Smith, Treloar, maybe Couch if elevated (I'm not convinced, but Neeld's contacts go back to the dad) I'm still thinking all 3 will struggle if against pure mids. If not, I think they will allow a more aggressive strategy with regards to forward rookies, and allow an extra mid prem. Still a few more NAB matches, those that don't get affected (hopefully) by 7 man half time substitutions or T20 matches. No idea if that will happen in the next couple of rounds. If not it will be very hit and miss for knowing the best rookies. GWS will get smashed on field when the teams come out to play, they won't get that many points, and I think they will rotate their players meaning job security will be overrated. I'd certainly like a spread of players across teams if possible. Because there's every chance if they play well that they will still be there at R11.
@HeavyMen, you might very well be correct, but wouldn't you want Smith and Treloar in your forwards, specifically starting at F7 or even F6 rather than sitting on your mids bench behind Magner, Gibson, Stevens, Wingard, Shiel, Neale etc etc? You get the best monetary gain by having the best midfield rookies whilst the best forward rookies (smith, treloar) are actually scoring points for you rather than having to rely on a Saad, Walsh or Pfeiffer to for example to actively score your points.
I agree about DPP rookies - none that outweigh pure mid rookies at this stage, and less need for DPP - until round 11 at least. 10 rounds is a long time to trade in that handy DPP rookie that hopefully will moo right around the first trade period. DPP this year to me is more of a handy mechanism that could very well be utilized during byes, more than a requirement from the get go (as it was last year).
Agree & that's where I have them but I will still have one fwd/mid in the mids. If I can get confidence with say Magnet & Gibson then I can afford a Kerridge sitting there on the bench to allow the coverage of inj's. I'd prefer to swing Goodes/Fyfe/Martin into the mids to cover a premium then go back to F8 or F9 who are maybe wearing a red vest or not named. Of course, it may be the same problem is happening with my F8 & F9 but it gives you two more options/chances to cover that dreaded donut. Been a good discussion & look forward to seeing where it all sits after a few rounds of SC
Treloar in the mids, Should give you plenty of MPP mid/fwd options if you have Goodes/Fyfe/Chapman/Pav, etc, etc
Gives you reliance on your F8 v M7 In other words by putting a Goodes into the mids to cover an out, it means you are picking your F8 over your current M7. Anyone confident they can find an F8 better than a potential M7. I'm all ears.
So the question remains could you just have Treloar in your forward line and another good mid? And Treloar has set the house on fire so far in the NAB (not) Smith/Pfeiffer are better examples Couch as well but even he's got to get past about 10 Melbourne players to get a spot in their 21.
What do you do if Franklin gets reported, Chapman does a hammy and Porp does his shoulder again? You're looking at donut in the forward line, but not if you have Smith/Pfeiffer/Treloar etc in the mids. Chapman moves to the mid bench and on comes the MPP to save the day. Saves you a trade/donut. And at this stage in the NAB Cup, who can say that a Stevens/Wingard will score more than a Smith/Pfeiffer? (They cost more too)
That's the conservative approach no doubt and there is alot of merit to it, however I would rather setup a team based on parameters that I can control and not on the probabilities of players x,y or z getting injured/suspended. The parameters that I can control are the rookies that I pick whom I believe will generate the most cash and for starting rookies the most points, I can't control injuries/suspensions therefore I'm not going to compromise my starting team just in case something might happen.
<blockquote>Quote from Lucas on March 7, 2012, 12:26 Gives you reliance on your F8 v M7 In other words by putting a Goodes into the mids to cover an out, it means you are picking your F8 over your current M7. Anyone confident they can find an F8 better than a potential M7. I'm all ears.</blockquote> Yeah but that's some choice which is better than no choice. What about starting Goodes (or any otehr premium mpp) in the mids and then using your rookie MPP's fwd? Then you have a premium starting mid and choices of who to bench.
<blockquote>Quote from Lucas on March 7, 2012, 09:59 <blockquote>Why's that? If you don't have any MPP in the midfield then what's the point of having MPP in the defence or forward lines?</blockquote> Yep, none really. You want playing reserves who will generate cash. Get the best you can. MD has top class players like Goddard, but no real viable rookie options (yet). Or at least no rookie options that are better than the straight midfield options. Ditto with MF. This doesn't mean that you try to create a future link, and that things will not change through the season or preseason. Just saying that instead of trying to carry additional players early in a season just because they have the MPP option has been found wanting in previous years, and will be worse this year due to the bye. I'd suggest pick your team with the absolute best players you can, then if there's a 50-50 decision to be made, choose the MPP player. It's closer to the bye when you do a series of upgrade-downgrade moves that you can assess the strength of your interchange bench in different positions, and possibly setup links that will serve you in good stead for the rest of the year. Players like Krakouer worked out early last year, Mzungu and Smith were handy late. I'd suggest all would have been less good than a genuine mid rookie though, and should have in most cases been left on the forward line. Heppell was better than all rookies last season, however he was good enough to start in your backline, so I wouldn't have thought his MPP would have been a big consideration during the year.</blockquote> I agree with Lucas, came to the same conclusion last week. Luke Brown is case in point. He has the D/M eligibility so is almost an *obvious* choice for the Mid. However if you're going to stick in MPP links, that's 2 rookie spots taken up before you even consider the best of that line. So depending how many prems you're going with, you've already limited the rookies you can take. Bog-standard 4-4-2-4 GNR would mean having only two spots to pick from the likes of Coniglio, Wingard, Shiel, Clifton, Horseley, Magner, Gibson, Neale etc etc. You also need to consider that DEF rookies are going to be scare to begin with, if Brown is going to start at Adelaide then you would think he is better generating cash for your team down there.
<blockquote>Quote from Lucas on March 7, 2012, 12:26 Gives you reliance on your F8 v M7 In other words by putting a Goodes into the mids to cover an out, it means you are picking your F8 over your current M7. Anyone confident they can find an F8 better than a potential M7. I'm all ears.</blockquote> I think it's highly speculative at this stage in that there's no real certainties with the rookies, certainly not like last year or the likes of Martin/Barlow/Podsiadly. I think its reasonable to speculate that at least one M/F eligible rookie can be in the Top 4/5 rookies by end of year.
@AA So I drive my car which only I control & don't take insurance to cover what might happen that I can't control? We know that inj/suspensions/form lapses do happen & therefore it is a legitimate strategy to have some cover for these events if the cost to pts, if any, is a reasonable trade off. @Lucus The point is that I don't think you can give me two mid rookies that are g'teed to play every week & outscore two fwd rookies. (Donor thread re rookies bears this problem in mind). You can make a case that this one might get squeezed out by regulars (Neale, Ledger), might not get full game time (Gibson, Magner). Might get a rest after 3 games etc etc. So if I have Smith, Hall, Treloar or any other reasonable fwd rookie (I'm not fixated on Treloar by any means) then the arguement is I have a posiible two extra options by including a mid/fwd rookie starting in the mids. Not only that but I have options for Martin, Fyfe & Goodes (most will have 1 or two of these in their side), to cover inj or be covered themselves if injured (assuming the mid/fwd rookie is available). As AA may have pointed out it's risk v reward but I prefer to assume I will have an injury, player dropped or suspension in the first 8-9 games & have some chance of fixing it (with an extra variation) that doesn't involve a possible trade.
You buy your car insurance but you dont wrap your car in massive amounts of foam padding and bubble wrap and drive at 15km/h. Regardless, as you said it comes down to risk vs reward.
@AA ) big smile One small mid/fwd rookie weighing around 80 kgs is not quite the same as bubble wrap & foam padding at 15km I liken this dispute to the Nurses strike, we need a moderator (No, not you this time Lucas) to intervean.
@heavy, @AA, @Lucas, great discussion. Heavy, it really does come down to the "What Ifs" that could happen. If you believe the risk warrants the selection, then go with the DPP in your mids. I personally think there are better options in the mid rookies. To win SC you need good choices, good trades and a bit of luck. If you're gonna be needing that DPP to swing in early on in the season, I reckon you might not be having that "luck" if you know what I mean.
Need a moderator ME What is needed is a mid/for rookie in top ten rookies You heard it here first. Sam Kerridge (Adel) See next page