i have noticed how everyone is trying to get MPP players im the mids to swap with forwards and backs when needed this year and have been wondering to myself if it is really going to be as important as everyone is thinking it will be. so far im only planning on using it to swap rookies around if i need to, but with there being 3 rookies on the bench and if they actually are getting games is there really any need to have MPP mids on the bench instead of a possibly better mid only rookie? thoughts?
Gday YT, I suggest you have a browse through the "Position Focus" topics, as the MPP issue has been talked about extensively in many of those, especially the pros and cons of using it and how it relates to each position. At the risk of reposting what i typed in another thread, this was my take relating to the use of MPP and how it could benefit a team, particularly during the dreaded round6 multibye. <blockquote>I think with so many 'unknowns' this year MPP is looking more important, or at least attractive, as we're unsure the exact effect it will have on supercoach. I see it almost as an insurance policy or a bit of a 'oh $h!t' buffer. It allows you to push the limits a tad as well with the multibye rounds. If i were wanting to start 3 forwards from freo/geelong/hawthorn, I know I'd need 3 playing bench players for round 6 to cover them. Not having any MPP links in the midfield would be taking a huge risk from the the word go, as any unexpected injurys/withdraws to any of the bench players or the remaining forwards would either force you to trade or cop a zero. If one of your forward rookies, C.Richardson for example, isn't listed to play due to a 1 week illness for round 6, rather than having to cash him in and trade him to someone to cover a zero before he has appreciated fully, you can work around it. By having, say, a Callinan (F/M) on the mid bench, you could move Chapman on the mid bench and cover him with Callinan instead. For sure, you could structure your team so that you take a risk and have 3 non-playing forwards in round6 but 'should' have 3 playing forward bench guys and if the bench players are better prospects than their MPP equivalents and things go to plan, you'll be up on the others. But this is SuperCoach, and if there's one thing you need to plan for, it's the unexpected (injuries/suspensions/illnesses/withdraws), and utilising MPP this year is the first step to doing just that. </blockquote>
ah thanks for that, and sorry bout that i only just joined registered about 30 mins ago and hadnt seen that post yet
Welcome aboard buddy! And not an issue at all. Figured I'd point you to where all the juicy, in-depth stuff is talked about. There should be enough to keep you going until 2012
Ive mentioned somewhere something along the same lines as you yt. Might try and find it later for you. But basically i think MPP comes down to what you are playing for this year. Meaning are you playing for Overall or just going for a league win? Ill just mention if your going for league win as i think spud has covered pretty well going for overall. League Win: Basically there is no H2H games during the multi bye weeks, meaning you can cop donuts as much as you want if your only worried about winning your league, your overall position can suffer. For all your other byes throughout the season as long as you have good coverage in your 3 bench positions, and dont have more then 3 from the one team then you should be able to cover those players quite easily. Yes MPP may come in handy later in the year, but make that your downgrade target throughout the year. Have confidence in your initial squad that all players will play each and every week and hope to god you dont get injuries. I still think if you can get away with good bench coverage that you shouldnt have to rely on MPP going for overall...
i actually am going for league wins, so im sort of leaning towards not stressing about the mpp too much.. well i stumbled across an article from this site a few weeks ago but didnt end up having a look around but then read the herald sun article today and remembered id seen the site before so thought i might join up
I'm going to use MPP to it's full potential this year to avoid wasting any trades on injuries. With three on the bench and MPP, injuries should only derail the unluckiest of teams.
i went Hale as R/F instead of Fraser so i had 5 rucks with petrie, i havent needed him cause of Smithy's fantastic form
i have tippet and petrie as MPP r/f and am pretty happy with them both..... on the whole, having two players that are averaging 70 + each for cover in BOTH rucks and fwds for $500k seems like a good outcome to me.
The drama with MPP is last season we were spoilt with the extra three bench positions. So you could have two cows on the pine and if your MPP didn't play it wasn't the end of the world, you could generally get around it. This year with byes and only two bench I think rookies that WILL play overide MPP imo. You could argue that with less options it's more important but in my eyes a rookie that WILL start V a rookie with MPP that MIGHT ? start is too big a risk.
Don't forget the new change to the rules which means you can utilize the MPP while trading. eg. Say I want to downgrade a forward rookie but there are no good forward rookie replacements. If I have an MPP, say Zorko in the midfield, i can trade out the forward rookie, move Zorko to the forward line and then bring in a midfield rookie instead. I think MPP this year could be useful to ensure you can bring in those rookies you want at the right time.
If you have an MPP rookie in the midfield, you might not be on drugs but you'd be getting close to it.
<blockquote>Quote from Lucas on March 7, 2012, 09:00 If you have an MPP rookie in the midfield, you might not be on drugs but you'd be getting close to it.</blockquote> Why's that? If you don't have any MPP in the midfield then what's the point of having MPP in the defence or forward lines?
I want both a mid/def & mid/fwd link but can't make it work given Magnet & Gibson may both be locks. I will have a mid/fwd link though, possibly Kerridge to allow Fyfe, Martin, Goodes, Devon Smith & Treloar the option to cover short term injury & bye senarios. Be looking to make the mid/def link open with downgrades later in the season.
Entirely agree with Lucas, there is not one MPP rookie that is anywhere near as good and has the potential for massive monetary gain and points scoring relative to at least 15 non MPP midfield rookies.
<blockquote>Why's that? If you don't have any MPP in the midfield then what's the point of having MPP in the defence or forward lines?</blockquote> Yep, none really. You want playing reserves who will generate cash. Get the best you can. MD has top class players like Goddard, but no real viable rookie options (yet). Or at least no rookie options that are better than the straight midfield options. Ditto with MF. This doesn't mean that you try to create a future link, and that things will not change through the season or preseason. Just saying that instead of trying to carry additional players early in a season just because they have the MPP option has been found wanting in previous years, and will be worse this year due to the bye. I'd suggest pick your team with the absolute best players you can, then if there's a 50-50 decision to be made, choose the MPP player. It's closer to the bye when you do a series of upgrade-downgrade moves that you can assess the strength of your interchange bench in different positions, and possibly setup links that will serve you in good stead for the rest of the year. Players like Krakouer worked out early last year, Mzungu and Smith were handy late. I'd suggest all would have been less good than a genuine mid rookie though, and should have in most cases been left on the forward line. Heppell was better than all rookies last season, however he was good enough to start in your backline, so I wouldn't have thought his MPP would have been a big consideration during the year.
@AA I still think Devon Smith & Adam Treloar's scoring & monetary gain will be up with all but the top 2-3 mid rookies. Be an interesting discussion after say 5-7 games. Are we factoring in that there may not be 15 pure mid rookies with the job security of those two. So am I better with the 7th best percieved cash cow if he is getting more games than the 4th best?