Cow Talk R5 → R6

Written by Father Dougal on July 8 2020

Small or Far Away – Father Dougal on Cows


Hi Everybody!

So, I have two things to talk about this week. Normally I’d do a week on each, but I didn’t manage much last week, and I don’t really want to wait on either one. 

Is this because each is half baked, and both together make a Frankenstein’s monster- like full baked idea? 

Nope, these are both fully baked ideas. I think. Anyways….

The Rule of Three is a pagan magic ish sort of deal where your good and bad intentions towards others will come back to you three times. A reason to not send out bad mojo to people. In Supercoach the Rule of Three is that every score impacts a player’s price three times and thus has its maximum impact three rounds after it happened. I can’t imagine why I thought about this after last round..

Bailey Smith

Yes, right, anyways, if a player, who may or may not be named Bailey Smith, were to score a 3 in round 5, then we would see the maximum impact of that score at the beginning of 5 + 3 = Round 8. See below:

The same thing is true for high scores of course. That is more relevant to cows, although it does matter for players like Lachie Neale, in that their price can get really high after a monster score of two, before drifting back down as their scores return to earth.  For examples of the Rule of Three on Cows, see King and Taylor in the Forwards this week. 

Anyways, if  someone had put up a bad score three rounds ago…

Lachie Whitfield 

Yes, who scored  an 8 in Round 3 and it is now three rounds later, so he’s at his “low” price. Assuming he doesn’t spud up again of course, which with Whitfield is pretty likely. But if he averages 100 from here out he is only costing $4,402 per point and he could manage to do better. Or get hurt again. Nothing like getting to a bottom price and then doing another single digit score. 


You scared the Hamster!

I’m scaring me and I haven’t brought him in!


Well, yet, I am thinking about him, It is hard not too, even with the risk. He is a bit of a shield at this point. At 48.9% owned with more adding him this week, if he does go off the chain, it could hurt to not have him. 

So, in Round 8 Bailey Smith will be at a low price somewhere around $400k, depending on how he does when he gets back. Assuming he does not miss a week. If you own him, there is no point in selling and taking the loss, but if you don’t own him, then have the cash ready to bring him in. 


So what is the other thing?

The other thing is something I learned from the very first ever wiki. 

Wait, like there was really a first one, and you know which one it was?

Yup., run by Ward Cunningham, who was the person who invented and named wikis. For reals

And you are sharing that not useful trivia because…?

Because I’m stealing AnAccpetableWayOfFailing from it.

You ever hear of spaces?

Yeah, but no spaces is how links used to be done

And we used to start fires with flint and tinder and now we have plugs in the walls that magic fire comes from. The Supercoach parts please. 

Sigh. Kids these days. Anyways, often in business, or all sort of things really, people would prefer to do a thing they are comfortable doing even if they know it won’t work. Like, for example, every software project you do is late and over budget, but instead of trying a new way of doing software, you do it the same way as last time, because new things are scary, and if you do a new thing and it doesn’t work, then you get in trouble, but if you do things the same way as always, then you don’t get fired because even though you failed you failed in an acceptable way. 

That sounds dumb!

It is, but people are like that. And, I have been realizing, it happens in Supercoach too. 


I think most commonly by selecting high scoring but expensive players. Also by selecting well known ones. Extra when a player is both. 

But you can’t get fired for doing badly at Supercoach! You’re evidence of that.

Thank you soo much. Yeah, but you can be mad at yourself. There is emotional comfort in doing the safe thing, even if it is a bad idea. 

Like paying $763,800 for Lachie Neale, because he is the highest scoring player in the game, even though you are probably buying him at top price, and could make much better use of the money?

Exactly like that!

Or, rather than bringing in Jordan Ridley with an average of 112.5 for $460,000, bringing in Jake Lloyd who is averaging 111.4 for $585,700?  

Yes, exactly like that too!

But Lloyd has scored well a lot in the past, and Ridley might not. He might just go at 90 for the rest of the year for, um, reasons, in which case he is still a better value per point than Lloyd…wait….ohhhhh…..

I say “exactly” a third time.  

Rule of Three!

Well, you’re not wrong. But, bringing in Lloyd this week would be doing something that feels safe rather than something that increases your chance of scoring more points.  There are a lot of better players to bring in. The only benefit to bringing in Lloyd is emotional comfort. He is the safe option. Not a good option, just the safe feeling one. 

He is not a good option because of his high price / point? 

Correct. You could pay even more but there is little benefit to bringing in guys who cost a lot per point. To be clear though, that is the points expected in the future. Yeo, for example, is not a bargain if he keeps scoring at his current rate, but he is if he scores at 105+ for the rest of the season. Same with The Bont. He is at a terrible price / point at his current average. Anyone getting him now is expecting him to improve. 

Guys like Ridley, who are a low price/point at their current average, are extra good. Even more so if their cost/point would be good even if their average dropped off. Jy Simpkin is another one. Worth it even if their average drops, and no reason to think that will happen. 

Are their options worse than Lloyd and Lloyd-like players? 

Oh sure. Has beens. Old guys who used to be great options but no longer are, like, oohhh…..

Oh no! He’s gonna say it! Out loud!

Patrick Dangerfield.


I’m saying it. He currently costs $5,538 / point. If he goes at 110 for the rest of the season that is still a cost of $5,060, which is ok but not good. And, that is a 9.4 improvement over his current average. Now if he manages 115 per round from here out, which was his last season’s average, he would be just $4,840 / point which is pretty good. Still more than Jack Steele, who already has an average of 117.6. 

Let’s look at that more:


Steel: $558,400 with an average of 117.6 costs $4,748.3 / point

Danger: $556,600 with an average of 100.6 costs $5,532.8 / point


What you get when you buy Steele is lots of cheap points. What you get when you buy Dangerfield is memories of times past.

(Starts playing  “Glory Days” by Bruce Springsteen) 

Aren’t you being a bit harsh?


He meant me, and in terms of bringing Dangerfield, in, no, I don’t think so. I do think he has more good years in him from the Cats point of view, just like Gary Jr. did after he stopped being a good Supercoach selection. He is better now than many players ever will be. But, he is not a good Supercoach option at this time. 


This is a mad season. If ever there was a time to risk losing while trying something that doesn’t feel comfortable, this is the time. And, you might do a lot better doing the scary stuff! As if paying less money for more points is scary!




Starcevich: Could easily hit his BE and go back to making some money. Not actually urgent to trade out and still a decent chance of points if started. 

Noble: Did not play

Brander: Did not play

Young: Scored a 109 in Round 4, so Rule of Three says he will probably need to go R7 or soon after. 

Doedee: A cow like object rather than a cow, but I did his numbers for myself so why not share? Could well be a straight swap to Bailey Smith! Vague chance he is a season keeper. 




Brown: “Hard to say how long he will last, but even one more week would be great.”  I meant one more week of good scoring. Argh. Well, he could make money again after the 29 drops out of his three round average, but I don’t think I would wait until R9 to get rid of him in the hopes of a smidge more cash in the distant future. Voted most likely to be culled this round by the Cow Talk Advisory Panel. (Aka, the C-TAP)

Rowell: Bugger.

Mcinerney: Steady gowing, at least until a high or low score pushes him up or down. Not ripe yet

Hayden: Who? This guy was totally off my radar and yet he’s been a fine cow and looks to have some growth in him still. Only in 1.1% of teams, so I guess I am not alone in having missed him. Good on anyone who has him. 




Pittonet: Big score R3, big price R6. But he could easily put up another big score and his BE is only 76. If he does put up a big score vs…checking….Tim English!!! Yeah, English is scoring ok now because of his work around the ground. But, opposition rucks are doing just fine against him. I’m holding at least one more week, just in case. Besides I have other more urgent uses for trades than trading him out. 




Budarick: Less boring, in the sense bad scores are not boring. His DPP makes Brown the more likely to go and he could also make money again with a decent score. Nothing wrong with culling him now though. 

King: At some point he is going to put up a big score, and then he will make some cash.” It was kind of him to put up a big score right after I wrote that, but it was clear watching him it was going to happen at some point. If we are lucky, he’ll do it again in R6 or R7 and push his price up even. That’s way less sure though. 

Taylor: “ ideally the big scores come later. Hopefully he’ll get that mojo back.” Well, he got his mojo back! Was not a prediction with Taylor, just a hope. Also would benefit from good scores R6 and R7. With even decent scores he should be within $60k-ish of being turned into Bailey Smith on R8. 

Vandermeer: Since he was only at $176,500 when he scored 99, he won’t each the same heights as Taylor. But, he will rise a lot from it, and he would really benefit from another good score. No idea if he will get one, or if he will even play next week. 


Dodgy Advice

I started giving dodgy advice last season and totally forgot about it this season. I was struggling to give non-dodgy advice! But, now that I have remembered, I’m gonna get back to it. Anyways, while I don’t think a focus on value is at all dodgy, there is a dodgy player going cheap for his possible output. Jack Steven is at just $306K and if he manages to pump out 80s for the rest of the season would cost just $3,825 or so per point. If he manages 90s he would be at about $3,400 per point. He could even end up making $100k or more with a well placed high score. If you can’t stretch your funds to afford someone more expensive that you like, he’s an option. Heck, he an option even if you have more money, if you think he can score at  say, 80-85+ then he’s a bargain. Might be one next week still….


Remember the Cow Talk guarantee, all advice wrong or triple your money back! (Offer not valid if money is actually involved.)


Thanks for reading!



Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom

14 thoughts on “Cow Talk R5 → R6”

  1. Great work FD!! Always love reading your posts. You mentioned both Yeo and Steele and I’m really struggling to pick between the two for my second trade this week.
    T/U: Yeo’s been on my radar for a few weeks and last week’s big score looks really promising. Surely it’s a sign for good things to come?
    T/D: Steele has been consistently good over the last 5 matches but will his tagging role potentially hinder his scoring capacity throughout the rest of the year?
    Who do you think will average higher till the end of the year and who would you put in if you had the choice between the two? (I’m upgrading from Brown and have the cash for either player)


  2. Yep. Absolutely with you on holding Pittonet for one more week, FD. Had previously wanted to go early on him to get on edge over the competition, but he’ll spank English this week. Will move him on next week instead.

    Great write up, habib.



    Thursday July 9, 7:40pm at the SCG


    B: J. Kolodjashnij, M. Blicavs, J. Henry

    HB: M. O’Connor, H. Taylor, J. Bews

    C: B. Parfitt, P. Dangerfield, C. Guthrie

    HF: Z. Tuohy, E. Ratugolea, M. Duncan

    F: Q. Narkle, T. Hawkins, L. Dahlhaus

    FOLL: D. Fort, J. Selwood, S. Menegola

    I/C: G. Ablett, G. Rohan, S. Simpson, G. Miers

    EMG: L. Fogarty, J. Clark, J. Parsons, Z.Guthrie

    IN: S. Simpson

    OUT: J. Steven (Managed)


    B: R. Lester, H. Andrews, D. Gardiner

    HB: D. Rich, G. Birchall, B. Starcevich

    C: M. Robinson, D. Zorko, H. McCluggage

    HF: J. Berry, E. Hipwood, C. Rayner

    F: Z. Bailey, D. McStay, C. Cameron

    FOLL: O. McInerney, J. Lyons, L. Neale

    I/C: C. Ah Chee, L. McCarthy, S. Martin, T. Berry

    EMG: S. Skinner, A. Witherden, R. Mathieson, N. Answerth

    IN: D. Zorko

    OUT: C. Ellis-Yolmen (Injured)


  4. Thanks for the entertaining explanations O Father.

    Aging champions might feel nice and cozy and they’re capable of pumping out a big score still, but nowhere as consistently as they used to. But just enough to tempt you into thinking they might be “back”.

    You see this all the time with batsmen in cricket. Tubby Taylor survived years in the Australian captaincy (and therefore the team) by being able to score a century just often enough to save him from the axe and a lucrative Fujitsu sponsorship.

    My golden rule in Supercoach: don’t select anyone over the age of 30*.

    (OK, I had Hurn in my team last year, but it’s still my golden rule, startingggggggg……… NOW)


  5. Great work FD!

    I’ve been struggling with deciding between Ridley and Lloyd all week.

    This is definitely some food for thought!



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *