Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 7 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

Remove this Banner Ad

Not a solution and mute argument as AFL
won’t do it or even consider it

I am an advocate each team plays each other twice.

So as to minimise player fatigue you cap the games each player can play in a season.

Increase your lists and have coaches manage their lists better and be tactically better in picking sides to play games by relying on a squad rather than best 22.

As a follower of EPL there are some big games played such as cup ties where best players are left out because of scheduling etc but managers plan game style and opposition to fit with the players playing that game.

The integrity of the AFL is lost when they decide the draw.
Hypothetically, if you lift list sizes by the same percentage of increased games you are adding, the number of players on each list would be 62. Which is +18 per club, if you pair that increase up with the 62 that Tasmania will need in a few years under this system, then you really start to get a grasp on why this could never happen.

Even if they added just an extra 10 to each list, you've got to find 230 odd players.
 
Hypothetically, if you lift list sizes by the same percentage of increased games you are adding, the number of players on each list would be 62. Which is +18 per club, if you pair that increase up with the 62 that Tasmania will need in a few years under this system, then you really start to get a grasp on why this could never happen.

Even if they added just an extra 10 to each list, you've got to find 230 odd players.

It won’t happen and you don’t need to increase lists proportionally

What we have now is a manufactured draw that is so compromised but it is what it is
 

Log in to remove this ad.

To buy or sell or swap anything it has to be of equal value. Geelong must pay what Smith is worth, he is a number 7 draft pick about to enter his prime years. That is not worth pick 15 (which won’t even be 15 by the time of draft). I would be requesting a player of EQUAL value.
 
How would people recommend we address our midfield issues if SDK ends up being involved in a Smith trade?

I'm a big fan of his, I just don't know that it's the best use of our assets.
Take Urquhart late and win the race for Peatling.
Then hit the draft next year.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Glad SDK is staying.

We don't need another key position player. Let's move players around i.e Naughton or develop our young stocks like Buss & Croft.

We need quality midfielders & elite high half forwards.
 
Poulter looks better at Afl level than vfl level. Some players just do.
Watching a few of the VFL games this year I’d go as far as suggesting VFL appears to be umpired totally differently to AFL.. Especially their HTB interpretation?
Transition from multiple AFL games back to VFL probably isn’t a great indicator of how a players going?
Agree Poulter was “ordinary” in that VFL final though…
 
To buy or sell or swap anything it has to be of equal value. Geelong must pay what Smith is worth, he is a number 7 draft pick about to enter his prime years. That is not worth pick 15 (which won’t even be 15 by the time of draft). I would be requesting a player of EQUAL value.

But the media line is that we should shut the hell up, accept a pick in the 20s and go away and if Geelong trade that pick away and we have to accept another crappy pick then tough luck.
 
I just love this time of year... especially on here.

If only this week and the actual trade period could be condensed... into about 72 hours in total! (Given clubs, managers and players have had preliminary discussions and most know the lie of the land weeks (or months) beforehand, as we all know this is just more AFL desperation to remain relevant during a down-time, because they want to dominate the news cycle all year round.)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 7 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top