Issue with Roos selection -- SUPER-LEAGUE BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

6/05/26 7:31:45pm [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 24/06/06 3:55:51pm
Author: SL
Subject: Issue with Roos selection

Kangaroos have chose not to select there best side. Players such as Scott Lucas 82, Josh Carr 122 were named as emergencies. There were other players that scored fair scores but because some named on the field did not play, such as Addisson, Sweeney and McConnell players such as Yze 50 and Heath Black 63 took their spot.

There is a couple of rules that are in place to stop this from occuring. The reasons why this can't occur, is for a number of reasons. 1 It is tanking, and it can be construed as a way of getting the best young talent in the draft. 2 It is against the structure of the competition, 3 It is an unfair advantage to a side that wins on the merit of a poorly fielded side.

My suggestion is a warning is served, with a possible loss of draft pick next time it occurs, and both Josh Carr and Scott Lucas is included into the team in place of the two lowest scoring players, as this is not a game that is taking place, it is a fall over. The ultimate result won't be changed, but the percentage will be, which may make a difference in draft picks.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Smart Tatics i thought -- RB, 24/06/06 10:40:37pm [1]

No problem with it as the team selected was legit for a split round.

Would do exactly the same if i had the Kangas squad.

As long as a balanced team is selected & emergencies named cant see a prob as squad depth will come into play.

Its good for the comp to see long term thinking/strategy in place.

Tatics exploiting loop holes in AFL selected sides is 1 of the few avenues we have as coaches to steer the direction of our side short term.

Be interesting to see what the other teams reckon.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Agreed -- Russian, 24/06/06 11:32:17pm [1]

As long as there's 22 players scoring whenever 22 play, it's up to the coach which 22 he wants to play

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Exactly -- Shabby, 25/06/06 12:33:33am [1]

As RB mentioned, this is good tactics. What is the point of naming my best side, finishing maybe 5th last, when I can use tactics and finish 2nd or 3rd last. Exactly what benefit would I get out of finishing as high as possible? I can't win the comp and won't make the finals, so there is no point at all. What benefit would I get out of finishing a bit lower? A better chance to improve my future side.

It's not like this is something only I can do, and its not as if I have cheated in the way of naming an unbalanced side, replacing wrong players, using wrong totals etc. I have 22 players still, it should be up to the coach who they are.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Your kidding guys.. -- SL, 25/06/06 11:57:04am [1]

So your saying tanking is allowed in our competition? We have had negative discussions on this in the past. Now your saying it is acceptable.

Lets look at how it effects our competition putting aside the draft pick problem with the scenario. Team A fields his strongest side against side B, and team A wins. 5 weeks later after suffering a few defeats, team A wants to tank, and does so against team C. Now team C and Team B are vying for one of the bottom positions in the 8 for finals. Because team B got beaten by team A, and team A then tanked against team C, and C won, C team gets the bottom position in the finals. Whilst team B was finally starting to string things together, getting high scores, with a few young guns doing well at seasons end. Had team B been tanked against, to make it fair with team C, team B may of went through the finals ala Bombers in our first year, come from no where and win the flag. Thanks alot team A, for not fielding your strongest side against team C, which would of caused another defeat for team C, giving B the opportunity.

C'mon guys, it not allowed in AFL rules, and it isn't allowed here. This competition has to stay in line with the AFL as much as possible, and to suggest Tanking in AFL is a big NO. Can't happen end of story.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Difficult issue -- MG77B, 25/06/06 1:12:51pm [1]

Take the preseason draft for example. I played the Dodgies the round leading up to the draft. I was above him before the round but lost and therefore had the higher pick. Now I selected my best team, but lost by about 30. Now we both could of tanked the game and easily had the better pick, however we both went for the win and I was lucky/unlucky to loose the match.
I agree with D9 that we always should select our best players. If Carlton rested Fevola and Kouta if they were fit, how long would Pagan last...

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> I agree the aim should be to get the highest score. -- Josh, 25/06/06 2:45:10pm [1]

Otherwise the last half of the season will become a farce as teams aim to get the best picks in the draft.

If teams are poor and need the picks, they will get them anyway as they will just not win.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> I think............................... -- Maxwell, 25/06/06 2:52:26pm [1]

Shouldn't really be doing it.
The draft is there to help those that need the earlier picks.
If one team does it, in this case the Kangaroos and similar positioned teams do not do it, Brians, Dodgies it does not really represent the true position of all the sides.
If I was Walt or Rizzo, I would not be happy with this.
Walt has battled all year and if he puts in his best side every week then he will be disadvantaged by another team who does not.
If you are the bottom side then you deserve the first pick , not a team that has not picked their best 22 each week.
If everyone picks their best 22 each week , then when it comes to draft time, the Draft order really reflects the strength/weakness of all the teams.

Maxwell

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> I think the aim is always to mirror reality -- Walt, 26/06/06 11:16:53pm [1]

So theres no way a coach would not pick Lucas and Carr if they were fit. Makes the game a bit farcical if we have half the teams tanking. The tops I'm sure would find it boring. I'm slowly building a team up and hoping they "gel" before the end of the year, I think with this comp the best player (ie early draft pick) won't necessarily be the best scorer. My best pick up from last year has been Rischitelli, who I selected quite late.

A way you could regulate this is that any player who averages above a certain score (say 70), must be selected in the 22. That way you have to play what would be an automatic selection in the AFL. One for next year.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> I think we have enough negatives from coaches to say the outcome here is.... -- SL, 27/06/06 10:28:08am [1]

A warning to the Roos is now handed out, to say that this type of selection tactics is not on, and that if it happens again this year, then the first round selection will be stripped from your side.

It is not a punishment and you shouldn't see it as one, as you didn't know but if ANY side decides to tank obviously, then they will lose their first round pick also.

Last rounds scores will be the top 18 players score on the list.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> So if i drop Rocca this week -- RB, 27/06/06 2:07:14pm [1]

Are the Fockers tanking,or am i reacting to his poor performances that have contribuited to the last 2 losses ?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Your reacting to his poor form -- SL, 27/06/06 3:05:23pm [1]

You have the right to drop a star player if he is down on form, but if he had of been scoring highly, and you drop him out of the blue, you would just be asked to explain the decision. It is a grey area, but I'm sure moderators can tell whats what.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> With the Fockers @ 8-4 expected that answer,however -- RB, 29/06/06 12:42:21pm [1]

If the Fockers were at 4-8 & Rocca was dropped Q's would probably be asked.The circumstances however are the same (dropping a name player down on form) although the selection of the replacement player would differ.

Fockers 8-4 (going for top 4)..In L.Brown Out A.Rocca
Fockers 4-8 (struggle to make 8).. In M.Pask Out A.Rocca

Understand the concensus opinion here on tanking & have no problem with it but the above is an example of a legitimate tatical change if i beleived the Fockers season was shot & the 8 was not a probable target.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Fair enough guys -- Shabby, 27/06/06 11:40:01pm [1]

Although I disagree, its fair enough.

And to be fair, my intention wasn't really to tank anyway. Being a split round I named a lot of players from last weeks matches in my 22, knowing that most of them wouldn't play and that more recognised players would come in. And also knowing I was playing a strong side and had no chance of winning, I figured I'd give the kids a run. So its not really tanking if I was never going to win anyway.

I just hope I can continue to have some flexibility with my team. I have a lot of kids and I like to play them when they are named, which I think is mirroring reality and in a way developing my side - it's like an AFL club giving them a shot and giving them experience. I will however ensure my gun players are always named which I think is the main issue here. But it would be a great shame if I am accussed of tanking again if I name some unproven youngsters instead of proven players, even though my personal opinion may be that that the kids would be better than the players they replace.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Shabby, I would have no problems at all if you operated per your last paragraph. -- Josh, 28/06/06 8:38:29am [1]

As you said, its about trying to replicate how a club would operate. That is the point about having teams pick to position so that 22 mids aren't named.

A club may well leave out a mid level player to blood youth. Clubs would never leave out their key players though.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Issue with Cats selection -- RB, 11/07/06 12:04:13pm [1]

Brad Ottens scored 121,81,145 & 43 in the 4 weeks prior ranking him in the Cats top 3 players.He was dropped V the Magpies.

Many others for example A.Pattison 42,42,75,31 scored way less.

Dropping Ottens did not make sense & not only did it cost the Cats the game it may cost teams such as the Aints,Groins,Blues & Kangas a final 8 spot.

I quote D9 (SL) from the post having issue with the Kangas dropping Lucas.

2 It is against the structure of the competition, 3 It is an unfair advantage to a side that wins on the merit of a poorly fielded side.

Think a please explain is warranted as with only 24 players avaidable B.Ottens should have been amongst the 1st picked.

cheers RB

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Questionable given MARK BOLTON was brought in -- Walt, 11/07/06 12:34:07pm [1]

And only Cam Mooney as a ruck. If Ottens had been his usual dog self then maybe, but given he'd had a cracker againts Freo, and they were playing the blues so a chance to get some points.

Seems out of the spirit of this game to me and they didn't pick a balanced team IMO.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> It didn't cost the Cats the game......... -- D9, 11/07/06 3:24:26pm [1]

Cats scored 1657, if Ottens played 80 points would of been added to the top section, and the 18th player would of dropped to 19th and out of the score. The 18th player Philip Read scored 54 so his score wouldn't of counted, the difference being 26 points. The Magpies won the game by 29 points.

Jacko hates Ottens, he recons he's useless. I think it is unfoundered, and his scores suggests that.

Jacko dropped Ottens a few weeks ago for the same reason, so it is not a I'm playing Magpies so I will pick to lose, Jacko was actually quiet pissed that he lost. After Murphys scores on the Friday night, and Lynch's score on Saturday, he said to me, there is no way you will beat me this week.

The problem I had with the Kangas was not Lucas at all, it was Lucas, Yze and a coupld of others that scored well previously, Archer was another. That was to tank, pure and simple. This is one player, and Jacko honestly thinks that Pattison is about to step up and play some pretty good football. Put simply, he is a Cats fan that gets very emotional about his footy, I can't have my kids in his house when Geelong are playing, because he yells and swears at the play. He hates Ottens, and I just rang him then, and he said that 45 is not good enough for a key position player, and reiterated that he dislikes him. He said that he will put him back in next week, based on his score, but feels that no one should tell him who he should pick, as he doesn't tell anyone else who to pick.

This case is not tanking, the Cats are vying for a position in the finals, and any bad coaching moves are just that at this stage.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Apoligise for the score error -- RB, 11/07/06 6:00:02pm [1]

Had Pettifer at 70 instead of 67 which would have meant a draw.

After the discussion above the Q needed to be asked though.

The opinions on tanking seemed to revolve around team selection/balance & the majority favoured keeping it realistic by not supporting the demotion of "big name" players in some sort of form.Any guidline/rule needs to be applied to all teams, regardless of ladder position.

If dropping high scoring "big name" players for emotional reasons is deemed acceptable for 1 team then this should also apply to all teams/players regardless of ladder position.Also if you can drop 1 player on emotion then that can be extended to multiple players.

Team selection is probably to variable to be governed by rigid Rules but maybe at the end of the year a set of guidlines regarding balance/form/experience can be put together.

cheers RB

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Apoligise for the score error -- RB, 11/07/06 6:01:21pm [1]

Had Pettifer at 70 instead of 67 which would have meant a draw.

After the discussion above the Q needed to be asked though.

The opinions on tanking seemed to revolve around team selection/balance & the majority favoured keeping it realistic by not supporting the demotion of "big name" players in some sort of form.Any guidline/rule needs to be applied to all teams, regardless of ladder position.

If dropping high scoring "big name" players for emotional reasons is deemed acceptable for 1 team then this should also apply to all teams/players regardless of ladder position.Also if you can drop 1 player on emotion then that can be extended to multiple players.

Team selection is probably to variable to be governed by rigid Rules but maybe at the end of the year a set of guidlines regarding balance/form/experience can be put together.

cheers RB

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> I agree with RB. -- Josh, 11/07/06 7:08:08pm [1]

Looking at that squad there is no way Ottens would have been dropped.

Now I take the point that he dropped Ottens due to reasons other than tanking, but this makes it almost impossible to regulate.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Yes not liking a player is no excuse -- Walt, 12/07/06 10:22:35am [1]

We don't have the benefit of dropping players for disciplinary reasons a la Akermanis. Playing "the kids" is no excuse either because they play anyway.

The team had no recognised ruckman so Ottens should've been in it. It didn't make any difference so we shouldn't get too excited but fact is we want to stop the end of the season becoming farcical with teams colluding or going for draft picks. While we don't want to tell Jacko how to run his team (and I don't think we are), all comps have rules and you gotta follow them to avoid anarchy.

So next week I could drop Bradshaw because he's an inconsistant poonce (he scored over 150 last week) and go for the priority pick.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> I agree with RB. -- Josh, 11/07/06 7:10:53pm [1]

Looking at that squad there is no way Ottens would have been dropped.

Now I take the point that he dropped Ottens due to reasons other than tanking, but this makes it almost impossible to regulate.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Happy for Ottens to be a Dawk -- Maxwell, 12/07/06 3:10:36pm [1]

Jason and Dermie would be happy for him to move to Waverly and be a Dawk.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Should do your best in naming best side available on form. -- Maxwell, 12/07/06 3:20:28pm [1]

Obviously there would be differences in opinions between coaches on best 22.
That's O.K.

Should name at least 2 players that can play ruck each week.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Plus a minimum of 5 forward/defensive talls (3 and 2 or vice versa) -- Howie, 12/07/06 3:53:59pm [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]