Better way for Dreamteam to handle 3 "Bye Weeks"

[Mattrox]

If it was 3 extra trades that could ONLY be used these 3 rounds that would have been interesting.

This thought has some merit.

 

[scooterselwood]

They will never have 3 weeks in a row without league matches.

 

[borrat]

The current set up is an absolute disgrace for those going for the overall win. No thought at all from VS, looks like they just found it all too hard. Considering the 300,000 players maybe they could've spent 5 mins more and come up with a better system that didn't rely 100% on pot luck during the 3 weeks based on an injury crap shoot. It's OK to build a solid team with good cover but that cover is useless when all players are forced to play and injuries strike.

6 backs scoring
5 mids scoring
1 ruck scoring
6 fwds scoring

18 players total scoring instead of 22.

Still requires solid cover so the stronger teams will get through and those who haven't planned will not but at least allows some skill to cover for injuries etc.



VS hang your head in shame, your contract to run this game should be immediately revoked and given to someone who give a shit.

exactly right

and most importantly someone who wont give into the arseholes that want the game harder every single time because they have gotten their way way to often as it is

 

[borrat]

exactly right

and most importantly someone who wont give into the arseholes that want the game harder every single time because they have gotten their way way to often as it is

and also in the bye rounds from now on in the off chance you have both reserves playing in a position you should be able to get the 2nd reserves score but i suppose that would be "to easy"

 

[DIG]

This thought has some merit.

It was actually 4 extra trades than normal I meant, but yeah you get my drift.

 

[Pocket Aces]

Keep it as is.

Wildly fluctuating scores is more interesting than all the teams scoring within 100 of each other because of reduced eligible scoring players.

Good planning and players who think carefully about their 28,29 & 30th players should be rewarded and not herded into playing 16, 18 or whatever.

 

[dylan123]

There isn't such thing as "good planning" for these bye rounds, it's more of how you'd like to take it....

 

[Pocket Aces]

Good planning involves picking and trading in the right rookies and not overloading a line with too many premos from 1 round.

Picking Lee Spurr was a bad move, it has cost me 2 zeroes. I should have waited for Darley like I was planning to all along. All the signs were there that Spurr was a poor pick and I ignored them.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Good planning involves picking and trading in the right rookies and not overloading a line with too many premos from 1 round.

Did all of these things. Should've only been copping one zero after trading Horsley to Robinson. Thanks to Scotland, Pendlebury and Shaw I copped 4. Thanks to Sandilands, Stephenson and Malceski all playing about one full game between them due to the sub, it's effectively 6. Could've been worse, I could've had Zaharakis. Or Swan could've needed another week off. Or I could be stuck with Waters or Coniglio next week.

People who say 'it's all about good planning' are clearly the ones who got lucky with injury.

 

[Plugger35]

Yep it's all very well saying you need to plan for the bye rounds but injuries and late withdrawals can screw up the best laid plans.

I planned on having only 3 donuts this round after trading in Zaharakis on Friday however that ended up being 4 donuts when he was a late withdrawal, that wasn't due to lack of planning that was just due to lady luck being a f***ing bitch.

 

[dylan123]

When the best planning (+ having every single thing going your way) is still going to get you zeroes no matter what during the bye rounds, it's hard to believe you could say the current system is good and all it requires is good planning.

 

[Keystone agony]

Yep it's all very well saying you need to plan for the bye rounds but injuries and late withdrawals can screw up the best laid plans.

I planned on having only 3 donuts this round after trading in Zaharakis on Friday however that ended up being 4 donuts when he was a late withdrawal, that wasn't due to lack of planning that was just due to lady luck being a f***ing bitch.

Agree that luck plays it part but alot of other people including myself have Zaka and have traded him in. Really i dont understand why you would be trading in a R12 premium unless a R12 premum forward or mid got injured. If that was the case fair enough.

Its just an extra zero, those that dont plan cop 15 zero's those that do plan cop 4-5. If anyone only gets 2 zeros over the byes.... luck has been on their side

 

[Pocket Aces]

Thanks to Scotland, Pendlebury and Shaw I copped 4. Thanks to Sandilands, Stephenson and Malceski all playing about one full game between them due to the sub, it's effectively 6. Could've been worse, I could've had Zaharakis. Or Swan could've needed another week off. Or I could be stuck with Waters or Coniglio next week.

People who say 'it's all about good planning' are clearly the ones who got lucky with injury.

Risky players such as Shaw, Sandilands & Malceski should of been traded in after the byes when cover is available not before. You are just asking for bad luck with those players.

You were given an extra trade to deal with Pendlebury and the like, I traded him out this week as it was the right thing to do as I can get him back for Shiel when he bottoms out.

Zaharakis/Scotland was bad luck.
Stephenson is number 4 ruck at best and should have been avoided based on his preseason.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Risky players such as Shaw, Sandilands & Malceski should of been traded in after the byes when cover is available not before. You are just asking for bad luck with those players.

Shaw, not really. Not a brilliant durability record but not a terrible one. The club-imposed suspensions make it look a lot worse than it is.
If Malceski had gotten injured, yeah. But I doubt too many would've considered him a sub risk at the start of the season.
I'll grant you Sandilands. But even so, lack of cover isn't the issue when he gets injured 5 minutes into a game.

You were given an extra trade to deal with Pendlebury and the like, I traded him out this week as it was the right thing to do as I can get him back for Shiel when he bottoms out.

Well if wasting two trades to avoid 1 zero, maybe 2 zeroes is your 'strategy', be my guest.

Stephenson is number 4 ruck at best and should have been avoided based on his preseason.

OK, so what other rookie ruck should I have picked? Redden? Oh wait, he was subbed out too.

 

[Pocket Aces]

Shaw, not really. Not a brilliant durability record but not a terrible one. The club-imposed suspensions make it look a lot worse than it is.
If Malceski had gotten injured, yeah. But I doubt too many would've considered him a sub risk at the start of the season.
I'll grant you Sandilands. But even so, lack of cover isn't the issue when he gets injured 5 minutes into a game.

True Malceski/Sandilands nothing to do with byes so why mention it in your first post.

Well if wasting two trades to avoid 1 zero, maybe 2 zeroes is your 'strategy', be my guest.

Adequate bank balance

Pendlebury > Ablett
Shiel > Pendlebury

Otherwise

Shiel > rookie
Smith/Porplyzia > Ablett.

Same number of trades used to get Ablett in and covers 2 bye donuts and since I am light for r13 mids do not generate extra donut in r13.

OK, so what other rookie ruck should I have picked? Redden? Oh wait, he was subbed out too.

Based on preseason Redden was the better pick.

 

[Schulzenfest]

True Malceski/Sandilands nothing to do with byes so why mention it in your first post.

Because you can't plan for it. People aren't getting smacked by the byes because of a lack of planning, they're getting smacked because of injuries and weird sub decisions.

Based on preseason Redden was the better pick.

Thanks for your inside knowledge on Redden. I'll make sure to defer to you whenever I want advice on whether or not a Port rookie will play most games.

Stephenson is 2nd choice ruck at Geelong, Redden is 3rd choice at Port. Stephenson is a 29 year old former VFL star, Redden is a 21 year old rookie who wasn't even No. 1 ruck at his SANFL club. Stephenson has gone on to play more games than Redden and average nearly as much. Don't be surprised to see Redden drop out of the side next week if Butcher or Lobbe comes back. Both would be ahead of him on the depth chart when fully fit.

 

[Plugger35]

Agree that luck plays it part but alot of other people including myself have Zaka and have traded him in. Really i dont understand why you would be trading in a R12 premium unless a R12 premum forward or mid got injured. If that was the case fair enough.

Its just an extra zero, those that dont plan cop 15 zero's those that do plan cop 4-5. If anyone only gets 2 zeros over the byes.... luck has been on their side

I traded in Zaharakis as he was an upgrade on Horsley who I think has peaked in price and will be on a downhill slide from now on and may not even be guaranteed a game. Zaharakis is also a mid/fwd which would be give me greater flexibility over the bye rounds and I don't have any other Essendon players or many other players with a bye next week.

I don't see what was wrong with the trade other than the fact I unknowingly traded in a player that had just suffered a 5-6 week injury. My only regret is not trading in Pavlich instead who I was also considering as he was the only other decent mid/fwd that I could afford.

 

[dylan123]

Because you can't plan for it. People aren't getting smacked by the byes because of a lack of planning, they're getting smacked because of injuries and weird sub decisions.

And the fact that 6 teams a week, 33% of the teams are missing each week. When you've got 9 players in two positions, that = 3 of your players in each of those two positions already missing due to the byes alone. You can use a couple of trades just to avoid the bye zero but once other things are added to the equation, avoiding zeros is impossible (although it already is with the current system).

So you're left with two options, use up to 9 trades during the bye rounds to just avoid as many zeroes as possible (even if it means stuffing up your structure) or just take them on the chin, and hop trading later on in the season will be the better strategy long term.

Last year had a bit more of a strategy with the 3 team byes split apart so you knew you couldn't afford to load up too heavily from one group (and we had an extra bench position) but when 33% of the teams are missing back to back for 3 weeks running, you can't plan anything at all, that is why the current system blows.

 

[Keystone agony]

I traded in Zaharakis as he was an upgrade on Horsley who I think has peaked in price and will be on a downhill slide from now on and may not even be guaranteed a game. Zaharakis is also a mid/fwd which would be give me greater flexibility over the bye rounds and I don't have any other Essendon players or many other players with a bye next week.

I don't see what was wrong with the trade other than the fact I unknowingly traded in a player that had just suffered a 5-6 week injury. My only regret is not trading in Pavlich instead who I was also considering as he was the only other decent mid/fwd that I could afford.

From watching the richmond game i dont thin Pavlich was a good option. If he is going to need 6 goals a game to score 100 and you think that will happen then get on him for the coleman.

I dont understand this obsession with having a C/F in the midfield. It doesnt help you over the byes and also if you really need it at any given moment you can just trade a midfield rookie for a premium forward and move a c/f into the mids. It wasnt required for byes.

So who are your other R12 players in the mids and forwards? surely a round 13 player would have been a better option like Mitchell at 430k?

 

[Plugger35]

From watching the richmond game i dont thin Pavlich was a good option. If he is going to need 6 goals a game to score 100 and you think that will happen then get on him for the coleman.

I dont understand this obsession with having a C/F in the midfield. It doesnt help you over the byes and also if you really need it at any given moment you can just trade a midfield rookie for a premium forward and move a c/f into the mids. It wasnt required for byes.

So who are your other R12 players in the mids and forwards? surely a round 13 player would have been a better option like Mitchell at 430k?

I already have too many Hawthorn, St Kilda and Richmond players who all have a bye in round 13 which is why I stayed away from Mitchell. I agree with what you're saying about Pavlich which is why I chose Zaharakis ahead of him but he is capable of averaging around 100 when he's in good form.

Still haven't decided who I will trade Zaharakis for, I'll probably sit on it for a couple of weeks and see what options are best then.

 

[54Dogs]

Keep it as is.

Wildly fluctuating scores is more interesting than all the teams scoring within 100 of each other because of reduced eligible scoring players.

Good planning and players who think carefully about their 28,29 & 30th players should be rewarded and not herded into playing 16, 18 or whatever.

Good cover at M8, D9, F9 and R4 only helps if you are looking at 1-2 out on each line. When you have 10 out on average each week before injuries and suspensions no amount of planning can protect against that. Every extra player out during bye rounds costs a zero which is a far greater penalty than normal weeks. For example, Enright out last week means I need to play Morris, fair enough. Scotland out this week means a zero instead of a playing emergency.

The idea is to set the game up to get through the bye rounds with the same amount of skill / luck as all the other rounds. And the challenge is to do this without making the other rounds easier. So the solution needs to be something that helps in the byes rounds but not in other weeks.

The answer is so simple it defies belief. Back to 20 trades as it was pre byes. Reduce the number of scoring players during the 3 weeks (6 next year) in alignment with the number of players to choose from. No impact on the non-bye weeks and coaches have the chance to set a team during the bye rounds without fear of multiple donuts. The only compromise coaches will need to make is some simple planning to spread byes. With say 5-4-1-5 though that is not difficult.

The more I think about it the more I think 5-4-1-5 is the best option. 15 playing positions instead of 22 seems reasonable with 33% of the team missing each week.

 

[Bonuspoints]

I can't recall a season where injuries have hit so hard. A lot of premiums getting LTI's thats drained trades out of us before we even hit the byes. I think given that even using the three trades during the bye rounds its not possible to completely avoid donuts the benches should be expanded to three per zone. In saying that there is a sense of danger to the bye rounds that could rein in the frontrunners and push others to the fore.

I do like the byes as it adds another element to the game for us to think about.

 

[54Dogs]

I can't recall a season where injuries have hit so hard. A lot of premiums getting LTI's thats drained trades out of us before we even hit the byes. I think given that even using the three trades during the bye rounds its not possible to completely avoid donuts the benches should be expanded to three per zone. In saying that there is a sense of danger to the bye rounds that could rein in the frontrunners and push others to the fore.

I do like the byes as it adds another element to the game for us to think about.

As per above post the ideal solution is one that helps get through the byes and has no impact on the non-bye rounds, to keep the game consistent all year

- 3 on the bench impacts all other rounds. Was only brought in last year because of all year byes. This is not the solution

- Extra trades (total) get used at other times and not during byes rounds. Do not help with 33% of your squad away each week and are not exclusive to bye rounds. Not the solution

- Extra trades only during bye rounds change the overall makeup of your team, hence impacting the team dynamics for the rest of the year. Closer but not the solution


PROPOSED SOLUTION


5 fwds
4 mids
1 ruck
5 backs

scoring during byes rounds.

- Has no impact on non bye rounds
- Reduces squad scoring size by 30% (22 to 15) with 33% of squad missing for bye rounds
- Suitable for those going for league and overall
- Simple for the masses
- Keeps interest in DT for all during byes
- Creates positive mindset with less zeros on the field
- Creates a more level playing field with equivalent "luck" factor in bye / non-bye weeks.



Can somebody please tell me the downside of this option, I'm not seeing it

 

[SkankDanker]

I like it a lot, there is no downside I don't think.

Also, if we can focus this thread on the solutions rather than clogging it up with individual team talk and trade plans there is a better chance it will get some attention from those that need to read it.

 

[warnie]

That solution looks good to me, Dogs.

From a fantasy coach for over a decade, I like the set up as it is... but from someone who understands the need for simplicity and the masses (ie. those other 250,000 coaches who play the game), it's gotta keep people playing. I fear the current structure will see a big drop off after this week... and the next two will rub it into those who don't really care.

There will still be strategy in playing with less players - and I agree, better than going for the extra bench spots... however, with a cleverly thought out magic numbers, that could bring back a lot of midpricers into the mix in 2013 - especially without an expansion team giving us a plethora of rookies!