- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,963
- Likes
- 126,636
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
When considering players playing multiple matches in other formats, I like to consider whether I would be content fielding them outside of a double or if worst case struck with injuries elsewhere, then potentially stuck with them for a few rounds longer than planned. This mindset helps to avoid excessively loading up although does often mean good opportunities may be missed. Say for example Player X suffers an injury, Player Y’s breakeven soars and thus his cash generating potential dries up and Player A and/or Player Z have finished their nice fixture run and intended to be traded this round. Who do you deal with first?
As @Lost In The Sky mentioned, not fielding a full onfield setup of doubles will not be catastrophic and there are bound to be players on a single that get close to or exceed their performance and opportunities will present to claw back any points lost from the pack throughout the season. For example, Adelaide enter a run of 1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1 after RD4 so the time for their assets has nearly ended and we could get away with disregarding their players next round.
In the end it comes down to whether you are confident that McCarron can take advantage of his double more than Valentine and that the cash cannot be put to a greater points or cash gen use.
As @Lost In The Sky mentioned, not fielding a full onfield setup of doubles will not be catastrophic and there are bound to be players on a single that get close to or exceed their performance and opportunities will present to claw back any points lost from the pack throughout the season. For example, Adelaide enter a run of 1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1 after RD4 so the time for their assets has nearly ended and we could get away with disregarding their players next round.
In the end it comes down to whether you are confident that McCarron can take advantage of his double more than Valentine and that the cash cannot be put to a greater points or cash gen use.
