Now for a bit of needling of our NZ members

We still have a few NZ members active on site - but not as many as there used to be.    I love the contributions they normally make and the fact is thy constantly lecture us about the excellence of NZ teams - whether on Super Rugby level or test level. 

Maybe some stirring will see them back on site and very active - so let me start the stirring:-

Round 1

There was only one NZ team - who played a "foreign team", namely the Hurricanes who played the Waratahs.   They struggled bravely and in the end in the end they won the game, but not as well as people expected,  However, the question remains - how strong is the Waratahs team in reality.

The Crusaders beat the Blues narrowly and the Highlanders did the sane to the Chiefs,   Those victories was a test of internal strength of NZ teams.

Round 2

There was indeed some clarification of the strength of the NZ franchise teams in Round 2.   The Hurricanes - who barely managed to beat the Waratahs was humiliated by the Crusaders, while the Waratahs who barely managed to beat of all teams the Sunwolves.   So the Hurricanes was not all that strong in Round 1 and showed their real weakness in Round 2.

The Blues who did well against the Crusaders and were narrowly beaten by them - was disgraced by the Sharks and the Chiefs by the Brumbies.

The Highlanders was lucky to beat the Reds - who was on a bye in the Round 1.   How strong is the Reds really?   We will soon see what the Highlanders are capable of this coming week.

Through this all the Crusaders is tops in the NZ conference - despite their rather scrappy win against the Blues.

Overall Logs after Round 2

Ugly reading for the NZ teams:-

2     Crusaders

4     Highlanders

10   Hurricanes

13   Blues

15   Chiefs

What is coming up in Round 3

Based  on what happened in the first two Rounds the following is likely to happen:-

*   The Crusaders is playing the Reds.   The Crusaders should win this one - if they lose it would be a disgrace

*    The Hurricanes is playing the Brumbies and based on what happened in the first two rounds they are 90% sure to lose.  

*    The Highlanders is playing the Rebels and based on what happened in the first two rounds they are 80% sure to lose

*    The Blues will play the Jaguares and another drubbing is on the cards

*    The Chiefs is playing the Sunwolves and they are bound to have a serious struggle to won this one - losing the game would be a disgrace.

So my dear NZ friends what happened thus far looks bad for the NZ franchises - bar the Crusaders.          

What happened to your fantasy score, Mike ... I see you got a big fat zero for your efforts.

Didn't you have a full squad of 28 players?

I thought I registered a full team and am not sur e what happened,,   Will have to look,

This was absolute BS by the organizers of the Rugby Magazine comp.  I had a full team of 23 players and had Kitshoff as a back-up prop.   That I assume was the nonsense that happened.   I am going to write to them  on the issue.

Fact is that Kitshoff was kept out because of failing a fitness test.   Does an injury disqualify a player from your squad to be used,   I am not very enthusiastic about the Rugby Magazine comp anyway.    

Can somebody please help me - I need the e-mail address o write to them about the issue.  

No ... don't do that. You need an entire squad of 28 players to qualify for the round. You obviously didn't have that and it's cost you a round of points.

Pity.

Why aren't you enjoying the RM Fantasy comp?

It's vastly superior to anything online at the moment.

It has everything everyone else has and more.

CC

I took part in the competition last year and lost interest in the competition because of BS like happened in this case as well.    Fact is you can get money to be select a squad of players and when you do they exclude injured players from being in your squad.   

I picked Kitshoff to be on the bench and apparently they regard injured players as not being in your squad at all.   It is a totally non-sensical BS situation.   You paid for a player and if he gets injured there is a limitation - you may make only one change a round to your squad - if there are more than one injury - you will always be without a player in your 23 - like happened in this case.

I am afraid the whole scene is non-sensical and as the situation goes on you will find that you may also end up with a situation where you have a player or even more less because of injuries.   At least if they list a player as injured you should be able to replace that injured player - plus one change to your squad as well.      

mike, I think it has to be something more than an injured player, Kitshoff in your case,.... I think the only real limitation in the game is that you have to have 28 players,.... are you sure you had the 28 players (15 starting, 8 on the bench and 5 on the stands)?

last year I played with injured players,... or I had players in my squad that finally for whatever reason didn't play and it didn't mean that I was disqualified,.... in case the player missing was one from the starting 15, he was substitued by one from the bench,.... and in the case the player was from the bench, you simply were playing with 22 players (15 starting and 7 from the bench with half the points)

I remember now that I even played in the Premiership comp (where there are tonnes of injured players and the lineups change big way from one round to the other with the november tests and 6N) in a round lacking one player on the bench and nothing happened,... I mean, the rest of the 22 players had their points

did you check the total players you have, mike?

No Mike ... you have the option to transfer 5 players every week ... of which 1 is free. You could have replaced Kitshoff with a healthy player at any time ... yet you selected him to warm the bench ... you also had Ardie Savea on the bench and he didn't feature this weekend at all.

You go to so much trouble to gather the team sheets for us (appreciated by the way) and yet it seems you don't check these lists yourself.

Both of these players scored nothing for you. Niks ... nada ... fokol ... 

Besides ... the entire planet knows that Kitshoff is out injured ... you too, right? You didn't need to be notified, right?

The only time you'll be notified on a player is when he's out for the season ... and then that player will be removed from your squad and you'll be reimbursed his salary.

You should read the rules.

This version enables you to grow your player depth ... it doesn't limit you to a squad of 28 players ... and with a little sacrifice you could sport a well rounded squad with multiple options for every position, including the bench.

The season is long and it's not going to be won in the first few weeks. You need to prepare for what's to come. I'm languishing at the bottom of the log for now ... but I do have a strategy ... and as a first timer I'm hoping it'll pay off in the end. We'll see.  

I disagree with you, Mike.

This is undoubtedly the best fantasy version out there. It is far more realistic to running an actual team than any other version I've seen ... merely because you're working with a squad and not only a match 23.

I hope you change your mind about this competition and show us what you've got as a manager running a squad of players. 

Go Giaaaants!!!!

and CC, what happened to you in the Sportsdeck comp? you were the first after the first round but you fell in this second round,....

do you like more the RM game? I think Sportsdeck's is the best now running,... but surely this is like colors,... each one has his/her favourite

in my view Sportsdeck is better in the following issues:

- Salary. Sportsdeck's salaries are based only in the players' performances (like the former Fox) while the RM is based mainly in the owning%. Apart from that, in the RM game the varying range of the salaries is limited while in the Sportsdeck game it isn't.

For example, Reiko Ioane, is one of the most expensive player in both games ($375K in RM and $391K in Sportsdeck) and is playing crap (15 points and 20 points in each game this 2 first rounds). In the RM game his salary has increased to $389K while in the Sportsdeck if he continues like this, the next round (the salaries begin to change from the 3rd round on, like the Fox) he will lose big money.

In the RM game the range of the salarie through the whole season will vary only something like + - 50k ($375K + - 50K, this meaning btwin $325K and $425K). While in the Sportsdeck if Ioane continue playing crap he can lose almost all his salary and end up with 60-100K

- Transfers. Transfers are the funny stuff of this all. Transfers allow you to chase a certain strategy, or to change it,... transfers are the salt of the game

RM allows just one transfer free which limits a lot,... yeah, I know you have another 4 transfers but cost you points,.... meaning that you are going to use them the minimum possible

In Sportsdeck with 15 players making points and 8 on the bench not making, there are 3 transfers each round,... IMO the balanced number,.... while in RM you have 23 players playing and making points plus another 5 outside, but only 1 transfer

when injuries hit hard, through mid season, the RM is very difficult to manage with so few transfers,... you need to be lucky avoiding injuries

... yes I fell badly. I tried to bring the best players in but it didn't work out for me at all.

Well Abasque, you have experience with the RM version so you'd know better than I on how one can benefit from money made or lost.

You undoubtedly have a strategy that works ... mine is experimental at the moment and it's cost me dear but I will persist with it.

I see your point regarding the value of a player and must agree that a player should suffer the consequences of consistent bad play. No doubt a player's popularity determines his value, but as you can see people keep signing the likes of Ioane even though he's doing so poorly.

Are they stupid?

I will pay a little more attention to the Sportsdeck version  of pricing a player ... it ma y swing me over ... but at this stage in time I can honestly say that I'm not a fan.

I guess it shows!

intrigued with your strategies,... hope you can reveal them us at the end of the season

ABF

I was just needling - but I must admit frankly that from what I have seen thus far of the NZ franchises  they did not really impress independent observers like myself.   The Chiefs and Blues were not really good enough thus far.- in fact their losses borders on the ridiculous.    

Some problems could also happen to the Highlanders and Hurricanes,  For the sake of my NZ friends on site I hope my "predictions" does not materialize.   Even if they lose half of the games involved it would still be a problem I believe,        

World Cup Year.

Hurricanes have had half their side resting.

You are wasting your own time trying to read what is happening.

There is only 1 thing that matters this year and the NZ Teams you have questioned are showing it.     

RL

Fact remains what players have been "rested"?   I noticed that there was NO rested player in the latest Chiefs disaster and perhaps one in the Hurricanes team rested.   Definitely none in the Blues team.

Feeble excuse for under-performance by some of the AB fixtures like Rieko Ioane, Retallick and McKenzie and not much better for B Barrett when he did play.   And the Hurricanes is trying to  get a lock from SA on contract.   Panic-stations? 

Anyway - I hope that the NZ franchises do better in Round 3.   Am afraid the only team with a real chance to win in Round 3 is the Crusaders - I would not bet on any of the other four teams winning.              

RL

Fact remains what players have been "rested"?   I noticed that there was NO rested player in the latest Chiefs disaster and perhaps one in the Hurricanes team rested.   Definitely none in the Blues team.

Feeble excuse for under-performance by some of the AB fixtures like Rieko Ioane, Retallick and McKenzie and not much better for B Barrett when he did play.   And the Hurricanes is trying to  get a lock from SA on contract.   Panic-stations? 

Anyway - I hope that the NZ franchises do better in Round 3.   Am afraid the only team with a real chance to win in Round 3 is the Crusaders - I would not bet on any of the other four teams winning.              

RL

Fact remains what players have been "rested"?   I noticed that there was NO rested player in the latest Chiefs disaster and perhaps one in the Hurricanes team rested.   Definitely none in the Blues team.

Feeble excuse for under-performance by some of the AB fixtures like Rieko Ioane, Retallick and McKenzie and not much better for B Barrett when he did play.   And the Hurricanes is trying to  get a lock from SA on contract.   Panic-stations? 

Anyway - I hope that the NZ franchises do better in Round 3.   Am afraid the only team with a real chance to win in Round 3 is the Crusaders - I would not bet on any of the other four teams winning.