2015 Discussion Thread

YAD69 wrote:
It's a sad day for fans of Jock Reynolds supercoach wisdom, final free podcast being posted. I looked forward each week to their insight & trouser humour. Nothing like having a great chuckle when listening to JR, Higgo & Crouching One I agree mate... I do love the trouser humour!

 

JPK wrote:
Alright. I don't want to be insensitive in light of the terrible tragedy that is the passing of Phil Walsh... ...but depending on what CD choose to do with scores for the Crows and Cats players, we'll need to discuss how this effects us. For those that have effected players, I'd suggest getting them out of your side now. I otherwise think that we have to treat it like an injury or omission - the players didn't play, so they don't score. Not sure though... I'd prefer to see any Crows or Cats already named get their average. It's not a situtation that can be compared to an injury imho.

 

In with JPK on this one, I have 3 guys but think it should be a 0, with benches to cover. It's a little unfair on the teams that don't have crows/cats for their opposition to be awarded averages. We still face a similar situation with any Essendrugs players. One of the quirks of the game I guess. If CD do something different in Supercoach then we could look at that.

 

eagle_eyed wrote:
In with JPK on this one, I have 3 guys but think it should be a 0, with benches to cover. It's a little unfair on the teams that don't have crows/cats for their opposition to be awarded averages. We still face a similar situation with any Essendrugs players. One of the quirks of the game I guess. If CD do something different in Supercoach then we could look at that. Just another thought on this, would it be considered fair if I got 86 points for Harry Taylor when he'sonly exceeded that amountonce in his last 7 matches? He's had 2low 50's in the last 2 weeks. We have squads of 26 playersfor a reason and as such we should be using our depth. Whichever way we go it needs to be sorted ASAP so all teams are equal. With so little time before lock out I believe the fairest decisionis for all teams to cop zero's for the crows/cats players.

 

DamoH wrote:
JPK wrote:
Alright. I don't want to be insensitive in light of the terrible tragedy that is the passing of Phil Walsh... ...but depending on what CD choose to do with scores for the Crows and Cats players, we'll need to discuss how this effects us. For those that have effected players, I'd suggest getting them out of your side now. I otherwise think that we have to treat it like an injury or omission - the players didn't play, so they don't score. Not sure though... I'd prefer to see any Crows or Cats already named get their average. It's not a situtation that can be compared to an injury imho. +1 Damo. I think all players involved should get their average - seems like the fairest outcome. Crazy circumstances - not sure if there's anything in the rules to cover a situation like this? Yes, I'm slightly biased with 5 Geelong players on the field - all quality (Enright, Motlop, Blicavs, Stokes and Steve Johnson!). Can we get a ruling on this ASAP. Cheers

 

Mick wrote:
DamoH wrote:
JPK wrote:
Alright. I don't want to be insensitive in light of the terrible tragedy that is the passing of Phil Walsh... ...but depending on what CD choose to do with scores for the Crows and Cats players, we'll need to discuss how this effects us. For those that have effected players, I'd suggest getting them out of your side now. I otherwise think that we have to treat it like an injury or omission - the players didn't play, so they don't score. Not sure though... I'd prefer to see any Crows or Cats already named get their average. It's not a situtation that can be compared to an injury imho. +1 Damo. I think all players involved should get their average - seems like the fairest outcome. Crazy circumstances - not sure if there's anything in the rules to cover a situation like this? Yes, I'm slightly biased with 5 Geelong players on the field - all quality (Enright, Motlop, Blicavs, Stokes and Steve Johnson!). Can we get a ruling on this ASAP. Cheers Mick, if I were you I'd have a contingency in place if we end up going with supercoach scoring and they award zeros you'll be in a world of pain.

 

As a Crows supporter, pretty devastated by today's news. At least his last game was a win. My 2 cents - Either cop the donuts or we take their last 3 game average, which would be fair for in form and out of form players.. My vote would be for donuts... I just moved Laird off the field.[span class='Apple-tab-span' style='white-space: pre;]

 

RIP PHIL Walsh. Very sad day. I'm keen to wait and see what SC does. I feel as though we should keep in line with what they do. I feel as though any option disadvantages some teams, and that any vote or decision would be influenced by this. If we wait and see what SC does then this decision is out of our hands with no bias. Edit: this is entirely my opinion, have not discussed with the board yet.

 

AFL fantasy have announced that the named lineups will get their average scores so guessing CD will follow suit shortly...

 

eagle_eyed wrote:
Mick wrote:
DamoH wrote:
JPK wrote:
Alright. I don't want to be insensitive in light of the terrible tragedy that is the passing of Phil Walsh... ...but depending on what CD choose to do with scores for the Crows and Cats players, we'll need to discuss how this effects us. For those that have effected players, I'd suggest getting them out of your side now. I otherwise think that we have to treat it like an injury or omission - the players didn't play, so they don't score. Not sure though... I'd prefer to see any Crows or Cats already named get their average. It's not a situtation that can be compared to an injury imho. +1 Damo. I think all players involved should get their average - seems like the fairest outcome. Crazy circumstances - not sure if there's anything in the rules to cover a situation like this? Yes, I'm slightly biased with 5 Geelong players on the field - all quality (Enright, Motlop, Blicavs, Stokes and Steve Johnson!). Can we get a ruling on this ASAP. Cheers Mick, if I were you I'd have a contingency in place if we end up going with supercoach scoring and they award zeros you'll be in a world of pain. I'm fine with any decision - be it from our end or just rolling with the SC decision. No contingency plan - I don't think many teams would bat 5 deep in the cover department at this stage. I'll make one change just in case In - Z. O'Brien (I/C EMG) Out - A. Walker. That will probably have 0 effect and I will just roll with the other emergencies I have in place if needed. Hopefully we go with player averages anyway.

 

Tomster wrote:
RIP PHIL Walsh. Very sad day. I'm keen to wait and see what SC does. I feel as though we should keep in line with what they do. I feel as though any option disadvantages some teams, and that any vote or decision would be influenced by this. If we wait and see what SC does then this decision is out of our hands with no bias. Edit: this is entirely my opinion, have not discussed with the board yet. http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/supercoach-changes-explained-in-wake-of-adelaide-crows-geelong-game-cancellation/story-fni5f3gz-1227427323971
So now what commish?

 

RIP Phil Walsh, as a Crows supporter I'm gutted. I don't write on the forum very often but it is an unfortunate position we all find ourselves and whilst I have made the one change to offset the one player that impacts my team, I think the only option is to use player averages for the Geelong and Adelaideplayers who have been included in their squads. SC is using the best 18 fielded players so this is not fair to our competition structure, hence the BYE rounds. Importantly, most players usually hit their average and as I'm playing Mick it seems unfair to have a likely win because of circumstances beyond his control.Logic says player averages is the only option or we scrap the round entirely.

 

Batfink wrote:
RIP Phil Walsh, as a Crows supporter I'm gutted. I don't write on the forum very often but it is an unfortunate position we all find ourselves and whilst I have made the one change to offset the one player that impacts my team, I think the only option is to use player averages for the Geelong and Adelaideplayers who have been included in their squads. SC is using the best 18 fielded players so this is not fair to our competition structure, hence the BYE rounds. Importantly, most players usually hit their average and as I'm playing Mick it seems unfair to have a likely win because of circumstances beyond his control.Logic says player averages is the only option or we scrap the round entirely. +1

 

The other 2 Leagues FA and FL are going no scores and 2 points to each team....................What are we doing?

 

choppers wrote:
The other 2 Leagues FA and FL are going no scores and 2 points to each team....................What are we doing? +1 Im happy to go with above solution as my preferred option

 

My team isn't affected by any Cats or Crows players but I'd think that using season averages for those players missing is the way to go for this round.

 

Just on Choppers point about loopholing players from Thursday matches - I personally don't have a problem with it but I can see his point about it being against the spirit of the competition. I wouldn't like to see a change made mid-season but I think at the end of the year it's something we need to discuss and maybe have a vote on. It wouldn't be hard to solve by making a rule against naming players who aren't named for their AFL teams.