth before draft night. Tonight there is a chance that both Hawthorn and Port Adelaide will get an extra pick in before they need to match bids on Mead and McGinness if Green had been correctly taken at say pick 5, then the points shortfall would've kept GWS out of the first round of next years draft (I think) so at least there would've been a proper penalty/cost applied you say the Melbourne's pick slipped from 11 to 13 and yes that's technically true but it was known that Henry and Green were not truly available so this wouldn't have impacted the Dees plans so I don't really have issue with it
I'm aware of this, and I've seen the points list before, but the thing is that picks are not worth a certain amount of points - they're just not! The reason is that, if I take pick 19 (948 points) and pick 20 (912 points) then I'm 1,140 points short (or the equivalent of pick 14) from having the same value as pick 1. So, if a team managed to have these picks, they could then stake claims on the best player in the draft, and trump the team holding the number one pick. I just can't find that acceptable. I'm also more upset with the "reserving" of players through F-S and Academy. If a player really is that good, then a club should be obliged to trade up the draft order to get their player. Continuing with the above, lets pretend that Sam Walsh had a father who played with the Hawks (who I believe had the original pick 14, but that bit isn't overly important). So somehow Hawthorn also got their hands on picks 19 and 20 (lets say one trade and one end-of-first-round compensation pick). When Carlton say they want Sam Walsh with pick 1, Hawthorn come along and say that they'll give up these three picks, trump the Blues, and take Sam Walsh for themselves. I just can't stomach that. They should have to trade their way up to the number 1 pick, otherwise they miss out. So the same thing happened yesterday, with Freo, as I mentioned above. They fairly had picks 7 and 8, and made their selections, yet somehow when they want the player who was taken at selection 9 (after their two picks, remember), they can then just say "well, we'll give up most of our later picks to select this player that we'd already reserved". Then nearly the same thing happens with the very next selection that @stripey mentioned just above as I was typing this, with Tom Green. If a player is that good, then he is that good, and it should take a relevant pick in the draft to be able to select him, not a combination of lesser picks with arbitrary points values. And being able to pre-reserve players is just wrong, and compromises the integrity of the draft, in my view to the point where its draft tampering! Yes, F-S is exciting and romantic, but if the kid is that good, then the club should pay the appropriate price at the draft table.