Not sure if anyone else is having trouble with their M3 but the above 5 are in contention. Each have their pros and cons, but each could easily get the job done. Which one should i go with?
Montagna +1, as per Corks' reasons. For me, Priddis Cross and Watson handball too much. Don't see much upside for Boyd as well - in 2010 he couldn't even average 110ppg with 30+ disposals and 5 marks per game, and disposal efficiency is unlikely to substantially improve in a mid's twilight years.
Yeah I think Monty is at the top of the list. So my mids will look like... Swan, Selwood, Monty, Gibbs, Krakouer, D.Swallow with Bewick, Hibberd, Irons
The re-jig of the SC formula actually could mean plenty of upside for Boyd. If clangers are indeed downgraded, he probably gets close to Cross with his SC scoring...
I have Cross. I like his durability, consistency and he rarely gets tagged. @CJ22 - From the sides I have seen Dal Santo is not in many teams so he could be more than just POD, he could be very unique!
I have Pendlebury as M3 because I think that he will be infront of all of these guys at the end of the 2011 season.
Ditto Jason PENDLES That said Dal Santo looks a lovely POD. My reason for not getting NDS and Montagna is to wait until the R15 upgrade (hopefully final) and then get one on the cheap. NDS normally sits around the 490 mark at some stage. Cha-ching.
@ Jason, Me too, Pendlebury is looking good, wish he'd get a haircut though. Maybe he's going for Brownlow votes and wants the umpires to notice him?
Pendles gets more BOG's than Swan so the umps already notice him. On topic - Montagna > Boyd > Cross > Watson > Priddis I see a little bit of daylight between Monty and Boyd just due to his long-kicking and goal scoring ability. The others are more inside players and tend to handball more.
I currently hav montag, would like to have pendles but hav swan alrdy and with collingwoods early byes hoping to pick pendles up later
<blockquote>Quote from broge on March 23, 2011, 13:02 I currently hav montag, would like to have pendles but hav swan alrdy and with collingwoods early byes hoping to pick pendles up later</blockquote> I have Swan, Monty and Pendles
I think 2 high-price midfielders from any team is overkill this year. Hence choice for me was Judd v Murph, Swan v Pendles, Cross v Boyd, Monty v Dal. Just think having $1.2m and 250-odd points sitting on your midfield bench for 2 weeks during the year is too much, particularly Carlton and Collingwood who will be both league weeks. Balance of premium midfielders of 1 from each team is still achievable, but you need to make hard choices.
What difference does it make if they have byes together in the same week or separately though, other than your leagues? If you are starting them as a keeper, they will all get 2 byes before the end of the season. If the two best MIDs or FWDs or whatever are from the same team, I want them to start.
This is why I haven't gone with Judd or Pendlebury yet. Hoping to upgrade for one of them should Krak or D.Swallow make enough coin for me. Starting midfield of Swan, Selwood, Monty, Gibbs, Krak and Swallow at the moment. Not sure if I can have Swan, Krak AND Pendles in the same midfield this early.
<blockquote>Quote from Jason on March 23, 2011, 15:17 What difference does it make if they have byes together in the same week or separately though, other than your leagues? If you are starting them as a keeper, they will all get 2 byes before the end of the season. If the two best MIDs or FWDs or whatever are from the same team, I want them to start.</blockquote> QFT Why force yourself to make a decision between Swan and Pendles? Having 2 premiums from one team isn't any different from having Swallow and Harris from GC. Same risk profile. If you dont start the season with the best available you may well be behind the 8-ball when trade season begins.