Opinion Questions For Rowsus
- Thread starter Rowsus
- Start date
- Status
That has always been my favourite Mr Bean clip. Briliant!
I've actually learnt I can counter any Danish tradition with my own traditions.
They all join hands, and dance around the Xmas tree, singing Danish Xmas songs.
When they say to me, "come on, join in, it's a tradition"
I reply with "Yes, but in Australia we have a tradition, where we don't dance around the Xmas tree singing songs. You keep to your traditions ...... and I'll keep to mine".
I've actually learnt I can counter any Danish tradition with my own traditions.
They all join hands, and dance around the Xmas tree, singing Danish Xmas songs.
When they say to me, "come on, join in, it's a tradition"
I reply with "Yes, but in Australia we have a tradition, where we don't dance around the Xmas tree singing songs. You keep to your traditions ...... and I'll keep to mine".
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
- Likes
- 11,150
- AFL Club
- West Coast
This is all quite funny.
Rowsus - you did a cracking article previously about 192cm or less players being the benchmark for high performance midfielders. Noticed Cripps is now listed at 195cm - is he the first exception to the rule?
Any thoughts on him? main concern I have is this talk of playing forward. Heard it many times with Gaz etc in the old days, although, he is so tall and Carlton only have Curnow delivering in the forward line. Not certain if the two may be the rotation.
Rowsus - you did a cracking article previously about 192cm or less players being the benchmark for high performance midfielders. Noticed Cripps is now listed at 195cm - is he the first exception to the rule?
Any thoughts on him? main concern I have is this talk of playing forward. Heard it many times with Gaz etc in the old days, although, he is so tall and Carlton only have Curnow delivering in the forward line. Not certain if the two may be the rotation.
G’day Rows,
Great to see your back up and running in 2018.
First post for me this year as I finally start putting a team together.
First couple of queries for me are :
1. Will you start with Danger?
2. What are your thoughts on Mitch Duncan? Will Ablett and Danger take the spotlight or the possessions from
him?
Look forward to great discussion once again on this thread. Keep up the amazing work!
Cheers
Great to see your back up and running in 2018.
First post for me this year as I finally start putting a team together.
First couple of queries for me are :
1. Will you start with Danger?
2. What are your thoughts on Mitch Duncan? Will Ablett and Danger take the spotlight or the possessions from
him?
Look forward to great discussion once again on this thread. Keep up the amazing work!
Cheers
Hi GFB,
even though it has only been 4 short years, a lot has changed in the structure and size of AFL teams in that time.
While it was relevant at the time, I think there is now room for exceptions. When it comes to teams running their Midfields, the cream usually rises to the top, and is given a good run at it. This holds even more so teams middle or lower on the ladder. If Cripps stays fit, he'll get a really good run at it, and I wouldn't let any talk of more Forward time stop you from picking him.
even though it has only been 4 short years, a lot has changed in the structure and size of AFL teams in that time.
While it was relevant at the time, I think there is now room for exceptions. When it comes to teams running their Midfields, the cream usually rises to the top, and is given a good run at it. This holds even more so teams middle or lower on the ladder. If Cripps stays fit, he'll get a really good run at it, and I wouldn't let any talk of more Forward time stop you from picking him.
No.
At his price, I believe the risk is too great. SC is a game of finite and restricted scoring. If you put 2 of the greatest points pigs of all time in the one team, something has to give. Add in Selwood and Duncan, and the pie gets sliced even smaller.
People keep referring to the 2012 Collingwood Midfield (Swan 18/126, Pendlebury 18/125, Beams 21/123), but I'm not sure that is a fair comparison. The game is different now, and the Collingwood structure and game plan bares no resemblance to Geelongs current structure and game plan. The other thing about Collingwood 2012 was that there was only one period in the season where all 3 scored well:
Rnds 1 - 8: Swan 8/119, Pendlebury 8/129, Beams 7/95
Rnds 9 - 15: Swan 4/134, Pendlebury 2/107, Beams 6/126 - no more than 2 of them played in these games
Rnds 16 - 22: Swan 6/131, Pendlebury 8/125, Beams 8/145
If we are to give this Collingwood season any relevance to Geelong in 2018, we would also need to concede it is unlikely that both Dangerfield and Ablett are capable of scoring at Super Elite levels, at the same time, for long periods of the season, especially throwing in Selwood/Duncan as spoiling the party. If there is only say and 8 or 10 week period where they both score at mind boggling levels, it then holds, that there is a 12 or 14 week period where one or the other (or possibly both) aren't. When you are dealing with a system that basically penalises players, price-wise, for performing at last seasons level, it would seem crazy to back that 8 or 10 week hot period to occur from Round 1. It would seem much more prudent to back it in that one, or other, or both, start in that 12 to 14 week down period, which compounds those potential initial price falls. Yes, it could be Ablett down, and Danger up early on, but when you are looking at a player whose price is nearly equivalent to a 145 average in Round 5 or 6, it's probably better to err on the side of caution, as he will need to score at career best levels, just to maintain his price, and he now has Ablett eating his pie to deal with as well.
Coming off a major career high, so priced accordingly. Everything points to last year being more a spike, than his new norm. I wouldn't be going anywhere near him. Especially given the above.
At his price, I believe the risk is too great. SC is a game of finite and restricted scoring. If you put 2 of the greatest points pigs of all time in the one team, something has to give. Add in Selwood and Duncan, and the pie gets sliced even smaller.
People keep referring to the 2012 Collingwood Midfield (Swan 18/126, Pendlebury 18/125, Beams 21/123), but I'm not sure that is a fair comparison. The game is different now, and the Collingwood structure and game plan bares no resemblance to Geelongs current structure and game plan. The other thing about Collingwood 2012 was that there was only one period in the season where all 3 scored well:
Rnds 1 - 8: Swan 8/119, Pendlebury 8/129, Beams 7/95
Rnds 9 - 15: Swan 4/134, Pendlebury 2/107, Beams 6/126 - no more than 2 of them played in these games
Rnds 16 - 22: Swan 6/131, Pendlebury 8/125, Beams 8/145
If we are to give this Collingwood season any relevance to Geelong in 2018, we would also need to concede it is unlikely that both Dangerfield and Ablett are capable of scoring at Super Elite levels, at the same time, for long periods of the season, especially throwing in Selwood/Duncan as spoiling the party. If there is only say and 8 or 10 week period where they both score at mind boggling levels, it then holds, that there is a 12 or 14 week period where one or the other (or possibly both) aren't. When you are dealing with a system that basically penalises players, price-wise, for performing at last seasons level, it would seem crazy to back that 8 or 10 week hot period to occur from Round 1. It would seem much more prudent to back it in that one, or other, or both, start in that 12 to 14 week down period, which compounds those potential initial price falls. Yes, it could be Ablett down, and Danger up early on, but when you are looking at a player whose price is nearly equivalent to a 145 average in Round 5 or 6, it's probably better to err on the side of caution, as he will need to score at career best levels, just to maintain his price, and he now has Ablett eating his pie to deal with as well.
Coming off a major career high, so priced accordingly. Everything points to last year being more a spike, than his new norm. I wouldn't be going anywhere near him. Especially given the above.
Last edited:
Hi Rowsus,
An odd one but thoughts on Luke Ryan from Fremantle? Saw him last year and liked what I saw. Looks a good player, intercepts well and has a prolific shoe. Will obviously have a massive POD status and showed last year he can score very well, so I am seriously considering the gamble. Am I completely wrong to think he could go somewhere near 90 this year? Droves are jumping on Witherden who appears to be a similar situation, albeit possibly with higher potential, so I am interested in your thoughts on him.
An odd one but thoughts on Luke Ryan from Fremantle? Saw him last year and liked what I saw. Looks a good player, intercepts well and has a prolific shoe. Will obviously have a massive POD status and showed last year he can score very well, so I am seriously considering the gamble. Am I completely wrong to think he could go somewhere near 90 this year? Droves are jumping on Witherden who appears to be a similar situation, albeit possibly with higher potential, so I am interested in your thoughts on him.
Hi Rowsus,
Very simple question, knowing you don't like to follow the crowd, but ...
Are you considering Fyfe?
I like to try to think differently as often as possible and Fyfe wasn't initially in my considerations, but the way he is looking I feel like I may need to bring him in as he could be back to his Brownlow best.
His only knock is knowing he doesn't play a full 22 games a year.
Very simple question, knowing you don't like to follow the crowd, but ...
Are you considering Fyfe?
I like to try to think differently as often as possible and Fyfe wasn't initially in my considerations, but the way he is looking I feel like I may need to bring him in as he could be back to his Brownlow best.
His only knock is knowing he doesn't play a full 22 games a year.
what are your thoughts on treloar and mills?
after being persuaded by your post about danger treloar is the "best" player I can afford without ruining my current structure
I was very big on him last year and hate having to resort to him unless you think there are better options from beams down?
onto mills
do you think he can get the mid time needed to be a top pick? I have seen posts suggesting that it isn't that bad an idea which is promising so was hoping for your thoughts
thanks in advance
after being persuaded by your post about danger treloar is the "best" player I can afford without ruining my current structure
I was very big on him last year and hate having to resort to him unless you think there are better options from beams down?
onto mills
do you think he can get the mid time needed to be a top pick? I have seen posts suggesting that it isn't that bad an idea which is promising so was hoping for your thoughts
thanks in advance
Last edited:
Hi stephen,
the turkey's always delicious, as long as it's not dry. Risengrød tastes like porridge, so it's just stodgey.
I think both Pendlebury and Selwood are high risk picks this year, and that's reflected in their ownership %'s (P 9%, S 3%).
While they don't have to create history to bounce back to useful levels, they do have to bend it a little.
Not many 30+ year olds manage to increase their scoring up into the area you'd want or need from Pendles. It might have happened 2 or 3 times in SC history. Similarly, Selwood has looked like a 105 player 2 of the last 3 seasons, and needs to do something special to turn that back into 110 territory.
Having said they face a task, they are two of the best in SC history, so that should add to their chances. Selwood has the added hurdle of Ablett soaking up points too. If I was to risk taking one into my team, it would be Pendlebury, but I will be going without either.
the turkey's always delicious, as long as it's not dry. Risengrød tastes like porridge, so it's just stodgey.
I think both Pendlebury and Selwood are high risk picks this year, and that's reflected in their ownership %'s (P 9%, S 3%).
While they don't have to create history to bounce back to useful levels, they do have to bend it a little.
Not many 30+ year olds manage to increase their scoring up into the area you'd want or need from Pendles. It might have happened 2 or 3 times in SC history. Similarly, Selwood has looked like a 105 player 2 of the last 3 seasons, and needs to do something special to turn that back into 110 territory.
Having said they face a task, they are two of the best in SC history, so that should add to their chances. Selwood has the added hurdle of Ablett soaking up points too. If I was to risk taking one into my team, it would be Pendlebury, but I will be going without either.
- Status