How would you touch up the DT/SC system?

[mezaire]

Money in the bank to accrue interest (say 15% per round). I think this would add a element of "points vs. money" strategy.

Like this idea but 15% is too much. I started with $200k in the bank which by now would be worth $462k!!! That's more than most rookies have risen!!!

5% sounds about right to me.

I think the major change I would like to see is a one player on the bench nominated as your sub. If any player on your field is subbed off you have the choice to use your subs score, but only for one player.

 

[Pocket_Pears]

I'd also like to see the ability to put players in their non-natural position, at the cost of a % of their score (say 30%).

Same could apply for emergencies. You simply name 3 emergencies and they cover your whole squad, and if they end up covering in their non-prefered position, they lose a % of their score.

Can't imagine an AFL team going into a match with one player short, just because they don't have any ruckmen, even though they have 3 forwards, 3 midfielders and 3 defenders waiting in the wings...

 

[Tippaz]

i would like to see the squad size of 33 remain the same for next year and onwards.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Need coaches box in eliminator to sledge your opponenent

 

[LFC2010]

I think the main thing that hasn't been mentioned, would be the implementation of rolling lockouts (instead of partial lockouts) after each game so we can make trades if a premium is injured or not selected. If the AFL are going to program more Thursday & Monday night games I think this has to come in next year.

Also if this was to be done, the captain loophole would need to be fixed so once the 1st lockout is in place the captains are set.

 

[Simmonds2Hislop]

4 emergencies, one for each position.

 

[chogobad]

I think the major change I would like to see is a one player on the bench nominated as your sub. If any player on your field is subbed off you have the choice to use your subs score, but only for one player.

I like it and would go further. A super sub rule, where you automatically get to swap one Emergency who played with any score he could have subbed for.

eg you had a dpp on the midfield bench (prestia as an example) who scored really well, you would get his score instead of the lowest score from the midfield players OR if you have a link to a DPP (say Chappy) who got injured and scored even less it would swap for his score.

Would increase the value of DPP's and as long as the player was selected as an emergency it would save some of the pain that late changes, injuries and/or subs provide. 4 emergencies (Max one for each line) would also be good.

I also approve of the rolling lockout across every weekend and also agree with making the C and VC unchangeable after the first lockout to fix the loophole. wouldn't mind a DVC to be added if they are going to string games across more than Fri-Sun too.

 

[Max Power 81]

4 emergencies, one for each position.

Definately this....Can't understand why they have four defined positions, and only allow three emergencies.

 

[iluvparis]

Because AFL sides only name 3 emergencies.

 

[Benno_900]

Yes, I reckon the sub will come into DT as well.

But it will be something simple. Maybe 21 players + 1 sub (who gets his score halved).

 

[Max Power 81]

Because AFL sides only name 3 emergencies.

Yes, but their emergencies can cover any position, ours can't. Also, an AFL team can make a late change from outside their named emergencies if they really want to. Might get fined for doing it, but they still can.

 

[Gambitt]

I think the main thing that hasn't been mentioned, would be the implementation of rolling lockouts (instead of partial lockouts) after each game so we can make trades if a premium is injured or not selected. If the AFL are going to program more Thursday & Monday night games I think this has to come in next year.

Also if this was to be done, the captain loophole would need to be fixed so once the 1st lockout is in place the captains are set.

good point, there are other dreamteam competitions which allow you to trade any player who hasnt played a game yet. i.e. if bulldogs are playing collingwood on sunday afternoon and there is a late withdraw you can still make a trade for a collingwood/bulldogs player if you think its worthwhile.

Also in that same comp, you are allowed to use more than two trades in a round but it costs you 50points for each additional trade in a round.
Makes an interesting decision when you have a late withdraw and you have used your two trades and you have to consider is it worth 50pts to make a trade.

The more variables, the more interesting the game is.

 

[Jolldo87]

4 emergencies, one for each position.

Definitely this.

If Cox is a late out those that have a ruckmen on the bench playing get no advantage over the rest of the field as it's rare that you'll set a ruck as an emergency. 4 emergencies would reward the teams that have depth on their benches.

 

[Alexwce]

I'm happy with the way DT is, much more straight forward than SC which is the main reason I prefer DT, less thinking required.

Guess the thing that bothers me is you can't have an emergency ruckman, or you can but risk getting a zero elsewhere.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

I would like DT/SC split up into two sections, 1 section if the you want to win the cars and money so you have the limited trades, and the other half if you just want to have fun with mates or play in random leagues where you have a higher amount of trades you can use

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

All teams must be selected prior to RD1. Once the competition is on, that is it, no more entries. No building sides weekly, like some people do, for the cash.

I like the wildcard like the foxsports comp. once a year, take the risk and change your entire team Could build a decent side of fallen stars and gun rookies you missed early on and then destroy the comp

 

[Benno_900]

I like the wildcard like the foxsports comp. once a year, take the risk and change your entire team Could build a decent side of fallen stars and gun rookies you missed early on and then destroy the comp

If that comes in, I quit DT.

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

If that comes in, I quit DT.

Too much thinking for ya?

it's a stupid gimmick, but could be worked or modified to fit

 

[Waspy79]

Why is there no tab where full season coaches can select a squad to contest the weekly prize? Instead we have the farcical situation of people manufacturing email addresses so as to enter a new team every week.

 

[favourites]

My change would be no emergencies, you get your 7th highest scoring players. Makes sense especially this year as I'm sure the less addicated players would've left their premiums on the bench from the previous week.

 

[Gambitt]

My change would be no emergencies, you get your 7th highest scoring players. Makes sense especially this year as I'm sure the less addicated players would've left their premiums on the bench from the previous week.

disagree, picking which rookies to play is one of the few decisions we have and this would give us less to think about

 

[samwise]

I'd like them to introduce the opposite of Dream Team for fun...SPUD TEAM.

The aim would be to have your players score the lowest - you have a salary cap that you have to meet so you can't just pick rookies and Presti's but also guns.
You could go with the guns and rookies strategy or try and find some mid pricers who are likely to spud it up this year

I think it would be a good laugh and would be a bit of fun in what is such a frustrating game at times. Wouldn't be much work for them.

 

[favourites]

disagree, picking which rookies to play is one of the few decisions we have and this would give us less to think about

Possibly but would reduce the impact of an injury such as Grimes (not that I have him)

 

[Jolldo87]

Possibly but would reduce the impact of an injury such as Grimes (not that I have him)

Grimes is a poor example though because if you pick a player that gets injured every year you have to cop the fact that they're going to get injured.

It was always very likely that Grimes was going to cost his owners at some stage during the season and the 6 is result of taking a risk on a player with poor durability.

 

[mezaire]

Here is an interesting example tonight if we had a rolling lockout.

Monty has been named (thank god) but is he wasn't and you were going to cop a donut, would you consider a trade??

Now you can only trade to a Saints or Blues player and also the Blues have the bye in two weeks.

Interesting one. As Monty is going pretty poor I might consider going to Gram as I already have Goddard but going to a Blues player, as I have Curnow as my 7th mid, well it would be a tough call.