I have a question re the two big guns in the ruck hoping someone can help with. Why does everyone seem to think spending $1.4m on the Grundy / Gawn pairing is not a smart move? From what I have read here most think they will finish 1 / 2 and by some margin (aware of the rucks history of backing up)
Yet people are happy to splash $1.3m+ on 2 mids and close to $2m on 3 mids when there would be much more variety of the answers as to who will finish 1 / 2?
Hypothetical - if Danger and Macare were both forwards would you spend $1.35m knowing it's most likely a 1 / 2 finish? I would assume so considering everyone has Danger and a lot like Macrae.
So is it just the simple fact that they are ruckmen who struggle to back up like the mids? Or is there something else I am not seeing?
Good question. I think there are a few factors potentially contributing:
- Preuss makes Gawn higher risk. Arguably not viable in many people’s minds. If you’re spending that much you want a high level of certainty on average, as well as games played (especially in the ruck).
- While most here probably think it will be Grundy and Gawn as the top two, the history of the rucks not backing up adds risk. So people think this is the most likely outcome, maybe by a distance, but are aware that there’s a strong chance they are wrong. You can always get Gawn later if needed if you don’t set and forget.
- There are quite a few viable cheap potential premium or stepping stone rucks/ruck structures. Goldy, Westhoff, Mummy, Kreuzer, Longer, Clarke/Fort if best 22 are all names I wouldn’t be devastated to find accidentally locked into my round one side.
- There are only two ruck spots, so if you go with set and forget and you don’t pick the right ones, you can’t get in someone who breaks out or surprises on the upside, without doing a semi-sideways trade. If Gawn goes at 110, for example, but Goldy starts beasting it again and goes 125, it’s an awkward decision to make. In the mids if you don’t start Macrae, and he goes at 135, it’s still okay - you just make him your 5th or 6th mid via a (hopefully early) upgrade.
- To your Macrae example, I think quite a lot of people still may not start him if they thought he was fully priced or had meaningful risk. Quite a few people seem to see Lloyd, Laird, Simpson and/or Sicily as very likely to be top defenders again this year (especially prior to recent discussion about the impact of rule changes) but equally quite a lot of sides have none of them.
I feel like there’s a bit of overlap in my points above, but hopefully this gives a flavor of what people might be thinking.
