Position 2022: Midfield Discussion
- Thread starter KLo30
- Start date
No such thing as certain in a predictive game but Neale and T Mitchell are two players likely to be in the top echelon of scorers and also have upside, meaning they are less likely to be available significantly cheaper. I would have Petracca one run below in terms of likelihood, but with the same qualities.
Mids that are less volatile are generally harder to get in during the season as they'll be able to maintain a very high price throughout the year. Additionally, you want to get value when it presents itself so there's little point in leaving out a Lachie Neale type.
For me, there's only 6 midfielders worth starting unless you know what you're doing and are confident in your judgement.
Jack Macrae, Jack Steele, Touk Miller, Clayton Oliver, Tom Mitchell and Lachie Neale. Sam Walsh would have been one too.
Neale is almost certainly locked in, so most will be picking between 2-4 of the rest and a structure like that gives a good base to begin with.
For me, there's only 6 midfielders worth starting unless you know what you're doing and are confident in your judgement.
Jack Macrae, Jack Steele, Touk Miller, Clayton Oliver, Tom Mitchell and Lachie Neale. Sam Walsh would have been one too.
Neale is almost certainly locked in, so most will be picking between 2-4 of the rest and a structure like that gives a good base to begin with.
The early season rookie cash grab also means that almost none of the premium midfielders will be more expensive by round 10 than they are to start. Basically they've got to improve about 15 points on their starting average before they'll generate cash. It's simply a function of a fixed size pie that the massively underpriced guys at the bottom eat a disproportionate amount of that means the guys at the top are actually "overpriced" to start with.
Think it's very much a symptom of the immediate gratification society that people struggle to trade in those players. They want it now when the reality is that getting a Macrae into your side is generally going to take 2 weeks of trade plans.
The big change this year is of course the trade boost which I think is going to put a lot of those players much more within reach of a single weeks trades. The simply fact is the one up, one down is built around 500k targets, if you want a 650k target, add an extra down in there
Of course value is one thing but points on the field, captaincy and not needing corrective trades are also extremely valuable and that's what guys like Macrae or Oliver offer to you historically. There is a reason that guns and rookies is historically successful at a way higher level even if logically pure value would make more sense. The problem is that most of the time that a player is "value" it's because of something sinister underlying it, be that durability, unproven roles or the like.
Think it's very much a symptom of the immediate gratification society that people struggle to trade in those players. They want it now when the reality is that getting a Macrae into your side is generally going to take 2 weeks of trade plans.
The big change this year is of course the trade boost which I think is going to put a lot of those players much more within reach of a single weeks trades. The simply fact is the one up, one down is built around 500k targets, if you want a 650k target, add an extra down in there
Of course value is one thing but points on the field, captaincy and not needing corrective trades are also extremely valuable and that's what guys like Macrae or Oliver offer to you historically. There is a reason that guns and rookies is historically successful at a way higher level even if logically pure value would make more sense. The problem is that most of the time that a player is "value" it's because of something sinister underlying it, be that durability, unproven roles or the like.
The early season rookie cash grab also means that almost none of the premium midfielders will be more expensive by round 10 than they are to start. Basically they've got to improve about 15 points on their starting average before they'll generate cash. It's simply a function of a fixed size pie that the massively underpriced guys at the bottom eat a disproportionate amount of that means the guys at the top are actually "overpriced" to start with.
Think it's very much a symptom of the immediate gratification society that people struggle to trade in those players. They want it now when the reality is that getting a Macrae into your side is generally going to take 2 weeks of trade plans.
The big change this year is of course the trade boost which I think is going to put a lot of those players much more within reach of a single weeks trades. The simply fact is the one up, one down is built around 500k targets, if you want a 650k target, add an extra down in there
Of course value is one thing but points on the field, captaincy and not needing corrective trades are also extremely valuable and that's what guys like Macrae or Oliver offer to you historically. There is a reason that guns and rookies is historically successful at a way higher level even if logically pure value would make more sense. The problem is that most of the time that a player is "value" it's because of something sinister underlying it, be that durability, unproven roles or the like.
Think it's very much a symptom of the immediate gratification society that people struggle to trade in those players. They want it now when the reality is that getting a Macrae into your side is generally going to take 2 weeks of trade plans.
The big change this year is of course the trade boost which I think is going to put a lot of those players much more within reach of a single weeks trades. The simply fact is the one up, one down is built around 500k targets, if you want a 650k target, add an extra down in there
Of course value is one thing but points on the field, captaincy and not needing corrective trades are also extremely valuable and that's what guys like Macrae or Oliver offer to you historically. There is a reason that guns and rookies is historically successful at a way higher level even if logically pure value would make more sense. The problem is that most of the time that a player is "value" it's because of something sinister underlying it, be that durability, unproven roles or the like.
Maybe not pure but last year's winner was pretty much GnR, only mid price guys she had in the starting team were Walsh (debatable), Taranto and Butters (debatable).
You don't get much more GnR than that, there's always the Butters/Walsh type value play (see Neale, Sicily, Whitfield and half the forward plays). Taranto was the only real midprice play at the end of the day.
Basically the starting side can end it all but barring a miracle, it wont be winning it. Timing trades and nailing value in season will always be the big factor, well outside the pure luck of your guys staying on the park and getting injured at the right time if they're going to.
Rookies perhaps the most important thing to have right at round 3.
The funniest part looking at her team, you wouldn't even really say she did that well. Danger, Butters and Dunkley all failed. Merrett, Ridley, Short and Taranto were all underwhelming. It's funny how "not perfect" that starting side was really.
You don't get much more GnR than that, there's always the Butters/Walsh type value play (see Neale, Sicily, Whitfield and half the forward plays). Taranto was the only real midprice play at the end of the day.
Basically the starting side can end it all but barring a miracle, it wont be winning it. Timing trades and nailing value in season will always be the big factor, well outside the pure luck of your guys staying on the park and getting injured at the right time if they're going to.
Rookies perhaps the most important thing to have right at round 3.
The funniest part looking at her team, you wouldn't even really say she did that well. Danger, Butters and Dunkley all failed. Merrett, Ridley, Short and Taranto were all underwhelming. It's funny how "not perfect" that starting side was really.
@freowho
This was my play around Neale @ M1 side.
I guess if you lost Lipinski , Rowell , Berry for 3 mid rookies as well you could upgrade 2 of Kiddy/Milera , Cogs & Curnow.
Are your 10 mid rookies (+ remaining 5 bench players) scoring significantly enough to make enough $$$ to get you 7 premium mid upgrades though ?
Could get you 14+1+7 starting side
This was my play around Neale @ M1 side.
I guess if you lost Lipinski , Rowell , Berry for 3 mid rookies as well you could upgrade 2 of Kiddy/Milera , Cogs & Curnow.
Are your 10 mid rookies (+ remaining 5 bench players) scoring significantly enough to make enough $$$ to get you 7 premium mid upgrades though ?
Could get you 14+1+7 starting side
Last edited:
I really like your posts Wogitalia but sometimes you're on a different planet.
Dunkley made $74k and added 129 points a week.
Merrett played 22 games at 115.
Short had the 6th best aggregate, and Ridley had the 8th best aggregate, of all defenders and didn't need to be traded.
Those 4 players helped her win.
Dunkley made $74k and added 129 points a week.
Merrett played 22 games at 115.
Short had the 6th best aggregate, and Ridley had the 8th best aggregate, of all defenders and didn't need to be traded.
Those 4 players helped her win.
Dunkley failed because he got hurt, 74k is nice but that's a poor cash cow and a trade you have to find from somewhere. He's gone as well as a failure can but ultimately when you're trading a premium out at round 6 that's a failure in my book.
Merrett wasn't terrible but there were plenty of better picks available that were very much options that I'd personally just expect would be in the winning side over him.
Short and Ridley were fine but again there were better picks available. Like you could very easily have started a Rich/Crisp pairing there instead and been well ahead of them and I know when I think of a winning team I definitely would expect those types of names to be there over two guys who would get a passing grade but weren't near the top of the class!
They epitomise "not perfect" as picks. I had all 4 and I know I wasn't happy with the outcome of any of them. They weren't bad picks but I'd certainly not call them perfect. They were definitely among the most frustrating picks to have as they just consistently leaked points to their peers but, hey, at least they were playing
I think it serves as a good reminder that you don't need to make perfect picks as much as probably avoiding the really bad ones. As you said, none of the last 3 hurt her from winning, if she'd slipped on a Kelly or Cripps banana peel on the other hand
Also probably a pretty good reminder of the power of durability as we all go chasing underpriced trainwrecks! Ridley and Short were really hard to stomach as they kept putting up sub-par scoring and yet, as you said, they were 6th and 8th on aggregate and given the constant issues with defender rookies last year, solid chance that players missing often didn't get replaced by anything or forced trades so those aggregates mean more than normal.
Merrett wasn't terrible but there were plenty of better picks available that were very much options that I'd personally just expect would be in the winning side over him.
Short and Ridley were fine but again there were better picks available. Like you could very easily have started a Rich/Crisp pairing there instead and been well ahead of them and I know when I think of a winning team I definitely would expect those types of names to be there over two guys who would get a passing grade but weren't near the top of the class!
They epitomise "not perfect" as picks. I had all 4 and I know I wasn't happy with the outcome of any of them. They weren't bad picks but I'd certainly not call them perfect. They were definitely among the most frustrating picks to have as they just consistently leaked points to their peers but, hey, at least they were playing
I think it serves as a good reminder that you don't need to make perfect picks as much as probably avoiding the really bad ones. As you said, none of the last 3 hurt her from winning, if she'd slipped on a Kelly or Cripps banana peel on the other hand
Also probably a pretty good reminder of the power of durability as we all go chasing underpriced trainwrecks! Ridley and Short were really hard to stomach as they kept putting up sub-par scoring and yet, as you said, they were 6th and 8th on aggregate and given the constant issues with defender rookies last year, solid chance that players missing often didn't get replaced by anything or forced trades so those aggregates mean more than normal.
Just read an article in AFL app and fagan said he going to give Rayner and Bailey a lot of opportunities to play full time midfield. He also said Lyons will play a lot more time forward and Neale will play forward/wing. His spoke to them about there new role changes. Does this make Neale a must have anymore?
