NEW - Fantasy footy comp

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by ugg
Try to make sure they're only used for real emergencies and not trying to fit in another midfielder in the a back position.

Hey, my backs score pretty well!

[m0nty]

Yes, I'm with you on that one, no interchanging between positions.

I have two choices: implement what I was thinking of doing originally, which was to allow people to make changes to their team while the round is live but only for players whose games have not started yet (which is how American competitions do it); or implement an emergency system to automatically replace zero-scoring players from the bench. I'll certainly have both systems in place for next season and the commissioner can choose between the two (or have both).

For the emergency system, my thinking is that I would not ask people to nominate emergencies, as that would be too complicated. You would merely get the lowest-scoring bench player of the same type swapped in automatically, with the proviso that if the player is in the utility position, if there are no eligible bench players of that type, you try to take one of the other two eligible types.

[ugg]

That's because they aren't really 'backs' at all. Your two 'backmen' scored more in goals than your three 'forwards'!

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by ugg
That's because they aren't really 'backs' at all. Your two 'backmen' scored more in goals than your three 'forwards'!

Well McPharlin did start as a back, but agree that Lucas' categorisation was a little dodgy - but I just took advantage of that!!! It's all about being a shrewd coach

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
Edit: Though check this out. Some people have way too much time on their hands m0nty

Yeah - I spotted the preview pages this week - really well done.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by ugg
Try to make sure they're only used for real emergencies and not trying to fit in another midfielder in the a back position.

My thought was something like:

You can nominate one player as emergency.

If a player is injured and scores less than X, then the emergency's score is taken instead.

X can be a set number (say 5 or 10) or it can be set by each team before the game.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
My thought was something like:

You can nominate one player as emergency.

If a player is injured and scores less than X, then the emergency's score is taken instead.

X can be a set number (say 5 or 10) or it can be set by each team before the game.

I don't know whether compensating for a player injured in the course of a game is worth getting into - agree about not being penalised for a player who doesn't even take the field though.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Mike_B
I don't know whether compensating for a player injured in the course of a game is worth getting into

Given there are so few players in a team, each score is pretty important, so when a player goes down in the first few minutes, it can often cost you the match.

[m0nty]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Given there are so few players in a team, each score is pretty important, so when a player goes down in the first few minutes, it can often cost you the match.

I agree with that. With the way FanFooty's scores are structured, triggering emergencies when a player doesn't score anything gives a bit of latitude - he could get injured after four possessions, a mark and a tackle but still qualify.

[ugg]

Can someone tell me why the final scores differ to the 'live' scoreboard?

e.g. final scores
Mul 175 SHU 156
live scoreboard
Mul 187 SHU 183

[ScottH]

Have you chgd your team, since the end of the round?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Mike_B
I think the scoring of tackles needs to be reviewed - too many points for tackles, and that's where Bolton scored big today.

Score for tackles should be about half or a third of what they are.

J Bolton had 11 tackles on Sunday, of which 4 were effective. Kirk had 8 tackles - 3 effective. Buchanan had 3 tackles, but 2 effective.

Interestingly, the Swans had 26 effective tackles of 66 attempted (39%) while the Eagles had 29 of 61 (48%).

[ugg]

Originally posted by ScottH
Have you chgd your team, since the end of the round?

Ah, thats it. Thanks Scott, you genius.

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Score for tackles should be about half or a third of what they are.

J Bolton had 11 tackles on Sunday, of which 4 were effective. Kirk had 8 tackles - 3 effective. Buchanan had 3 tackles, but 2 effective.

Interestingly, the Swans had 26 effective tackles of 66 attempted (39%) while the Eagles had 29 of 61 (48%).

The question would be how many times has 10+ tackles occurred this season? It seems an unusually high number and so it should be rewarded with such a score.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by ugg
The question would be how many times has 10+ tackles occurred this season? It seems an unusually high number and so it should be rewarded with such a score.

Sure - it's a great effort - I'm just not sure if it is quite worth the same as someone kicking 8 goals or getting 50 possessions!

[liz]

Whatever scoring system a game uses there will be arguments about whether stat x = stat y. So long as the rules are in place at the start of the draft so everyone knows what they're drafting for, I don't see it really matters.

You could equally well argue that 30+ possessions from a Luke Hodge where half of them are uncontested chips in the back 50 are not worth the same as a dozen contested possessions by a Ryan O'Keefe (say) linking between the midfield and forward zone. Yet it's hard to come up with a scoring system that distinguishes between quality (or difficulty / value factor) of disposals.

Like any game played amongst people of broadly similar levels of knowledge, there's a huge amount of luck.