NRL Fantasy 2024 Part 10 - Not enough Raiders

Fell asleep at half time. Apart from Strange at CTR that wasn’t a terrible fantasy result after all.

Now wondering if I should grab a Kiraz/Niu while the trades are free so I can move him to 18-21 next week

Snatchpato wrote:I’m 8/283 but considering one was a 0 I think it seems fine.

That also includes two injury affected Roosters and a centre (5/8 )who barely touched the ball last night.

I'm 11/439 with captain Cleary, McInnes, Hutch, Luki Paps and Kleese still to come.

Rubbish score but can't get too worked up about the flops. Every competitive team had Piakura and Strange (the smart ones probably had him in reserves). Sitili was unlucky, Ponga struggled but still got 35. He will be better.

On the bright side, Hosking, Rapana and Smithies worked out well enough, as did Cheese and Turbo from last week.
Ultimately gonna be a low score for this round but I'm pretty happy with the thought process and decision making to start the season. No absolute fires to put out (yet).

Rabbits21 wrote:
I am stoked mate given their pack played like a bunch of girls in skirts. Was powder puff stuff.

Well that's an interesting way to mark international women's day.

Maybe next time before you use "girls" as some sort of negative floor for performance, you think about what would happen if you tried to run around Georgia Hale in a game, or maybe tried to tackle Mele Hufanga, Millie Boyle or Isabelle Kelly just as a few examples.

Yesterday I was fortunate enough to coach some kids playing rippa rugby for the first time.
On field the teams are 7 aside, but require to always have at leasts 3 girls on - because of lower participation, that means the girls have to work harder and play the whole game without a break. But they don't let that deter them, they don't drop in determination or effort, they work hard in defence and show speed and agility that is easily equal to their male counterparts.

They also have to deal with this kind of sexist bullshit, so in future can we please just be a bit better, and not go there?

Thanks, end rant

rhinoceroo wrote:

You'll know Bateman was an old-school razzle-dazzle 13 all the way through Bradford and Wigan then.

Smithies will be better than Bateman in every regard.

GreenSchist wrote:

I'm 11/439 with captain Cleary, McInnes, Hutch, Luki Paps and Kleese still to come.

Rubbish score but can't get too worked up about the flops. Every competitive team had Piakura and Strange (the smart ones probably had him in reserves). Sitili was unlucky, Ponga struggled but still got 35. He will be better.

On the bright side, Hosking, Rapana and Smithies worked out well enough, as did Cheese and Turbo from last week.
Ultimately gonna be a low score for this round but I'm pretty happy with the thought process and decision making to start the season. No absolute fires to put out (yet).

Currently sitting on 11/544 but that’s with Cappy Haas leading the way. Apart from Cleary, the remaining guys could all be absolutely anything score wise. At least there are some decent points on the board

kamikamicameleons wrote:Am I right in thinking hat and average score for round 1 should be ~740?

Logic being 1-17 spend for most teams will be ~$9m. $9m/$13.5k pp = 666. Add on an extra 70 for captain double points and you get 736.

Just interested in how my team is tracking. Currently 277/8, including Piakura. Not great, but only had one gun play so far

Because we mostly buy players for upside, rather than to score at their priced average, I think you could probably add a further 50-100 points to that - across 17 players that would be a 3-6 point upside on each player on average.

Last year I was lucky to put up a 866 in the first round for rank 1,319 - so I would imagine 850+ will be a good score (maybe a bit lower this year with the high ownership of Piakura reducing that total)

BCT05 wrote:I think the extent of my fantasy decisions for the rest of the round is which one to play out of Chan, Flanagan and Salmon... exciting stuff.

You only have to play one of them?

I must've done something wrong

McInnes, (C)leary, and Papy playing tonight. Not many players but guns all round. Here's hoping they perform as expected!

Anyone got any PODs I can life-ride with you tonight? May, RTS, Tuaupiki, Tohu?

I know plenty will have Grant and Chan (probably EMG).

Liverpool_Bulldog wrote:

Currently sitting on 11/544 but that’s with Cappy Haas leading the way. Apart from Cleary, the remaining guys could all be absolutely anything score wise. At least there are some decent points on the board

Very nice. Captain Haas definitely would be allowing you to sleep a little easier at night, having that locked in.
I think anything inside the top 10,000 after round 1, I'll be happy with. If Cleary gets a good score, maybe I can aim a little higher.

Biggest takeaway I had from my early season success last year, was just consistancy week in, week out.
You don't need a great round, you just need to avoid having a bad round. Just keep heading in the right direction and save trades.

For interest sake, in 2023 my round ranks to start the season were thus:
Rd 1: 1,571st
Rd 2: 2,361st
Rd 3: 2,079th (entered Top 100)
Rd 4: 2,095th (entered Top 10)
Rd 5: 434th (Entered Top 5)
Rd 6: 1,065th
Rd 7: 5,158th (1st place)

Only the one Top 1000 weekly score, while my worst weekly was 5,158th - the week I entered the top spot.







Apologies for the humble brag. I just think this is worthwhile keeping in mind and not getting too worked up about a single weeks score/rank.

easytiger wrote:

You only have to play one of them?

I must've done something wrong

I do have Kini as well who I've just decided I will play ahead of all of them

easytiger wrote:

Well that's an interesting way to mark international women's day.

Maybe next time before you use "girls" as some sort of negative floor for performance, you think about what would happen if you tried to run around Georgia Hale in a game, or maybe tried to tackle Mele Hufanga, Millie Boyle or Isabelle Kelly just as a few examples.

Yesterday I was fortunate enough to coach some kids playing rippa rugby for the first time.
On field the teams are 7 aside, but require to always have at leasts 3 girls on - because of lower participation, that means the girls have to work harder and play the whole game without a break. But they don't let that deter them, they don't drop in determination or effort, they work hard in defence and show speed and agility that is easily equal to their male counterparts.

They also have to deal with this kind of sexist bullshit, so in future can we please just be a bit better, and not go there?

Thanks, end rant

Would you have a problem if he said "tackeld like a bunch of skirts"?

Do women in skirts tackle harder then men in shorts?
What about men In skirts tackling softer than men in shorts?

What about tackled like a bunch of soft cocks or is that offensive to men over 50?

Help me with the line.

easytiger wrote:

Well that's an interesting way to mark international women's day.

Maybe next time before you use "girls" as some sort of negative floor for performance, you think about what would happen if you tried to run around Georgia Hale in a game, or maybe tried to tackle Mele Hufanga, Millie Boyle or Isabelle Kelly just as a few examples.

Yesterday I was fortunate enough to coach some kids playing rippa rugby for the first time.
On field the teams are 7 aside, but require to always have at leasts 3 girls on - because of lower participation, that means the girls have to work harder and play the whole game without a break. But they don't let that deter them, they don't drop in determination or effort, they work hard in defence and show speed and agility that is easily equal to their male counterparts.

They also have to deal with this kind of sexist bullshit, so in future can we please just be a bit better, and not go there?

Thanks, end rant

I coach my sons under 12 league team that has 7 girls and 6 boys. I see the women's game booming over the next ten years. I hope the NRLW expands and the Warriors have a team, my 13yo daughter is a gun union and league player (as says every father living through their children haha) probably as it stands better pathways in women's sevens but I said if you have the choice play NRLW. I'm really pumped for this season for the girls, would be dope to have NRLW Fantasy as a secondary comp although they'd have to adjust the salary to match the men's

lukeayee wrote:

Would you have a problem if he said "tackeld like a bunch of skirts"?

Do women in skirts tackle harder then men in shorts?
What about men In skirts tackling softer than men in shorts?

What about tackled like a bunch of soft cocks or is that offensive to men over 50?

Help me with the line.

Maybe, tackled like a group of NRL Fantasy enthusiasts

lukeayee wrote:

Would you have a problem if he said "tackeld like a bunch of skirts"?

Do women in skirts tackle harder then men in shorts?
What about men In skirts tackling softer than men in shorts?

What about tackled like a bunch of soft cocks or is that offensive to men over 50?

Help me with the line.

You've got the rest of the English language at your disposal. Be creative. Don't be a dick.

Rabbit wrote:

Smithies will be better than Bateman in every regard.

I note that three-time premiership winning Clive Churchill medallist Dylan Edwards is playing NRL today.

293/8

Can't really complain.

Except for 2 guys that got injured in highly owned Tups and Piakura, all my other players in my 17 have scored at least 7 over their BE.

Have Strange, but didn't need to play him in my 17. Happy with the decision to gun up in the CTRs with Kiraz and May instead.

I’m going to take that Strange 21 this week. I don’t think there’s a CTR out there I can afford that will confidently go much over it

OB wrote:

You've got the rest of the English language at your disposal. Be creative. Don't be a dick.

You are missing my point. I highlighted three other groups who could be potentially pissed off with a slight modification in language. Yet I'd hazard a guess no men currently with soft cocks were offended, and neither were men in skirts.

Women who tackle hard, know they can tackle hard. Men who tackle hard know they can tackle hard.

Charterising women for being femine is not sexist, nor is charaterising men with more feminine attributes.

Was it rabbits intention to belittle women? I doubt it.

You have the choice to be offended or be confident in the fact you are a better person.

I didn't make the comment, and I also didn't highlight its potential offensive nature. I think everyone should just harden the F up.

Rabbit wrote:

Smithies will be better than Bateman in every regard.

This is the hottest take I've ever seen and I'm a Smithies fan. Peak Bateman would have made a world XIII