Midfield structure - your theories

[Kid A]

This is my preferred midfield structure. I'm sure there are others. This topic is meant to stimulate discussion on what your preferred structure is.

In brief, I think your top 3 starting mids should be your bottom three final mids.

Eg, if I start with a midfield of (for example)

Cross, Selwood, Boak, Hasleby, Mackay, Rich [I have picked six players who are representative of common price brackets without being at all unique. This is not my actual midfield]

Then my midfield trades during the season would most likely be, in order, Hasleby, Mackay, Rich to Bartel, Ablett, Corey (or any three big guns)

My reasoning for this is:

1. Having ABC at the start, with a 110 starting price, is going to end up costing you money. Sure, they will give you valuable captaincy points. But it is likely that they will fall in price. Even if they still average 110ppg, they will fall several tens of thousands by the magic number changing alone. If they average around 100ppg, they will fall (projected) close to 100k. Oh, I'm sure 1, maybe 2, of ABC will average 110 anyway. But can you be sure you'll pick the right one? It's going to be near impossible for any of ABC to hold their price.

2. It's pretty easy to pick midfield cash cows. I am reasonably certain that I can pick three mid-priced players who will rise well in price. Midfield cash cows tend to rise fairly consistently meaning that you have the real option of doing a Palmer->Bartel of 2008 (this year it might be Mackay->Ablett, but you get the idea).

3. With the wealth of elite midfielders, you can expect there to be good upgrade targets at any time. For example, I have listed ABC as the three upgrade targets, but Swan, Thompson, Cornes, possibly Stanton/Hodge etc - will all be up there. This gives you heaps of trade flexibility. There's also great picks in the midfield rookies meaning that you'll be getting coverage and cash out of them if you pick well.

4. Around rd 7-8, the effect of magic number deflation starts wearing off, meaning that guns like ABC will be bottom-priced, your rookies will be cash cowed and ready to trade down, and hopefully one of Hasleby/Mackay/Rich will be ready to trade up.

5. In comparison is a midfield that looks like this:

Bartel, Selwood, Kerr, Reilly, Skipworth, Rich

imo this midfield is not optimum because:
1. You will eventually need four upgrades, not three, unless you think Kerr is going to be a bona fide 95+.
2. You are going to lose some money from Bartel. (I know a lot of people will take him anyway.)
3. Kerr & Reilly are both priced (imo) beneath true keeper yet above cash cow.

Thoughts, disagreements?

 

[Cat for Life]

My strategy depends on the year and where I think the value is.
Generally it has been in the midfield and I have taken your strategy but this year I see more midrange options in the forwards and backs, hence it means that my midfield will be more skewed towards premium.

Also I think its to simplistic to just say that you can't pick Ablett or Bartel because they will drop in value, the same can also be said of Cox. While there may be a more competition in the mids these guys like Cox are clearly in front of the pack. Before Ablett got injured last year many average teams were riding his coat tail up the ladder, and after the mid season break when Jimmy got over his niggles we saw how destructive he can be as captain. The argument could be that I would want these guys in my team at the end of the year, whereas the 3 lowest midfielders can come from a much wider range of players.

 

[theone5]

Great post Kid A.
You propose a very sound strategy and it makes sense financially to go along this path. I guess you could say it is sort of like playing the sharemarket to the maximum efficiency as you will be saving a lot of cash.

With that being said, i am still taking a different strategy but keeping it to myself at the moment.

You are not wrong in what you are saying.
In fact, no one is ever wrong when comes to Dream Team because after all, it is all just about individual opinions and ideas.

I think your "Top 3 become Bottom 3" strategy is solid but the three major flaws are as follows:
1) You will fail to have any lock and leave captain choices, as D.Cox and most of the forwards are inconsistent, making captain choice stressful in the early rounds.

2) You will be falling behind on points not having the big guns, and whilst you can make up some points in other areas, it may not be enough.

3) There is too much reliance on your Top 3 picked becoming keepers to eventually be your Bottom 3. A keeper in the midfield should be 90+ and your B.Gibbs, C.Masten, T.Boak types are not guaranteed to reach these standards.

 

[topdogs]

Disagree because whilst midfielders are relatively conistent and you can often have to wait a while to grab a real good one, the forwards/backs are much more inconsistent and there are many more opportunities to pick them up. Just my thoughts though.

 

[Saint KFC]

Disagree. I would not be happy come season end if my back three mids were Cross, Selwood and Boak. What I prefer to do is select two outright keepers (eg. A/B/C + Swan/Kornes/Thompson) and have them as my fourth and fifth keepers come season end. Then, a midpriced improver (from 350k-375k) to hopefully elevate their average and take the sixth spot in my final midfield. The other three players in the initial lineup (in my opinion) should be value picks and maybe a rookie and will eventually be traded out for fallen guns (Rest of the A/B/C, Swan/Kornes/Thompson etc)

 

[_RT_]

I've decided this year to try something I've never tried before. I'm taking one out and out premium from ABC, I'm then taking another +$400k player who I think will get to be an out and out gun by seasons end. The next 4 midfielders are all above $300k. The other 2 spots I'm giving to 2 $86k rookies who I hope will make me a fair bit of cash and will then allow me to trade 2-3 of my bottom 4 into out and out premiums, which will hopefully see me with 4-5 out and out premiums and 1-2 keepers at the business end of the season.

 

[theone5]

While we are on the topic, i do not think the Top 6 this year will be ABC, K.Cornes, D.Swan and S.Thompson.
The 'top guns' always seem to alter from year to year due to age, injuries and role changes.
All these 6 are still young and at the peak of their careers and do not seem to have a change in role and even with injuries permitting, i do not think these boys make up the Top 6.

Who it will be, i do not know.
I could have a guess, leaning mostly toward S.Thompson, but it is too hard to predict.

The point i am making, is that if you want to start with 1, 2 or even 3 of the 'top guns', make sure you are completely confident in them filling up part of the Top 6, as you are paying top dollar.

 

[Saint KFC]

I'm taking one out and out premium from ABC, I'm then taking another +$400k player who I think will get to be an out and out gun by seasons end. The next 4 midfielders are all above $300k.

Not a great idea in my opinion.

You are banking your entire strategy on having all 4 increasing their average. If they plateau, you are in trouble as you are stuck with 4 deadweight players at an awkward price with little value appreciation. Back your judgement, there is a fair bit of value under 300k (Hasleby, Tuck, Reilly, Butler etc) that you can probably afford to take a gamble on atleast one of them, but I wouldn't take anymore than two. I personally think that there is also enough depth in the midfield rookies to start one and have two backing up (eg. Rich, Beams, Ziebell, Robinson, Davenport etc). I don't know about everyone else, but I am fairly comfortable in atleast one of my three midfield rookies getting a game each week until I have enough price appreciation to upgrade to a fallen gun. Theoretically, you should look to upgrade your 6th mid first, then your 5th and so on until you are left with 6 keepers that you are happy with.

In your scenario, unless it pays off in spades (unlikely), you will be left wasting awkward sideways trades, something that could mean the difference come the pointy end of the season. With your strategy, you are surely skimping in atleast on of the backs/forwards/rucks, and putting all your eggs in one basket will likely backfire.

Hope I'm making sense, it's all a bit jumbled.

While we are on the topic, i do not think the Top 6 this year will be ABC, K.Cornes, D.Swan and S.Thompson.
The 'top guns' always seem to alter from year to year due to age, injuries and role changes.
All these 6 are still young and at the peak of their careers and do not seem to have a change in role and even with injuries permitting, i do not think these boys make up the Top 6.
Who it will be, i do not know.
I could have a guess, leaning mostly toward S.Thompson, but it is too hard to predict.

Definitely. Look at what has variated since last season and how that will effect their output. Will Carr hamper Kane's output? Inversely, will the return of his kick-to-kick partner brother increase his output? What are the chances of Ablett staying on the park for 22? Will he be wrapped up in cotton wool for a month when he breaks a fingernail? Will Swan's interrupted preseason lower his output, especially in the first half of the season? How will Corey's rumoured change to the HBF alter his output?

Just a few things to consider.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I never set out with a strategy for a certain position before the season starts. The first players I pick are the "must have" value picks, like (using 08 as an example) Stevens or Palmer. From there, I pick the best available until I have a team where I am not unhappy with any player.

So this year, I can afford any one of ABCS, and I won't downgrade him to upgrade a starting rookie, just to fit with the top 3/bottom 3 theory. I have at least 1, if not 2 (3 would be the best case scenario - and bloody unlikely) top 6 overall mids, and wouldn't downgrade any of them.

 

[Kid A]

Theoretically, you should look to upgrade your 6th mid first, then your 5th and so on until you are left with 6 keepers that you are happy with.

In your scenario, unless it pays off in spades (unlikely), you will be left wasting awkward sideways trades, something that could mean the difference come the pointy end of the season. With your strategy, you are surely skimping in atleast on of the backs/forwards/rucks, and putting all your eggs in one basket will likely backfire.

Hope I'm making sense, it's all a bit jumbled.

Great discussion and there are some points here I want to return to. Firstly I'll say that I agree with everything quoted above particularly with awkward range players. As for upgrading, it's of course preferable to upgrade 6-1, 5-2, 4-3 as this gives you the most immediate points boost, but it may well be that your 6th midfielder takes longer to develop (in price) than your 4th or 5th. You might also not have enough money to comfortably upgrade 6 to 1 in one go early on in the season.

 

[Hodges]

Disagree. I would not be happy come season end if my back three mids were Cross, Selwood and Boak. What I prefer to do is select two outright keepers (eg. A/B/C + Swan/Kornes/Thompson) and have them as my fourth and fifth keepers come season end. Then, a midpriced improver (from 350k-375k) to hopefully elevate their average and take the sixth spot in my final midfield. The other three players in the initial lineup (in my opinion) should be value picks and maybe a rookie and will eventually be traded out for fallen guns (Rest of the A/B/C, Swan/Kornes/Thompson etc)

This is what I have gone for too. I was originally planning on having two of Kornes/Swan/Thompson, but the Geelong mids have a pretty favourable schedule early on, so it could mean missing out on heaps of captain points. I think having one of ABC plus another premium will work out pretty well.

 

[_RT_]

Not a great idea in my opinion.

You are banking your entire strategy on having all 4 increasing their average. If they plateau, you are in trouble as you are stuck with 4 deadweight players at an awkward price with little value appreciation. Back your judgement, there is a fair bit of value under 300k (Hasleby, Tuck, Reilly, Butler etc) that you can probably afford to take a gamble on atleast one of them, but I wouldn't take anymore than two. I personally think that there is also enough depth in the midfield rookies to start one and have two backing up (eg. Rich, Beams, Ziebell, Robinson, Davenport etc). I don't know about everyone else, but I am fairly comfortable in atleast one of my three midfield rookies getting a game each week until I have enough price appreciation to upgrade to a fallen gun. Theoretically, you should look to upgrade your 6th mid first, then your 5th and so on until you are left with 6 keepers that you are happy with.

In your scenario, unless it pays off in spades (unlikely), you will be left wasting awkward sideways trades, something that could mean the difference come the pointy end of the season. With your strategy, you are surely skimping in atleast on of the backs/forwards/rucks, and putting all your eggs in one basket will likely backfire.

Hope I'm making sense, it's all a bit jumbled.

Depends on what you call skimping. My backs have 5 players in the $290-400k mark, the other 4 are below $200k. Cox is one of my rucks while the other is around the $300k mark. In the forwards I may have skimped a little but I feel the group that I have there offers me great value for money and could pay off rather well. As I said it is something I haven't done before but feel very confident that I can turn it into a very strong side.

 

[Saint KFC]

Great discussion and there are some points here I want to return to. Firstly I'll say that I agree with everything quoted above particularly with awkward range players. As for upgrading, it's of course preferable to upgrade 6-1, 5-2, 4-3 as this gives you the most immediate points boost, but it may well be that your 6th midfielder takes longer to develop (in price) than your 4th or 5th. You might also not have enough money to comfortably upgrade 6 to 1 in one go early on in the season.

Of course, but if it doesn't pay off, you still have the luxury of upgrading your fifth mid to a fallen gun (eg. a Hasleby/Butler/Tuck/Reilly etc) should likely have appreciated in enough value whilst a fallen gun depreciating in enough value that the gap will likely only be 50k-100k.

It's hard to gauge at this stage of the season I guess, but it took Palmer how long to reach 350k? About the middle of the season, wasn't it - Round 12 or 13? At this stage the difference between him and a Bartel was a measly 40 odd thousand.

The thing is though, for a rookie to reach this price he would have to be averaging a damn good amount, and would likely not be a huge priority to upgrade if job security is guaranteed.

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that your trading should be based around priority - which is why I disagree with having a linear trading plan from the very start of the season (eg. Trade x player out in round y) If a player gets a season ending injury, he is the first priority to be traded out, and so on. If one if your forwards is at a trough and Buddy has shed 100 thou, you would want to be capitalising on that opportunity (barring injury, of course)

In relation to this scenario, if you have a 6th mid (likely a rookie) who is averaging around 30ppg whilst your bench rookie mids are doing the same, shipping out this dead weight becomes a priority. Inversely, if you get a gun rookie ala Selwood or Palmer, you can afford to hold on to them for that little bit longer, once again barring injury as not only are they gaining in price rather rapidly, they are doing their bit for your overall team in regards to scoring. Upgrading your 6th mid before your 5th before your 4th, is to me, just a theoretical example which is not always practically possible.

At least, that's how I look at it. Just some more jumbled thoughts.

 

[SydneySwans]

I beleive single position stuctures are irrelavent

It depends on the entire team structure

Good/Interesting Post though

 

[dont bowl there]

I am going for a completely new structure to my mids this season, I am starting 5 mids above the 400k mark with my 6th mid being Haselby...see how it goes.

 

[Saint KFC]

I am going for a completely new structure to my mids this season, I am starting 5 mids above the 400k mark with my 6th mid being Haselby...see how it goes.

Don't you think that you could better invest that money by downgrading a couple of your 400k+ mids to maybe a Boak/Gibbs and a 225-275k player/rookie? I mean, your 400k+ players prices are surely going to depreciate anyway, and I see much better potential in the midfield rookies than the backs and forwards. Surely you could better invest this extra cash by upgrading some of your risky picks/rookie starters in other positions?

To each their own I guess, I just see a significant amount of value in the midranged priced midfield players to ignore all of them bar 1.

 

[Kid A]

I'm not going for a linear or a set team structure - of course I am happy to deviate depending on circumstances. And there is no failproof plan. For example in 07 I upgraded Selwood after round 8 when I thought he had peaked and he went on to average 80+. Last year I held on to Palmer (like most) beyond the first trade-out period and was rewarded with Bartel. I'm not prescribing a fixed plan but a series of likely circumstances as well as likely cash cow cycles. I'm sure you know this Saint KFC, but I'll clarify it in case there are those who think this is meant to be a foolproof or set-in-stone strategy.

 

[the_insid3r]

I think people tend to over analyse their strategies and plans. Keep it simple is my tip and a strategy I use.

This means I will pick the maximum amount of gun players from all positions I can afford. Then complement my round 1 squad with mid / undervalued players (which I hope will score consistently week in week out thus increasing their price to either keepers or possible upgrades) and rookies. And as the season unfolds I will adapt my strategy / thinking depending on circumstances and needs of my squad.

 

[Saint KFC]

I'm not going for a linear or a set team structure - of course I am happy to deviate depending on circumstances. And there is no failproof plan. For example in 07 I upgraded Selwood after round 8 when I thought he had peaked and he went on to average 80+. Last year I held on to Palmer (like most) beyond the first trade-out period and was rewarded with Bartel. I'm not prescribing a fixed plan but a series of likely circumstances as well as likely cash cow cycles. I'm sure you know this Saint KFC, but I'll clarify it in case there are those who think this is meant to be a foolproof or set-in-stone strategy.

Oh, for sure. I wasn't trying to misrepresent you, I just got a bit carried away with my thoughts.

 

[Lakey91]

Great discussion.

I may of mentioned this before, but sometimes i struggle finding balance between having too high and too low aspirations for what my final team will look like.

I could have a starting team that made it easier to have ABC, Swan, Stanton and Kane at the end, but i think having these final 6 is unlikely, but also very very hard to pick.

Look at final mids of dageus (came fourth, not sure who coach was):

Bartel (-1.2)
Corey (+5.2)
Thompson (-0.1)
Murphy (+22.2)
Cross (+3.6)
Stevens (+11.9 on 2007 average, but had a discount meaning he had even more value)

Im not sure of his tactics, but id say he took cross from the start, then had murphy and stevens two who were mid pricers who became keepers as his 4th and 6th mids. Its hard to pick these players who jump up sometimes, but it just shows starting big from the start - with bartel and ablett for example - just isnt necessary.

So maybe ideally the midfield structure would be:

90+ averaging player, consistent, with upside
Mid Pricer whos a potential keeper
Mid Pricer whos a potential keeper
Mid Pricer whos a potential keeper
Lower end value pick
Rookie

With two of the 3 mid pricers becoming keepers (allowance for one failure).

However, this requires ALOT of faith and confidence in backing your midprice selections, and you must be confident they will break out enough to average low-mid 90s.

This sort of leans towards not starting one of ABC or Swan. But someone like corey who has a hot start to the year historically (especially against the teams he's playing), and may play a new role sweeping HB getting cheap inneffective stats (and may go unguarded because of this) makes him very appealing.

But also, it must be noted that there isnt alot of room in a structure like this for players like hasleby, reilly and tuck - priced around 60-65ppg or less, and thus unlikely to become keepers (would require 30ppg increase!). But i must note, every year is different. So maybe these players would fit the 2009 best fit structure. Hopefully they can all average 80-85 and make a straight swap to a fallen ABC.

However, I must compare to baxters final midfield (sorry for posting this! Hope you dont mind? Got it off VS ages ago):

Bartel
Ablett
Corey
Swan
Kane
Cross

Cant get much better than that! I dont know baxters starting lineup, but i think a final midfield like this is more achievable with players like reilly and hasleby who can be straight swapped to fallen ABCS. Id say id start with kane and cross, 3 lower mid pricers (not potential keepers) and a rookie, and this would probably be possible. But this is dangerous, as if the trades dont like up when your lower mid pricers dont peak, you could be left with a player averaging 80-85 in the closing rounds (round 15 onwards), whereas dageus would have a potential keeper (85-95 say) sitting there - much better.

I am kind of just rambling and am quite inexperienced at DT, so forgive a few misconceptions or mistakes.

And now i realise, what i have just thought about is going to do my head in for my starting midfield structure

 

[Saint KFC]

I could have a starting team that made it easier to have ABC, Swan, Stanton and Kane at the end, but i think having these final 6 is unlikely, but also very very hard to pick.

But the beauty of it is that there is, in my opinion, less risk. Say you have a midfield as follows:

A/B/C
Swan/Kornes
Gibbs/Boak/Knights
Midpriced
Midpriced
Rookie

A/B/C + Swan/Kornes are going to remain keepers in your team, barring injury. You are only banking on Gibbs/Boak/Knights improving to a 6th keeper average, whilst hopefully your two midpriced players and rookie will appreciate in value enough for a cheap trade to a fallen premium. On the other hand, let's take your example:

So maybe ideally the midfield structure would be:

90+ averaging player, consistent, with upside
Mid Pricer whos a potential keeper
Mid Pricer whos a potential keeper
Mid Pricer whos a potential keeper
Lower end value pick
Rookie

With two of the 3 mid pricers becoming keepers (allowance for one failure).

Let's assume that the 90+ averaging player with upside is Selwood/Gibbs/Boak. You can be fairly sure that they will improve their averages enough to lock down a keeper spot in your midfield. You would not want the rookie in your final team, or the lower end value pick. You are also allowing for two of your mid pricers to become keepers - if they don't (through injury or whatnot), you are in some serious trouble. But, for arguments sake, let's say that two of your midpricers become keepers whilst one fails.

Your final midfield will likely look something like:

Premium 1
Premium 2
Premium 3
90+ Improver
Midpricer 1
Midpricer 2

Whilst I would personally prefer a final midfield of

Premium 1
Premium 2
Premium 3
Premium 4
Premium 5
90+ Improver

In my opinion, the former midfield strategy is even riskier than the latter. The former is banking on your midpriced players improving their averages enough to be considered keepers - the latter is banking on these midprices players improving their averages enough to be traded out. Just some food for thought.

 

[lifelike_]

Over the last couple of years I've lacked the big names at the end of the year so I'm going for something a little different this year.

I currently have two genuine captaincy options, a near certain keeper, two low-mid price improvers that almost certainly won't be there at the end of the year, and a rookie.

The obvious aim is to keep the first three, and bring in a further three premiums throughout the year.

With the cap increasing to a greater degree than the player prices this year, I'd say the importance of having the best of the best is greater than it was last year, which is what I'm basing the majority of my team on.

 

[Lakey91]

Yes but starting with Ablett, swan and gibbs will mean your mid pricers are NOT keeper material - they will be players like hasleby and reilly. I agree though, that this security is something that is positive.

While those midfields are very different, if you pick out the right midpricers it ends up being very rewarding.

Baxters final mids average was 105.23 (average of averages). Dageus was 100.87

Yet baxter finished 2nd and dageus 4th. Shows that BOTH structures can be very successful. I think the fact dageus picked good mid pricers meant he used less trades in midfield than baxters would of, meaning he was stronger in other areas, and probably had his team set earlier.

In fact, i must point something out i just noticed.

Baxters final team v dageus final team (sorry for analysing boys, hope its ok!)

Backs
B= 82.53
D= 79.3

Mids
B= 105.23
D= 100.87

Rucks were the same

Forwards
B= 94.39
D= 92.09

Overall Points (does not include a captain):
B = 2060.2
D = 1996.7

Baxters final team had averages that meant if his and dageus players all played to their average, baxters would score 63.5 points more. Incredible! Yet they finished just 2 places apart?

This, for me, shows that the structure you have will determine when your team is set by. If you go with the structure of dageus outlined, you will probably be set earlier, but with less quality guns. If you go with a top end structure like KFC talked about, you will have a better final team, but it will take longer to achieve IMO. For this reason, you end up pretty similar in the end.

Im gonna infer this but:

Baxters situation is probably more likely to occur when you start with end in mind, hence why aiming high for your final team with the top guns. Dageus situation is probably more like thinking about getting your team set as early as possible.

 

[stylz]

im going down a different road this year.. im stacking backs and ruck... forwards are fairly stacked too.. with 2 lower priced keepers in mid.. i feel midfield is more volatile and easier to grab a bargain.. lets see how we go!

 

[Saint KFC]

im going down a different road this year.. im stacking backs and ruck... forwards are fairly stacked too.. with 2 lower priced keepers in mid.. i feel midfield is more volatile and easier to grab a bargain.. lets see how we go!

I would argue that the forwards are even more volatile than the mids (in terms of standard deviation), but the quantity of high-priced mids nullifies this. Good luck.