SA Footy

Seriously how shit is the sub rule. Players are getting tired, coaches hate it and they bring in a new concussion rule (that actually makes sense) to make it even harder. For us fantasy coaches we now have the prospect of THREE OR FOUR BYES to contend with for our premiums.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/c ... 6034354677

So if you have Dane Swan as most do, you will have to factor in the two byes plus he is a monty to be rested for that clash against the Gold Coast. Monkey see Monkey do when it comes to watching what the Premiers do so all of a sudden Gold Coast becomes the second bye in terms of your premium players who all of a sudden get a visit from 'The General'.

So not only is the sub rule pissing off the real coaches it is pissing us off as well.

regards,

REB

Not only that, I'd be pissed off paying money to watch these blokes play only to find out they're out with "general soreness!!"

I'm having recurring nightmares of the 2009 'St Kilda flu'

Quichey wrote:I'm having recurring nightmares of the 2009 'St Kilda flu'

Impossible to plan for. Do you go with Pendles and cop a lower weekly score or do you cop a rookie on field when the general visits for the GC game. Meanwhile Andrew Krak racks up either 40 if he's subbed or 120 if he's not during the same game.

ACK.

regards,

REB

I'd like a general soreness plague to hit the AFL's elite players when the play the bottom clubs, it will make a mockery of the sub rule and they'll be forced to dump it.

We're all in the same boat though, so it evens itself out over the year. Personally, I think it adds to the drama. I've already been stung by the sub rule but still getting decent scores so I'm not fussed

Fantasy footy aside, I like the sub rule.

Bum Crack wrote:We're all in the same boat though, so it evens itself out over the year. Personally, I think it adds to the drama. I've already been stung by the sub rule but still getting decent scores so I'm not fussed

I like it too BC. It means that if you are posting solid scores every week, you have a chance of beating your opposition every week no matter who they are.

Ingall wrote:Fantasy footy aside, I like the sub rule.

Can you explain to me how making players more fatigued leads to a decrease in injury? You might not be running as fast but surely a tired body is closer to breaking point than a rested one. I also believe that the effects of fatigue will culminate over the season and that will effect the recovery rate of players. Sorry mate but Niel Craig I am not. I just don't see the benefits.

This rule is a dud.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:

Ingall wrote:Fantasy footy aside, I like the sub rule.

Can you explain to me how making players more fatigued leads to a decrease in injury? You might not be running as fast but surely a tired body is closer to breaking point than a rested one. I also believe that the effects of fatigue will culminate over the season and that will effect the recovery rate of players. Sorry mate but Niel Craig I am not. I just don't see the benefits.

This rule is a dud.

regards,

REB

I like the rule too, if for no other reason that I think it's made the game more attractive to watch, by opening up the play and keeping the bigger blokes more involved.

I'd consider changing it so that 2 emergencies/subs could sit on the bench, leaving the coach with options for the type of player they might be replacing.

Anyone see on the couch on Monday? Paul Roos gave a great insight to the discussions between the coaches and Adrian anderson

Perhaps you could ask big bloke Mark Blake about his level of involvement this season.

regards,

REB

What's wrong with capping interchanges at 20 or 25 per quarter?
Just make it up as we go along as per usual.

Rik E Boy wrote:Perhaps you could ask big bloke Mark Blake about his level of involvement this season.

regards,

REB

He's a useless spud anyway

Slightly off topic but not worth a hole thread to itself, the sub rule has taken away a fair bit of enjoyment i get from playing fantasy football comps.

I hate the fact the all of mine or opponenets ('hardwork, study, knowledge') can all be undone by a factor no one except for AFL coaching panels know about. I dont anyone enjoys winning a game because because the other opponent had two blokes that happened to be the sub that week, and i would hate to lose that way as well.

Talking to a few blokes at football training who enjoy and play fantasy football although not serious feel the same way as well. It all becomes a bit to hard and a part of the charm has gone in their opinion. There now not really to fussed as even when they spend a bit of time on their team it can be and has been undone by subs scoring 20-30 points after having a great week before.

Interested in other peoples thoughts.

whufc wrote:Slightly off topic but not worth a hole thread to itself, the sub rule has taken away a fair bit of enjoyment i get from playing fantasy football comps.

I hate the fact the all of mine or opponenets ('hardwork, study, knowledge') can all be undone by a factor no one except for AFL coaching panels know about. I dont anyone enjoys winning a game because because the other opponent had two blokes that happened to be the sub that week, and i would hate to lose that way as well.

Talking to a few blokes at football training who enjoy and play fantasy football although not serious feel the same way as well. It all becomes a bit to hard and a part of the charm has gone in their opinion. There now not really to fussed as even when they spend a bit of time on their team it can be and has been undone by subs scoring 20-30 points after having a great week before.

Interested in other peoples thoughts.

I agree to some extent. It's just another headache we have to deal with!
They should have an option of being able to pick the score between your listed Emergency player and the on-field score of the player if he started as a sub. That way, we won't get screwed as much.

Drop Bear wrote:

whufc wrote:Slightly off topic but not worth a hole thread to itself, the sub rule has taken away a fair bit of enjoyment i get from playing fantasy football comps.

I hate the fact the all of mine or opponenets ('hardwork, study, knowledge') can all be undone by a factor no one except for AFL coaching panels know about. I dont anyone enjoys winning a game because because the other opponent had two blokes that happened to be the sub that week, and i would hate to lose that way as well.

Talking to a few blokes at football training who enjoy and play fantasy football although not serious feel the same way as well. It all becomes a bit to hard and a part of the charm has gone in their opinion. There now not really to fussed as even when they spend a bit of time on their team it can be and has been undone by subs scoring 20-30 points after having a great week before.

Interested in other peoples thoughts.

I agree to some extent. It's just another headache we have to deal with!
They should have an option of being able to pick the score between your listed Emergency player and the on-field score of the player if he started as a sub. That way, we won't get screwed as much.

totally agree, i dont mind extra headaches as long as there is a way we can use our knowledge/smarts to decide the outcome of the game.

this is something someone on tooserious wrote which i tend to agree with like you said Drop Bear

Seriously, those who run SC and DT should've instituted a sub arrangement where each player could designate a certain bench player on their team a "sub".

This player can only be used in place of a player in your SC or DT team's selected 22 on ground players if one is used as a sub.

In other words, those who had Lower or Krak last week could choose to take their score, or use the score of the substitute player instead.

This is a very very simple solution to a problem which could go a ways towards ruining the game. I'd hate to see this sub rule contribute to someone winning or losing the $50K or a final.

My head hurts again.

Rik E Boy wrote:

Ingall wrote:Fantasy footy aside, I like the sub rule.

Can you explain to me how making players more fatigued leads to a decrease in injury? You might not be running as fast but surely a tired body is closer to breaking point than a rested one. I also believe that the effects of fatigue will culminate over the season and that will effect the recovery rate of players. Sorry mate but Niel Craig I am not. I just don't see the benefits.

This rule is a dud.

regards,

REB

I know that's why it was brought in, but I'm not sure whether it will decrease injury or not. I'm actually not that fussed about that side of it. I like it because tired teams make mistakes and mistakes make for good football entertainment. I get no joy out of watching a team clinically take it from full back to the goal without the opposition touching it. Tired players may not be able to break free from their man as easily, meaning more one on one contests. It might mean that young skilled footballers who don't have the best beep test but can actually kick straight might get a guernsey because the requirement to go flat out all day is slightly diminished. I also like the tactical aspect to it for coaches.

I agree that it sucks for fantasy football, but for me it's more to do with how VS decided to handle it (ie, to ignore it) than a problem with the rule itself.

Where possible, if a player in my team is named on the bench for his respective team for that round I'll put him on the bench in my supercoach, as the players named on the bench are more likely to start as a sub than players named in the starting 18. At this stage it's worked out ok cause most of the players i have have started on the field, but give it a few weeks when injuries hit it could be just pot luck. I like the idea that if you have a player who is subbed out or starts as sub you get the points out of either said sub or an elected emergency for that position whichever is greater.