With the second round of JLT games underway, we have a number of SuperCoach prospects who are looking to break out from their previous season averages and vie for a starting spot in our teams.
However, identifying who these breakout players could be is only half the battle. Establishing who will fall away to allow a potential breakout player to increase their average is an often-overlooked area of SuperCoach pre-season planning. To highlight this point, over the last three seasons no team has had more than six players average above 95 points for the season.
Who are the breakout candidates? Matty’s Top 20 Breakout Contenders
The SuperCoach scoring system operates on a 3,300-points pie system, meaning that in a game that is the maximum number of points that can be allocated between the two teams. Therefore, for a player to breakout and increase their average they must command more of the 3,300 points that are available. There are two ways to do this:
a) The team the breakout player plays for must increase their portion of the 3,330 total points; or
b) The breakout player increases his portion of the points his team earn, to the detriment of teammates.
HIGH SCORING TEAMS
To begin, let’s take a look at how many points each team has commanded in the past three seasons (click to enlarge).
As we can see Collingwood significantly improved their slice of the total 3,300 points available in 2018, which may explain why Brodie Grundy was able to increase his personal SuperCoach average without there being any other major scoring changes to other Collingwood players. The question now becomes whether they will be able to sustain this level for 2019 with the addition of Dayne Beams?
This data also tells us that GWS, Geelong and Adelaide have been the best sides at getting the most points to share amongst their players, while Brisbane, Fremantle, Gold Coast and Carlton have had the least amount of points to share amongst their players.
HIGH SCORING PLAYERS
As expected the teams that accumulate more of the 3,300 total points on offer have more points to spread amongst their players, resulting in more players being able to average 95 and above (click to enlarge).
However, Carlton is an interesting exception, with only three clubs over the past three seasons averaging less total team points than them, yet they came in at fifth for the greatest number of players averaging 95+, highlighting how their top talent hogged the majority of the points they earned as a team.
While this data can’t tell us who will breakout, it can assist us in identify whether there is going to be room at a particular club for a breakout player to increase his average to at least 95 or more points this year.
I would certainly not consider it likely that a team you don’t see rating a top six on ‘Average Team Points’ having more than four or five players at this level. I also would not expect more than three players to achieve this at clubs you have in bottom six on SC point averages.
Next, go through that team’s list and see how many players you would expect to score above your breakout player. If the number of players you have identified as doing this exceeds the number of players you think this team can accommodate scoring above 95 point average, then that should add doubt to the likelihood they can reach this level.
To continue using Collingwood as an example, if you believed that Darcy Moore or Jordan De Goey could be breakout candidates, you would need to follow this formula:
a) Collingwood will continue to earn a significant portion of 3300 points pie in 2019
b) Due to earning at least 1700 team points a game, at least six players can average 95+
c) Identify who these players are – Grundy, Beams, Adams (when fit), Pendlebury, Treloar and Sidebottom – which is already six players
d) For Moore, De Goey or any other Collingwood player to break into the 95 plus average, someone has to decrease their average, otherwise there are very few extra points to be had
It is true of course that the six players we expect at Collingwood to average 95+ could see a decrease in average which would allow a seventh player to move into the 95 plus range. In this scenario, Grundy could see a decrease in average back to 110 (-20 points per game), or Pendlebury or Beams fall out of the 95 plus averages all together which would also provide the space for someone else to rise up.
Who gives a ruck? Ruckmen peak age anaylsis
To finish, before considering purely whether a player has played well during JLT, or is the right age and game experience to breakout, take a look at the charts above and make some judgement calls about whether there is likely to be space available for them to increase their average to a premium level.
If you think you have someone who is going to breakout due to someone else from that club falling away, let me know below in the comments section!
13 days to go: Angus Brayshaw Player Radar
14 days to go: JLT Stats You Might’ve Missed
15 days to go: Fresh Faces | Haw, Melb, NM, Port
16 days to go: Jack Steele Player Radar
17 days to go: Dylan Roberton Player Radar
18 days to go: Tim Kelly Player Radar
19 days to go: Toby Nankervis Player Radar
20 days to go: Detailed JLT Series notes
21 days to go: Tim Taranto Player Radar
22 days to go: Matty’s Top 20 Breakout Contenders
23 days to go: Shorty’s Worst Ever Trade
24 days to go: Fresh Faces | Freo, Geel, GC, GWS
25 days to go: Anthony Miles Player Profile
26 days to go: The Praccy Matches – and what they mean for SuperCoach
27 days to go: Brodie Smith Player Radar
28 days to go: Kade Simpson Player Radar
29 days to go: The Premiums | Midfielders
30 days to go: Callum Mills Player Profile
31 days to go: Adam Cerra Player Radar
32 days to go: Lachie Neale Player Radar
33 days to go: Fresh Faces | Adel, Bris, Carl, Coll, Ess
34 days to go: Matty’s Top 50 Rookies & Mature-Aged Players
35 days to go: The Premiums | Defenders
36 days to go: The Floating Donut Explained
37 days to go: The Burn List – Michael Walters
38 days to go: Todd Goldstein Player Radar
39 days to go: How the new rules will impact SuperCoach
40 days to go: SuperCoach positional analysis