Position 2023: Midfield Discussion

[Professor]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1620648409001783296

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/Jakethomasbroad/status/1620648409001783296

 

[GavinD]

Probably Demon.

Sorry, Satan = Clayton Oliver

 

[Russty_]

People get way too caught up in how much a premo mid is going to drop, especially when the so called tags are Essendon and West Coast who arent exactly screaming capacity to shut down Clayton Oliver, especially when one of the games is at a ground hes had two 200s at before, could be a very painful pass for the hope of saving 60K.

Laird feels alot less risk to take on when 50% of the comp arent going to have him if he goes huge.

I don't actually care how much my premos drop over the course of a season, because the reason you start expensive premos in your side ...is for the points they score you. Macrae ended up dropping 150k last year but still averaged 115 so who cares how much they drop as long as they average well. You pick them for their scoring ability and reliability.

 

[Shaunpro1]

I don't actually care how much my premos drop over the course of a season, because the reason you start expensive premos in your side ...is for the points they score you. Macrae ended up dropping 150k last year but still averaged 115 so who cares how much they drop as long as they average well. You pick them for their scoring ability and reliability.

Oliver is genuinely more likely to go 200 on Essendon at AO than 100, its beyond me how anyone has come to the conclusion a poor score awaits there, his favourite ground against an opponent he dropped 146 on in 2022, not sure a substantial price drop is happening, if it does big deal 50% of the comp also own him lol.

 

[Russty_]

Oliver is genuinely more likely to go 200 on Essendon at AO than 100, its beyond me how anyone has come to the conclusion a poor score awaits there, his favourite ground against an opponent he dropped 146 on in 2022, not sure a substantial price drop is happening, if it does big deal 50% of the comp also own him lol.

Mate with no offence to anyone intended I think that kind of talk is rather silly. My first 4 mids consist of Laird, Oliver, Miller and The Bont, even if Oliver scores a 70 one week for some reason, (a tag or whatever)...he bounces back strong.
You're better off not betting against the biggest scoring players in the game, pick them and build your team around them.

 

[Shaunpro1]

Mate with no offence to anyone intended I think that kind of talk is rather silly. My first 4 mids consist of Laird, Oliver, Miller and The Bont, even if Oliver scores a 70 one week for some reason, (a tag or whatever)...he bounces back strong.
You're better off not betting against the biggest scoring players in the game, pick them and build your team around them.

Macrae is a prime example, first 2 months he averaged 125 but lost 70K, who won his owners or the guys that passed? Know who I'd rather be every day of the week and is why I've always built my team around a strong core of mids.

 

[Russty_]

Macrae is a prime example, first 2 months he averaged 125 but lost 70K, who won his owners or the guys that passed? Know who I'd rather be every day of the week and is why I've always built my team around a strong core of mids.

Yep amen...money ain't as important as points. All the main mids usually end up losing money, Laird, Oliver, Miller, Bont probably will this year, that's because they start out overpriced. But doesn't mean they aren't worth their starting price haha

 

[Shaunpro1]

Yep amen...money ain't as important as points. All the main mids usually end up losing money, Laird, Oliver, Miller, Bont probably will this year, that's because they start out overpriced. But doesn't mean they aren't worth their starting price haha

If there was substantial cash gen out of the midfield that you could ride your way to premo mids with boosts I'd have a very different thought proccess, just not sure that's the case, looks the worst line for cash gen right now.

 

[Russty_]

If there was substantial cash gen out of the midfield that you could ride your way to premo mids with boosts I'd have a very different thought proccess, just not sure that's the case, looks the worst line for cash gen right now.

You could probably start Hopper in the mids this year and end up with a premo for him after doing 2 trades and spending 50 or 100 grand or you could just start with the mid premo you want to keep for the season.

 

[Shaunpro1]

You could probably start Hopper in the mids this year and end up with a premo for him after doing 2 trades and spending 50 or 100 grand or you could just start with the mid premo you want to keep for the season.

Guys like Hopper are crucial youve just got to pick the right ones, isn't hard to stuff it up and get stuck with guys that aren't making any cash at that sort of price point, something I've done pretty frequently when looking for some value.

How many of Hopper,Sheed,Worpel etc work could make or break plenty of seasons.

 

[Such is Fyfe]

Interesting convo above, at the moment I'm fading the expensive uber mid premos and looking for more value in my team.

Current M1-6: Bont, Macrae, Parish, Anderson, Hopper, Sheed.

I don't mind the idea of fading an Oliver type, and picking him up cheaper than the rest of the comp. Don't think it's a minimal saving either i.e. $50k bc with the extra cash i can pick a Sheed-type who could avg. 90+ make $150k and flick him to Oliver and it's now a $200k move.

Also, the points and captaincy arguments aren't standalone it's relative. I'll still have very good captain options in the first 6 weeks with Bont, Macrae & Parish.

I think the amount of trades and boosts we have allows us to be more aggressive and encourages us to seek more value in our teams. Adopting a new philosophy of 'seeking value that can be a top-liner in their position' which goes against the previous thinking of just selecting those that'll end up the highest in their lines.

Keen to hear others' thoughts on this! Just my 2 cents.

 

[Shannon]

Oliver plays 8 of his first 13 games at the MCG. Here are his scores at his home ground last year :-

112,146,118,168,119,135,113,134,141,140,152 & 126. An average of 133.67

Plays at the Gabba round 2 - average at that ground of 120 overall.

Plays at Optus v WCE round 4 - average of 98 (quite surprising/ not a great record v WCE)

Plays at Adelaide oval round 5 - average of 134, 2 x 200+ scores there

For mine he looms as a great VC/Capt option to start the season.

 

[Shaunpro1]

Interesting convo above, at the moment I'm fading the expensive uber mid premos and looking for more value in my team.

Current M1-6: Bont, Macrae, Parish, Anderson, Hopper, Sheed.

I don't mind the idea of fading an Oliver type, and picking him up cheaper than the rest of the comp. Don't think it's a minimal saving either i.e. $50k bc with the extra cash i can pick a Sheed-type who could avg. 90+ make $150k and flick him to Oliver and it's now a $200k move.

Also, the points and captaincy arguments aren't standalone it's relative. I'll still have very good captain options in the first 6 weeks with Bont, Macrae & Parish.

I think the amount of trades and boosts we have allows us to be more aggressive and encourages us to seek more value in our teams. Adopting a new philosophy of 'seeking value that can be a top-liner in their position' which goes against the previous thinking of just selecting those that'll end up the highest in their lines.

Keen to hear others' thoughts on this! Just my 2 cents.

My issue with this is what happens if top line premium mids start well and have minimal drops in price and Sheed and Hopper drop 50's and stall their cash gen? In theory its a good strategy but only takes a couple things to not go your way and it's a long season of chasing 650K+ mids.

 

[Chumpion]

Interesting convo above, at the moment I'm fading the expensive uber mid premos and looking for more value in my team.

Current M1-6: Bont, Macrae, Parish, Anderson, Hopper, Sheed.

I don't mind the idea of fading an Oliver type, and picking him up cheaper than the rest of the comp. Don't think it's a minimal saving either i.e. $50k bc with the extra cash i can pick a Sheed-type who could avg. 90+ make $150k and flick him to Oliver and it's now a $200k move.

Also, the points and captaincy arguments aren't standalone it's relative. I'll still have very good captain options in the first 6 weeks with Bont, Macrae & Parish.

I think the amount of trades and boosts we have allows us to be more aggressive and encourages us to seek more value in our teams. Adopting a new philosophy of 'seeking value that can be a top-liner in their position' which goes against the previous thinking of just selecting those that'll end up the highest in their lines.

Keen to hear others' thoughts on this! Just my 2 cents.

My concern with this is your are basically banking on everything going perfectly your way. Mid prices scoring really well, expensive guys dropping in price, your premiums hitting C scores etc, but also you’re relying on things lining up with the mid pricers peaking as the Uber premiums have dropped and there are no other priorities or other value guys you also need to target.

If any of that doesn’t go your way you can end up in a hole fast, and while the trades/boosts can dig you out of it, every trade or boost you use to correct is one you falling behind all the upgraders.

Not a bad strategy overall, but I think I‘d look to minimise the hurt factor and mitigate some risk. Whether that is across your other lines or some tweaks to mids.

 

[Locus Levy Lunacy]

Interesting convo above, at the moment I'm fading the expensive uber mid premos and looking for more value in my team.

Current M1-6: Bont, Macrae, Parish, Anderson, Hopper, Sheed.

I don't mind the idea of fading an Oliver type, and picking him up cheaper than the rest of the comp. Don't think it's a minimal saving either i.e. $50k bc with the extra cash i can pick a Sheed-type who could avg. 90+ make $150k and flick him to Oliver and it's now a $200k move.

Also, the points and captaincy arguments aren't standalone it's relative. I'll still have very good captain options in the first 6 weeks with Bont, Macrae & Parish.

I think the amount of trades and boosts we have allows us to be more aggressive and encourages us to seek more value in our teams. Adopting a new philosophy of 'seeking value that can be a top-liner in their position' which goes against the previous thinking of just selecting those that'll end up the highest in their lines.

Keen to hear others' thoughts on this! Just my 2 cents.

I have no problem with people doing this. You won't receive overwhelming support here (or on any site) though. The majority will generally default to a more guns and rookies approach.

I decided at the end of last season that I was definitely picking LDU, Warner, Green and Serong this year. I've cooled on Serong (partly for team balance, also keen on Titch), but I want to pick the other 3. What happens is, you continually read that it's not a good idea and get "brainwashed" into going with the masses.

It is always said that "you need everything to go right with your mid-pricers". The thing that doesn't get mentioned by those picking all the top-dollar guns, is the other half of that equation - the rookies. Oliver, Laird and Miller etc. may well pump out 130's and outscore Parish, Anderson, LDU, Warner etc. but those people are exposed to more rookie scores on-field. They need more rookies to continue to get selected and to score at an acceptable level.

Your midpricer might drop a 50, but rookies might drop a 20 and get dropped. History shows that there are not an unlimited number of rookies that perform as required. It is usually about 10 or 11 that can be deemed genuinely successful picks. Given everyone will have 8 or 9 on the bench, those that need a further 8 or 9 on-field are exposed to greater risk. Even if their on-field rookies perform, they may have weak or non-existent cash generators on the bench relative to a more mid-priced team. It doesn't look like we have the free-hit cheap keepers like Cogs and Brodie this year, meaning there are likely to be more positions that require upgrading.

My advice would be to stick to your original thinking. There is nothing wrong with any of the players you listed.

 

[Juzzo]

I have no problem with people doing this. You won't receive overwhelming support here (or on any site) though. The majority will generally default to a more guns and rookies approach.

I decided at the end of last season that I was definitely picking LDU, Warner, Green and Serong this year. I've cooled on Serong (partly for team balance, also keen on Titch), but I want to pick the other 3. What happens is, you continually read that it's not a good idea and get "brainwashed" into going with the masses.

It is always said that "you need everything to go right with your mid-pricers". The thing that doesn't get mentioned by those picking all the top-dollar guns, is the other half of that equation - the rookies. Oliver, Laird and Miller etc. may well pump out 130's and outscore Parish, Anderson, LDU, Warner etc. but those people are exposed to more rookie scores on-field. They need more rookies to continue to get selected and to score at an acceptable level.

Your midpricer might drop a 50, but rookies might drop a 20 and get dropped. History shows that there are not an unlimited number of rookies that perform as required. It is usually about 10 or 11 that can be deemed genuinely successful picks. Given everyone will have 8 or 9 on the bench, those that need a further 8 or 9 on-field are exposed to greater risk. Even if their on-field rookies perform, they may have weak or non-existent cash generators on the bench relative to a more mid-priced team. It doesn't look like we have the free-hit cheap keepers like Cogs and Brodie this year, meaning there are likely to be more positions that require upgrading.

My advice would be to stick to your original thinking. There is nothing wrong with any of the players you listed.

This approach can fail to some extent later in the year, when you are trying to fill your team with the best possible players, who other coaches started with (assuming they don't drop too much in price from the start).

 

[Locus Levy Lunacy]

This approach can fail to some extent later in the year, when you are trying to fill your team with the best possible players, who other coaches started with (assuming they don't drop too much in price from the start).

Accept that, but the extra trades offer more scope to sideways players during the byes. You simply grab the best possible options then, with more exposed information.

A midpricer might have had a poor score and stalled his cash gen. but Oliver and Laird may have both broken their legs as well.

 

[Feerits Elf]

I decided at the end of last season that I was definitely picking LDU, Warner, Green and Serong this year.

How'd you go last season? Was it more of a standard starting team?

 

[Such is Fyfe]

All great discussion! Appreciate the arguments on both sides, a lot of water to go under the bridge between now and round 1! Good food for thought

 

[Locus Levy Lunacy]

How'd you go last season? Was it more of a standard starting team?

Just inside 1500. I'm always happy to seek value and got most of the important ones like Sicily, Hewett and Cripps.

The big one I and a lot of others missed was Witts. I think he was the most important selection of the season last year. The winner had him from the start and these type of picks are way more important than paying top dollar for a premo.