Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
He's been pushing up to the wing for years now. Don't be fooled, I can't see him spending long periods of time up there. Even if it is 10 minutes more per game, do you really think that will relate to a worthwhile improvement in SC points? It's really just the Key Position Forwards equivalent of nearly every Midfielders claim this year, that "he'll be spending more time up forward"! You are best to ignore claims like this, as a rule. Riewoldt is easy, as I pointed out in review below:
You really need to believe St Kilda will fare well, if you are going to take Riewoldt. The other thing to keep in mind is, he has leg problems that really wear him down as the season grinds on, and that will only be getting worse with age! I think if you take him, you look at him as a "hit it and quit it" option, and dump him at the first sign of trouble. He's not for me.
Nick Riewoldt (FTB)
Season - 17 games at 90.8 (2014 22 games at 91.7)
MCG - 1 games at 135.0 (MCG wins 1 at 135.0, MCG losses 1 at 0.0)
Etihad - 10 games at 93.5 (Etihad wins 3 at 108.0, Etihad losses 7 at 87.3)
Interstate - 6 games at 79.0 (Interstate wins 2 at 114.5, Interstate losses 4 at 61.3)
Wins - 6 games at 114.7
Losses - 11 games at 77.8
Of note...
NRoo is pretty simple really. Here is a break up of his last 3 seasons:
60 games at 96.2 (wins 14 at 127.7, losses 46 at 86.6)
In wins 31 points and higher: 6 games at 135.8
In wins from 1 point to 30 points: 8 games at 121.6
In draws and losses to 30 points: 15 games at 99.6
In losses 31 point and higher: 31 games at 79.6
St Kilda struggle to win away from Etihad, unless playing Melbourne, or undermanned expansion teams (they've disappeared now!), and only have 1 game in their first 4 at Etihad. They then have winnable games against GWS and Melbourne at Etihad in rounds 5 and 6. That might make NRoo a good pick for AF, where you can trade around those games, but it makes him in the too hard basket for SC.
Season - 17 games at 90.8 (2014 22 games at 91.7)
MCG - 1 games at 135.0 (MCG wins 1 at 135.0, MCG losses 1 at 0.0)
Etihad - 10 games at 93.5 (Etihad wins 3 at 108.0, Etihad losses 7 at 87.3)
Interstate - 6 games at 79.0 (Interstate wins 2 at 114.5, Interstate losses 4 at 61.3)
Wins - 6 games at 114.7
Losses - 11 games at 77.8
Of note...
NRoo is pretty simple really. Here is a break up of his last 3 seasons:
60 games at 96.2 (wins 14 at 127.7, losses 46 at 86.6)
In wins 31 points and higher: 6 games at 135.8
In wins from 1 point to 30 points: 8 games at 121.6
In draws and losses to 30 points: 15 games at 99.6
In losses 31 point and higher: 31 games at 79.6
St Kilda struggle to win away from Etihad, unless playing Melbourne, or undermanned expansion teams (they've disappeared now!), and only have 1 game in their first 4 at Etihad. They then have winnable games against GWS and Melbourne at Etihad in rounds 5 and 6. That might make NRoo a good pick for AF, where you can trade around those games, but it makes him in the too hard basket for SC.
Last edited:
Hi Slammer, I'm good thanks, and I hope you are too. Thanks for the kind words 
I don't think you have to start with either, but I do think you/everyone should start with at least one Ruck that they hold high hopes of being top 3, and not too far off the second ruck, if they happen to be third. Rucks can be a tough deal, and I'm not sure I would want to be caught trying to bring two in during the completion of my team. As to who the 3 Rucks are, that will be top 3 this season, my guess is, it is out of: Goldy, Martin, Jacobs, NicNat, Gawn, Sandilands.
Good luck!!!
I don't think you have to start with either, but I do think you/everyone should start with at least one Ruck that they hold high hopes of being top 3, and not too far off the second ruck, if they happen to be third. Rucks can be a tough deal, and I'm not sure I would want to be caught trying to bring two in during the completion of my team. As to who the 3 Rucks are, that will be top 3 this season, my guess is, it is out of: Goldy, Martin, Jacobs, NicNat, Gawn, Sandilands.
Good luck!!!
Hey Pro,
I generally think people here are over-concerned with things like this. In terms of SC scores, I don't think we will see any drastic affect at all. The capped levels are at the level a lot of Clubs were operating at 4 or 5 years ago anyway. Where any particular "key" player is identified by their Coaches as having a durability problem, I am sure they will be looked after accordingly. As an example, Lachie Neale has never been one to play consistently 80% TOG or higher. Freo won't suddenly require him to do that. If Martin has been requiring 7 or 8 bench rests/game in the past, and Richmond feel he will still need that, to give them the output they require, you can be sure he will get what he needs! He's a key player in their team, and if it means they have to "flatten" another (fringe) player to accommodate him, that's what they'll do.
Bottom line, I don't think it is something we should be looking too closely at, or taking into account, at all.
I generally think people here are over-concerned with things like this. In terms of SC scores, I don't think we will see any drastic affect at all. The capped levels are at the level a lot of Clubs were operating at 4 or 5 years ago anyway. Where any particular "key" player is identified by their Coaches as having a durability problem, I am sure they will be looked after accordingly. As an example, Lachie Neale has never been one to play consistently 80% TOG or higher. Freo won't suddenly require him to do that. If Martin has been requiring 7 or 8 bench rests/game in the past, and Richmond feel he will still need that, to give them the output they require, you can be sure he will get what he needs! He's a key player in their team, and if it means they have to "flatten" another (fringe) player to accommodate him, that's what they'll do.
Bottom line, I don't think it is something we should be looking too closely at, or taking into account, at all.
That's one way of looking at it.
In the days of the sub, we virtually had 21 players sharing 1800% of TOG, or averaging 85.7% each. ie 20 players playing on average 85.7%, and 2 players sharing the last 85.7%. Of course, this is simplistic, but gives you the idea.
We now will have 22 players sharing 1800% of TOG, or averaging 81.8% each.
So in theory, each player gets an extra 3.9% TOG sitting on the bench. In practice, this is of course nonsense.
The sport science has evolved enough, that each team knows what each player is capable of, and particularly with the key match winning type players, they will make sure their field time is tailored accordingly. They will be played to their maximum efficiency, and the rest just have to either pick up the slack, or sit out, when required.
In the days of the sub, we virtually had 21 players sharing 1800% of TOG, or averaging 85.7% each. ie 20 players playing on average 85.7%, and 2 players sharing the last 85.7%. Of course, this is simplistic, but gives you the idea.
We now will have 22 players sharing 1800% of TOG, or averaging 81.8% each.
So in theory, each player gets an extra 3.9% TOG sitting on the bench. In practice, this is of course nonsense.
The sport science has evolved enough, that each team knows what each player is capable of, and particularly with the key match winning type players, they will make sure their field time is tailored accordingly. They will be played to their maximum efficiency, and the rest just have to either pick up the slack, or sit out, when required.
Just thought I'd chime in here as a doggies supporter- if Caleb plays, it'll be in a high-half forward/wing role, rather than as a small forward. He's far more suited to being a link player and delivering the ball inside 50, which is a much more SC friendly role. However, he's competing with a lot of similar players for a regular spot, so I'd only expect him to play 10-15 games. I also don't see his average getting anywhere near what you would want at his price.
He's an interesting one.
33.7% of his HitOuts in 2015 were to Advantage, which is the best percentage of the top 30 Rucks!!!!!!
BUT
He only won 39.1% of the HitOuts he contested, which ranked him 15th of the top 30 Rucks!
He has apparantly lost 5kg since last season, so we can assume he is fitter. Geelong even "thanked" GC for the work they put into him.
Generally with Stepping Stones you want them to make money and score useful points. Smith needs to average just below 90 just to tread water price-wise. I think if you take him as a SS, you need to have an opinion that the player you are aiming to upgrade him to will have a poor start, and there in lies the dilemma. Just say your intended upgrade target is only averaging just above 100, and Smith just below 100 by say Rounds 8 or 9. The changeover will only cost around $50k. The question becomes, will you have the cahonnies to make that trade? Will you burn a trade to make what on paper is a 5 or 6 point upgrade, at that point in time? Many Coaches will answer yes, I expect my upgrade Ruck to pick up from here. But planning to do it, and pulling the trigger are two different things. There will be huge doubts in your mind that you are really achieving a decent upgrade. Now, you might look at Smith as a piggy bank, just holding that cash until you need/want to upgrade, and some will say that's a reasonable intention. Not me though. I say keep it simple. Every selection has a job in your team, and anyone treading water is slowing you down. They need to be scoring at a Premium/Keeper level, or making you Cash. It's one of the reasons I don't like SS's, and think it's nearly impossible to have one priced over certain levels. In rough figures $375k in the Mids and Rucks, $325k in the Fwds and $300k in Defs. Any higher than those prices, and they either become traps, piggy banks or need to reach Keeper level.
We don't know what structure Geelong will run with yet, and I would only take Smith for a job like this if we were pretty comfortable he will Ruck mainly one out. At least that way he might be a chance to reach Keeper level. It just looks a bit messy to me, I would investigate other options.
33.7% of his HitOuts in 2015 were to Advantage, which is the best percentage of the top 30 Rucks!!!!!!
BUT
He only won 39.1% of the HitOuts he contested, which ranked him 15th of the top 30 Rucks!
He has apparantly lost 5kg since last season, so we can assume he is fitter. Geelong even "thanked" GC for the work they put into him.
Generally with Stepping Stones you want them to make money and score useful points. Smith needs to average just below 90 just to tread water price-wise. I think if you take him as a SS, you need to have an opinion that the player you are aiming to upgrade him to will have a poor start, and there in lies the dilemma. Just say your intended upgrade target is only averaging just above 100, and Smith just below 100 by say Rounds 8 or 9. The changeover will only cost around $50k. The question becomes, will you have the cahonnies to make that trade? Will you burn a trade to make what on paper is a 5 or 6 point upgrade, at that point in time? Many Coaches will answer yes, I expect my upgrade Ruck to pick up from here. But planning to do it, and pulling the trigger are two different things. There will be huge doubts in your mind that you are really achieving a decent upgrade. Now, you might look at Smith as a piggy bank, just holding that cash until you need/want to upgrade, and some will say that's a reasonable intention. Not me though. I say keep it simple. Every selection has a job in your team, and anyone treading water is slowing you down. They need to be scoring at a Premium/Keeper level, or making you Cash. It's one of the reasons I don't like SS's, and think it's nearly impossible to have one priced over certain levels. In rough figures $375k in the Mids and Rucks, $325k in the Fwds and $300k in Defs. Any higher than those prices, and they either become traps, piggy banks or need to reach Keeper level.
We don't know what structure Geelong will run with yet, and I would only take Smith for a job like this if we were pretty comfortable he will Ruck mainly one out. At least that way he might be a chance to reach Keeper level. It just looks a bit messy to me, I would investigate other options.
Last edited:
Hi Rowsus,
I trust you are well and thanks for all your hard work on this thread, it really is a mamoth effort to get through do many posts and provided such great feedback to members.
I'm just after your thoughts on Matt Crouch as a stepping stone mid-pricer. Basically due to the lack of decent mid rookies, I have tried to go a bit deeper than normal in the midfield so currenly have a 4-2-5 mid structure (3 of Danger, GAJ, Pendles and Fyfe and Rocky) then MCrouch and Liber followed by Mills and another rookie at M7 and M8. Running Crouch at M5 over a 530-560k player allows me to have Shaw, Goldstein etc on other lines with out having to compromise on strentgh of rookies.
Appologies, if you have answered this already, but just interested in your thoughts as to 1) at $368k is he worth it and is he going to avergage enough to be a viable pick?
Cheers in advance.
I trust you are well and thanks for all your hard work on this thread, it really is a mamoth effort to get through do many posts and provided such great feedback to members.
I'm just after your thoughts on Matt Crouch as a stepping stone mid-pricer. Basically due to the lack of decent mid rookies, I have tried to go a bit deeper than normal in the midfield so currenly have a 4-2-5 mid structure (3 of Danger, GAJ, Pendles and Fyfe and Rocky) then MCrouch and Liber followed by Mills and another rookie at M7 and M8. Running Crouch at M5 over a 530-560k player allows me to have Shaw, Goldstein etc on other lines with out having to compromise on strentgh of rookies.
Appologies, if you have answered this already, but just interested in your thoughts as to 1) at $368k is he worth it and is he going to avergage enough to be a viable pick?
Cheers in advance.
Last edited:
- Status