Okay i was watching the game and the live super coach scores. He was on 65 before he kicked the go ahead goal and after that he was on 106. Then he had about 3-4 more possession for the rest of the game and got 148. Could some1 tell me how that works? Supercoach scoring has lost the plot
Mundy 25 possies at 85% effeciency, only got 84, he was there early and very influential. Maybe not late but still, 84, really?
Massive load of b#####t that he got that big of a score and was "the most influential" player on the groud , outscored bennell incredible game, before rounding he was on 123 i think even that was crap!! BUT 148 no way!! Dont give me the "if you dont like sc go play DT crap" because i play both and generally like the fact that rounding can sometimes go with you or against you but not this much!!!
I have Pavlich, but as I mentioned last week, SC scores no longer seem to reflect "the most influential" players on the ground. (IMO) I' ve been the beneficiary on every occasion and have only commented on games I've seen in their entirity and only on games that don't feature Collingwood. Either me or CD have lost the plot and it might be me. Edit: I did comment on one Collingwood game when Kreuzer smashed us and scored much lower than I expected. I have Kreuzer.
Buddy got a huge boost in the last quarter too. Yes he kicked a goal, but so did 4 other Hawks so how come he gets the boost? He was on 67 at 3QT and finished with 123.
FWIW, I don't and have never trusted SC scores 1/4 by 1/4. How could we know the weighting at 1/4 time, 1/2 or 3/4 when the game ain't even finished? Now, I don't even look at them. Therefore I wouldn't even know if a player's HUGE last quarter seems out of whack. I just watch the game. But I certainly agree with Lethaldons regarding "the most influential" player. IMO SC/CD is no longer a measure of what I see. It used to be. And sure, if that's the way the coaches want it scored - great. But I no longer 'get it'. I'm no footballing idiot and no conspiracy theorist but it's getting to the stage where I may as well just count the kicks.
I witnessed this with Pav's score also it jumped almost 40 points when he got the goal. He was very influencial in the last quarter and was ok overall but 148 is a complete joke imo. Mzungu got a goal at the end and got less than half what Pav got???? Barlow's score also jumped 20 points and he did nothing in the last 5 mins, all i saw was one tackle?? Franklin's score was not as bad imo except he gave away 3 fk's and had like 6 behinds but he still kicked 5 and got 18 dp's so u wud expect 110 anyway.
<blockquote>Quote from whips on May 5, 2012, 22:53 FWIW, I don't and have never trusted SC scores 1/4 by 1/4. How could we know the weighting at 1/4 time, 1/2 or 3/4 when the game ain't even finished? Now, I don't even look at them. Therefore I wouldn't even know if a player's HUGE last quarter seems out of whack. I just watch the game. But I certainly agree with Lethaldons regarding "the most influential" player. IMO SC/CD is no longer a measure of what I see. It used to be. And sure, if that's the way the coaches want it scored - great. But I no longer 'get it'. I'm no footballing idiot and no conspiracy theorist but it's getting to the stage where I may as well just count the kicks.</blockquote> + 1 Re: the Collingwood V Bulldogs game, I know he kicked a couple, but how Cloke scored within a few points of Lake when Lake dominated him for most of the game is a bit askew with the idea of rewarding influence.
Traded Fyfe for Goodes initially, then at the last minute reversed it and got Pavlich. Goodes get injured and Pav gets an unprecedented scoring boost - supercoach is very much about luck!
Some luck & some observations... Having just finished a 700 ml bottle of vodka, seeing double and just having been rejected, after stating that, & asking the missus if interested in a threesome, With all due respect, & at the risk of drawing the ire of the knights of the CD table... Being as the CD formula is a closely guarded secret, I've taken to seeking out factors that aren't statisticly obvious. With Pav, Judd, Boyd, Bartel & co, these old warhorses are popular crowd pleasers, being owned by more coaches than their current form statisticly warrants. If CD/SC use scoring methods that please most coaches, it'd be considered to be in the best interest of the comp. I've concluded CD use a nostalgia factor coupled with a decibelometer to measure crowd sound, & factor it in accordingly. So... at the risk of the humourless drawing their defensive CD sword from the sheath, I'd say recognise, accept & include the crowd pleasers into your team & you'll gain an edge *ducks, weaves, baulks, dodges, sidesteps, evades & eludes all of the multiple attempted blows, due to that exact logic being responsible for a current top 300 team atm heheh * * & struts out of the venue unscathed *
@fidel i think i saw smirnoff adding a new floor to his mansion ;-) i looked up in the oxford dictionary the word decibelometer and there was no writing , just a picture of judd. *puts on flak helmet *
Clearly the biggest flaw of SC - the subjectivity of scoring. In a 7 point match, no possible way one goal could be worth 30-40 points. Even in a game decided by 1 point wach and every goal, mark, kick, handpass, smother etc etc etc is as important as the last. Just ask anyone who still plays team sport. To say the final goal is worth more than the first in a close game is like saying the last win of the season is more important than the first for a team that just scrapes in to the 8.
jpod a few weeks ago had the winning goal and the sealing goal and scored under 100 , someone pointed out that he had 6 clangers kicks as well that robbed him of around 30 to 40 points. pav had 3 clanger kicks and 1 extra free against too , so that would have put his score to 160 170 ? would like to have seen what bennels score would have been if gc would have held on
@ Vanderz, good to see you have the flack helmet, you'll need it @ eagles, agree & offer you my spare BP vest as the faithful CD defenders take aim Set defenses to max, Fire in the hole!!
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get all that - even the decibelmeter - sort of! But just watch the game. Last week, Fyfe's clanger in the 2nd quarter changed all momentum and handed victory to Carlton before half time - 98 pts for the villain. There was conjecture on TS as to whether it was even a clanger given his team mate touched the kick first. Most discussion I read in these parts still comes down to stats - yeah he had 48 touches but his 15 clangers effected his score. Of course it's a stats game but it used to measure influence - positive and negative. Sorry but I no longer see that!! Just like we can see when there's a change in umpiring interpretation - e.g. they're red hot on holding the ball this week OR more currently, they're more forgiving on the tackler when the ball carrier barges through head first. What is the change in interpretation for CD scoring this year? There is a definite change to weighting (IMO) but we (I) don't know it. Finally, as mentioned above, I have been the beneficiary of most of the complaints everyone else has raised. I agree with those complaints but happy to take the score.
Agree SC scoring has gone weird this year. Bit disappointing really. Might as well just go with DT. At least the flaws in DT are known and you know what you are getting. HS needs to think about this SC scoring. If the AFL poached the bloke who helped put SC together for the HS so they can make an all out assault on the HS to get players back to DT then the last thing HS would be happy about is a heap of pissed off SC coaches who cannot work out how CD are scoring players. Don't have Pav but I have been on the upside of a couple of other BS SC scores in ther past few weeks so I guess it is all swings and roundabouts.
SC stupid scoring in freo game has cost me a win. Bennell was that much better than Pav. Yet Pav smashes out 148 from his 24 possies 1 goal. Okay i get late goals are important but it shouldnt make u better than a player who got 37 possesions & 3 goals.