Round 15 - Cyclones v Stingrays at The B.O.M. (completed)

I'm not into developing young players - I pick the best team, something you guys do not.

Humble against the Cyclones reserves.

Code:

Humble                  12     0   82   0    3  0

0/82 off 12.

You tell me he's a better choice?

 

The thing is though.

10 game career in BS averaging 25
100 game career in BS averaging 25.

Saders logic says the 100 gamer is the better choice.

It's not longevity you overrate, it's 'experience'/'amount of games played'

Guys like Noir have played a lot, but really, never been good.

You're kidding yourself if he's better than Warrington or any of the other young knights.

I'll clarify - I'm all for the development of the young lads, I just do not believe that your approach is the correct one for doing so - they can still get a taste of BS if worthy and not fuck up their whole career ffs. And that's all they get, a taste, as they're only coming in for injury.

 

Using your logic Eds, if I go down next week you'd be selecting Berkuta to come in (let's assume Lee wasn't BS quality for the purpose of the argument). I disagree, I'd be selecting one of the younger lads.

 

Also, gun work from Veza in the first innings with the bat.

 

career progression.

if someone's played 100 games, chances are, they've grown, they've peaked and declined.

Take Berkuta.

His average in BS is 40 - do you believe he'll average 40 if played tomorrow? nah.
At the start of the season, Berkuta and my averages were about equal. Would you play Berkuta ahead of me for round one then?

This, essentially.

I don't believe one or two games in BS fucks over rookies any more - and even if it did, we're supposed to name our best side. It doesn't happen from every team however.

 

the thing is - it's a rule that you name your best team. 'forgoing short-term results' shouldn't be a concept, as it means you're not naming what is the best team.

Unless the best team encompasses future of the club, which I don't think it does - I believe it's for the game at hand.

Also - you say you've got the right mix? is that mix 100% developing and forgoing the results? as implying it's a good mix means you've promoted youngsters occasionally, which you really haven't - Taylor, Warrington etc. have all been asking for the opportunity yet been passed over for perennial duds. The only exception really was gbagbo.

 

So you're saying Noir isn't poor?

2nd point - you believe noir is ahead of warrington in your best side, really? assume warringtons a seasoned player for the purposes of this please.

 

using one example to prove a point that obviously requires more shocker.

gbagbo isn't a microcosm of the saders policy though - he's one outlier (and I could argue you selected him as you doubt he'll be around so he won't ever be excellent enough to ruin a career, like mariner will be - but I won't.)

 

you dropped him as he was shit. he averaged 22.

I don't see how that entitles him to a place over someone who's consistently performed in ALC.

Noir's alc average = warringtons.

Noir has played 3 games. Warrington more. Warrington's sample/proof of this being legit is better.

Noir is proven shit when playing BS. Warrington not.

It's very much like Humble v Veza. Humble's the proven shitcunt.

I'm not attacking you, as I do like you, or your selection - I'm just saying you started this argument criticising me for 'ruining' youngsters, when really, anything else would contravene the rules and be to the club's detriment.