Green/Red Vests in DT

[tbetta]

I've heard a few complaints lately concerned with Virtual Sports' non-inclusion of the sub rule in Dream Team (or SuperCoach).

The argument here is that Dream Team is designed to be as similar to the AFL as possible. The salary cap is always identical to the AFL's, the number of teams per league has always been the same as the AFL (bar 2011 due to odd number of teams), and there has always been a constant effort to reflect or predict positional changes as they happen in the AFL.

But there has been no such inclusion or even mention of the sub rule and what it could mean for DT, bar the occasional poor score. Should it be included in the game? Many coaches will probably be against such a change, wanting the competition to go back to (or as close as possible to) what it was in 2010 and prior. I personally am open to the idea - the game of AFL is constantly changing, and DT should change with it to be as innovative and relevant as it can possibly be.

So how could we incorporate the Sub-Rule? Some suggestions so far:
1. Everyone nominates a player on their field which will only be awarded the half points
2. Every coach has the 'real-time' ability to sub out one player per round and replace them with a bench player during lockout (or something similar). For instance, Ablett injures his knee on 23 after the first quarter, and coaches can log on and replace him (presumably before the game finishes) with, I don't know, Reece Conca, who is on their midfield bench.
3. Have a 23rd player who is nominated as the sub and can come on to replace your worst score on the field. Could be a weekly thing, or possibly restricted to a few times a year.

There are obvious problems will all the above:
1. No point - everyone will just pick their worst player
2. Dream Team will never go 'real-time' and disadvantage a majority of coaches
3. Would affect league results post lock-out

Which brings me to my suggestion:
Keep it as simple and as realistic as possible. You select one player for the Green Vest and one for the Red Vest, as you would for your Captains and Emergencies prior to lockout. The Green Vest player then receives only the DT points he accumulates in the first half. Similarly, the Red Vested player is only credited with points attained after half-time. Whether or not those scored get doubled, I haven'y decided yet...

Anyway, the advantages here are that it is realistic, simple, and it adds another aspect of strategy to DT. New stats will be generated on which players have good 1st halves vs 2nd halves, etc. Picking your Vested players would be next to as important as picking your captain.

What do you guys think?

 

[West123]

2. Dream Team will never go 'real-time' and disadvantage a majority of coaches

This is the main issue. Even DT addicts don't watch every game.

The sub rule has affected DT. You've got to factor in someones "subability". I had Mitch Duncan this year and was always worried he would be sub and ended up ditching him before he took a hit for being sub.

 

[Devo_]

This is a good topic of discussion, tbetta. BTW, I love the Bullets and Mondays are a bit empty without them at the moment.

I'm open to the idea as well, but unless there is some clear benefit or additional enjoyment from changing the game to accommodate the sub rule, it would just be change for change's sake. At the moment, I don't really mind that DT doesn't accommodate the sub rule. It just means that coaches need to be extra savvy about who they pick, which is the whole point of the game. A layer of complexity is added to the game anyway by not accommodating the sub rule.

For what its worth, I don't play fantasy EPL and wouldn't have the foggiest about how it works, but is there anything to learn about how the substituted players & the substitutes are treated in that game?

 

[tbetta]

I'm open to the idea as well, but unless there is some clear benefit or additional enjoyment from changing the game to accommodate the sub rule, it would just be change for change's sake. At the moment, I don't really mind that DT doesn't accommodate the sub rule. It just means that coaches need to be extra savvy about who they pick, which is the whole point of the game. A layer of complexity is added to the game anyway by not accommodating the sub rule.

I agree with the 'change for change's sake' sentiment - It's more of a brainstorm as to how it could be best included if VS went down that path for the 'realism' factor.

However, I disagree with you about the extra complexity concept. Actually, it's completely correct, but ultimately I value uniqueness over complexity. As of now, with the sub-rule not included, that puts off limit 2 or 3 players per team (think Gaff, Masten and Ebert from the Eagles, or Bruest and Bateman from the Hawks) that are always vested. This limits the pool of players we can choose from, resulting in even more cookie-cutter sides and less unqiueness then we had this year.

While none of the above players are DT superstars (or at least, not at the moment), they could still be effective or at least considered if something like the system I suggested earlier were adopted.

 

[Devo_]

It's a good point about expanding the pool of players, Tbetta, I hadn't thought of it from that angle. The pool may expand a bit without the byes in 2012 anyway, but it probably would expand a touch more if there was a sub feature in the game.

Of the 4 suggestions in your first post, I think the last one is probably the most practical while the others have clear problems, as you've pointed out. The major impact of this variant of the sub rule would be that, if the sub is not a starting 22 player, the depth of squads would be seriously tested. People would have to make sure they have a dependable scorer or two to draw upon every week, in addition to their emergencies. I could see this rule sorting the men from the boys almost too quickly if this was the case. The red and green vests should come from your starting 22.

 

[tbetta]

The red and green vests should come from your starting 22.

Yes, this is the general idea! So, for instance (using my Round 1 team from 2011), I would set Swan as my C, Boyd as my VC, then someone like Adcock for the Green Vest and Yarran for Red Vest - all obviously from my starting 22.

 

[West123]

Maybe Green Vest/Red Vest could be a system to prioritise your emergencies? At this point if you select two emergencies in one position you just get the lower of the two.

 

[Thistle]

1. Everyone nominates a player on their field which will only be awarded the half points

I actually really like this idea. It adds a bit more strategy and planning to dt.

 

[egosbar]

its very simple answer here , one that can take the headache out of the dreaded vests , the afl to understand how big fantasy footy has become and force teams to name the sub 24 hours prior to the game and that name cannot play unless wearing the sub vest , if they have a late injury then another player must come in ot play not wear the vest , only problem here is what if the sub player named gets injured faaarrk back to square one its a fantasy disaster

 

[mrmatt]

Not sure I like the idea of pre-determining the red vest - which is more often than not due to an injured player in real life. I'd be damn annoyed if I red-vested player X who knocked out 60 points in the second half while player Y managed to actually get injured and score 0 in the same period. That would be 2x0 in the second half (adding back what your sub got of course).

I would like to see something pretty simple - three emergencies replacing a zero scorer as per usual - then a specific Sub. The sub's score is activated if he scores more than anyone on the field. Simple.

Is it open to a bit of abuse... maybe - if we have deep benches and coaches manage to secure a 7th premium mid. But I would call that more tactical/trading nous than abuse.

 

[egosbar]

Not sure I like the idea of pre-determining the red vest - which is more often than not due to an injured player in real life. I'd be damn annoyed if I red-vested player X who knocked out 60 points in the second half while player Y managed to actually get injured and score 0 in the same period. That would be 2x0 in the second half (adding back what your sub got of course).

I would like to see something pretty simple - three emergencies replacing a zero scorer as per usual - then a specific Sub. The sub's score is activated if he scores more than anyone on the field. Simple.

Is it open to a bit of abuse... maybe - if we have deep benches and coaches manage to secure a 7th premium mid. But I would call that more tactical/trading nous than abuse.

mmm i think if the sub scores more then 30 he is active , if he scores less you can take your other offield sub , in the case of duals you can only take the lower one , that will eliminate the under 30 scores especially if he comes on for five minutes and scores one handball
or the sub is active after 30 and you can only take your other sub in same position no dual players from other positions
but defiinitely something has to be done , there is nothing worse then seeing your player wearing the vest

 

[Pocket_Pears]

I would like to see something pretty simple - three emergencies replacing a zero scorer as per usual - then a specific Sub. The sub's score is activated if he scores more than anyone on the field. Simple.

Is it open to a bit of abuse... maybe - if we have deep benches and coaches manage to secure a 7th premium mid. But I would call that more tactical/trading nous than abuse.

Then you will probably see everyone putting a guaranteed high scorer as their sub (ie, any premium mid), who will then replace the lowest on field scorer.

 

[Pocket_Pears]

How about you name one of your starting 22 as a sub, and their score only counts if one of your other 21 actually gets subbed (on or off) in a real game AND their score is lower than your nominated sub.

And of course you lose the score of the player who got subbed.

There doesn't seem to be much chance of abuse there, as it only replaces scores of players who have actually been subbed.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Why come up with some complicated system?

Keep the emergencies as they are now, but have emergencies double as the sub. If somebody on the field gets subbed on or off, then if the emergency/sub in the corresponding position's score is higher then they replace the member of the 22 who was subbed out.

 

[DIG]

Why come up with some complicated system?

Keep the emergencies as they are now, but have emergencies double as the sub. If somebody on the field gets subbed on or off, then if the emergency/sub in the corresponding position's score is higher then they replace the member of the 22 who was subbed out.

I like this idea. Keeps it simple.

Deals with the ridiculous sub rule instead of embracing it.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I actually really like this idea. It adds a bit more strategy and planning to dt.

Conversely it reduces the impact of having a donut.