We all know 2020 is a crazy season, but with this season, loopholes have been easily available. Seeing a game on Thursday night and then no real game overlapping another, gives many more opportunities to pull off a loophole.
Many of you know what you are doing to pull off this loophole, especially with your captains. However, it’s been a common occurrence where coaches are making questions on whether a score should be taken or set aside, going for a bigger one.
These questions usually have quite an easy answer, so why are they being asked? Well, for starters, Grundy, Gawn and Neale are all averaging 130+. However, coaches, have you ever set yourself a limit on what value you will take for your VC loophole? Don’t have one? Let me explain what usually occurs on a week-by-week basis, all starting with Round 6.
Last round it was clear to see a few were tossing up whether to take Neale’s solid score of 134. For many, no questions would be asked here, but for some I was seeing questions on whether to go for Gawn, Grundy or even Goldstein.
Why question a score like this?
How often do you end up seeing a score above 130 and if it goes above 130, how much more does it go past? Are you expecting a score of 150?
If that player you picked did score that 150, like Gawn did with 153, well done, you scored an extra 19 points. Was that 19 points worth the risk? If you went with Grundy, he only managed 107 for the round, losing you 27 points. It’s not so bad, at least Grundy still broke the ton. What if you went with Cripps, he only pulled out 56. That is a loss of 78 points!
That is a big waste of 78 points all trying to scrounge another 15 or so meagre points. Looking over the length of a season, those 78 points would take some time to earn back for your overall. Taking those gambles every week for 15 points, it’d take 5 weeks, with everything going right to get it back. Don’t be surprised if it fails during this time, and you’re right back where you started!
Take a step back and notice that Neale had the 9th highest score for the week. And you were planning on challenging it! Of course, this is all in hindsight and you wouldn’t have known this from the first game of the round, but how often do you see a player score 150+ in a game every season? It isn’t occurring on a week-by-week basis.
So is it worth you trying to get, let’s say an extra 15 – 20 points, all for the risk of losing points you already have banked? You can win some, lose some, but when you win, it isn’t usually a massive win. If you lose however, you can cop a massive blow, due to an injury or just an average day.
If you’re going for a gameday win, then go ahead, knock yourself out! If it is more for, overall position is it really worth going under so much pressure all for a couple extra points?
So what is the bar you set for claiming a VC loophole score? Are you a greedy coach or do you like to sit back and relax with what you have?
Loading ...Rookies are on another level! We have little information about them, so they can be absolutely hit and miss. Aarts goes from 76 to 28, where Curtis Taylor goes from 100 to 15! What is a value you would stick with for a rookie loophole?
Loading ...Here’s a hypothetical question for you: your VC Neale plays on the Thursday night and scores 120. You have 2 players to choose from as your captain, Gawn or Grundy. However they play each other this week. From their last 2 meetings Grundy hasn’t made a ton, but is in form, averaging 140 his last 5 rounds. Gawn on the other hand went 153 and 99, and hasn’t been consistent his last few games.
What do you do in this situation? Stick to the Lachie bird in your hand or go for either of Gawn/Grundy as captain in the bush?
Let me know your answer in Comments.
Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom
Depends on weekly matchups. Neale could go 145 but if Gawn is playing the Swans I’d back him to go 160+. Worse case scenario he scores 135 and statistically the chance of a Gawn injury is 1/55.
Great analysis Natopotato88.
Thanks Roo Bloke
???
Deano, you’re confused about something??
There is another risk with the rookie loophole however, where you bench a playing rookie to bank a sore of say 70, which then results in you not having any emergency cover, and copping a donut when you can’t cover a late out. Be careful doing this if it will leave you exposed for more than a couple of players. I have been burnt more than once like this in the past.
I must admit that is something I always forget about, as I just assume my premos won’t be out and my rookies are usually fine.
Just waiting for it to happen to me now
That’s why the non-playing R3 works super well for loopholing purposes. Works even better if the R3 has DPP and even better still if they’ve got a LTI so there’s no chance of them getting a game. Comben has been great for this exact reason.
That one always makes me a tad nervous, too. I do it fairly regularly, and it hasn’t blown up in my face yet, but it’s definitely something I think about.
Exactly….when I loop like this, I set my alarm on my mobile to go off 30 mins before game.
Something like this happens once a season at most
Hardly, Robertson R1 this year.
Plenty of examples of bench/C loophole over the season that backfires with late changes.
I meant once a season to each individual supercoach participant
Great thread, the amount of people I know or saw that didn’t take Neale’s 134 and went Grundy was staggering.
Always 125+ for me, maybe even 120-124 depending on the confidence of Grundy/Gawns opponent.
Ive always stuck to Gawn/Grundy VC/Capt if the fixture allows for it, it just doesnt ever come back to bite.
Totally agree the Grawn loop…set and forget. This round, my oppt had v on Neale, but I had Grawn in a $100 cash league…he switched to Grundy which effectively gave me a free hit….I won by 4pts.
Even in that hypothetical scenario, I’d risk the 120 and put the C on Gawn. It comes down to a 50/50 scenario: are you more than 50% confident that you’ll achieve your desired outcome?
In this instance:
– The odds of Gawn getting injured early and scoring next to nothing is very small
– The odds of Gawn scoring somewhat poorly (i.e.: 80-100) are nominal
– The odds of Gawn scoring around the mark (i.e.: 110-130) are about average
– The odds of Gawn going HUGE (i.e.: 140+) are nominal, but probably slightly better that scoring 80-100
Been writing the captaincy articles this season and have encouraged people to pass up 130s when I’m reliably confident that there’s a 150+ later in the weekend.
Eg. I passed on VC Neale’s 134 last week because I was confident Big Maxxy would slap Witts around – and he did. Similarly, I recall Jeannot (site regular ranked in the top 1k) passing up a similar score from Neale a few weeks ago knowing Gawn would pound Richmond, against whom he had a great record.
The extra points netted from a captaincy moves like that pay off given most people go for an early Thursday/Friday night VC and take anything above 125. With things still close in the top 10k, I think it’s worth hunting for those extra points but ONLY when the data, form and history suggest an impending big score from your chosen C.
Normally I would take anything above 125 but with averages being 140+ I am now at 135 for a VC.
With rookies 60-70 is what I aim for depending on who they are
I almost forgot, but thanks Motts for posting this! This has been a brilliant site over the years and has continued to bring me back week after week!
Keep up the outstanding work you put in day after day!
Thank YOU mate!
That’s why IMO SCTTL is the most important competition in the entire universe and beyond.
We all start on the same playing field so it’s less luck, and more decision making, that creates the usual heartburn, indigestion and headaches, and not to mention the blood pressure. LOL
Oops sorry, i mentioned the blood pressure.
Yes, the bloke that introduced that concept is a Champion!
130 for the VC is generally my benchmark, or something close to that. As with the rookie score if it out scores my onfield rookie’s ave then I’ll take it.
Hi Motts,
I wrote something about this last week…..just a very minor (but maybe significant?) call out on your starting write up…
You mention that the move from neale to gawn net 19 points….but, as captain, it is actually 38 (19 diff on the base…so 38 total difference).
‘That’ may mean a lot trying to win a round etc….its semantics, I understand…but just saying I think double the difference when considering the options each week
As always – love your work
This has been discussed before ,but it is only 19 points.
2 x 134 = 268 + 153 = 421
2 x 153 = 306 + 134 = 440
Neale as C is 134 points x 2 = 268 + Gawn 153 total 421
Gawn as C is 153 points x 2 = 306 + Neale 134 Total 440
Difference of 19points.
Sorry Bruce, I was too slow typing.
Great minds!!!
Wouldn’t make light of an extra 20 points here and there, you two. Only a few hundred points separating the top 5 thousand teams.
I’ve passed up a few 130~ VC scores this season and rolled the dice successfully on a C to put up 150+. Probably net me 160 points; which is the difference between 3622 where I’m ranked now and the 5/6k mark.
Are you serious? This is basic math and has been highlighted for the past ten years of SuperCoach.
Wasn’t making light of extra points GD just pointing out it is 19 not 38.
I stand corrected…..don’t know why I got thumbs down….except for my maths…hands and thumbs down
I honestly think a lot of people get caught out on the maths on this one. Cause we’re so focused on getting double points from our skipper i think a lot of people get the mental maths wrong. People are focusing on the double points and are thinking that risking the 120 VC to try and nab a 140 C score will net a gain of 40pts (forgetting the rest of the maths that makes it actually only a 20pt gain).
RB….I won money explaining this to someone once…..a whole $5 !!!
Did we not all make this mistake at some point over the years?!?
My opponent had VC on Dangerfield (146) but still rolled the dice with Grundy(114).
Staggered that anyone would pass up 146 points.
Usually take 125 as Captains loophole and 60+ for rookies been greedy before and it does backfire
I think it’s worth having a rolling VC limit rather than a set & forget one and with that, asking yourself why you’ve chosen that limit to help you decide your VC/C
Round 6 as an example – going into round 6 I felt Neale was a safe 120 but based on his past averages at the SCG (ground dimensions maybe?) & the potential for the Cats to tag (Guthrie) I didn’t think he was a 150+ candidate.
So I basically thought Neale was a 120-140 player : basically if he was playing Sunday he would be locked as my C! But as a VC I then need to look at my C options…
Grundy going up against Ceglar or maybe McEvoy. Had just churned out a 151 in a losing side. A career average of 131 against Big Boy. Ruckman getting a clear scoring advantage in scoring this year, I thought I could estimate a 150 avg if he was to vs. Ceglar.
This time I would have suggested a 120-190 player (English is better than Ceglar)
For this example, I then need to ask myself, what score would I be willing to take and miss out on a potential 150-190 from Grundy and the answer would have been 140 (my estimated ceiling for Neale).
You also had Gawn who as was suggested earlier, looked like a comfortable 150+ option maybe with a 140 floor.
(This is the first time I’ve considered looking at it this way so this could have a bit of hindsight to it. I went Neale into Grundy & took Grundy lol)