Position 2023: Midfield Discussion
- Thread starter KLo30
- Start date
Will watch but mid only at that price is a hard sell given how close it is to Hopper, I've only got a couple of on field slots so he'd need to look like he can push towards 90 I think to justify him.
Probably needs there to be nothing below him to really come into play but he's a talent and worth watching. Massive leap he needs though.
Probably needs there to be nothing below him to really come into play but he's a talent and worth watching. Massive leap he needs though.
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2021
- Messages
- 171
- Likes
- 1,009
- AFL Club
- Carlton
That's a bit of an oxymoron isn't it? Analysing the team that did better than everyone elses is foolish, yet there is aspects to take away from it, which you go on to analyse?
No-one is suggesting it should be mimicked. That would be ridiculous due to the value lying in different areas and price ranges.
What it tells me is, you don't have to keep as high a number of players all year as would generally be expected. He kept 8 all season, and they certainly weren't all at "keeper level prices" to begin with. They ranged from Brodie at 200K to Macrae at 700K. He kept a player at 380K and another at 460K. Neale was a bit of a gimme at 540K. You don't have to spend "keeper money" to get a keeper - you really don't know where they are going to pop up until the season unfolds. He only really kept 3 that he paid top dollar for - Macrae, Miller and Dunkley. I agree that we are highly unlikely to get the 2 keepers in the 200's, but that affects everyone regardless of what starting strategy you start with.
The other takeaway that someone else mentioned, is the midprice failures are the perfect route to adjust your side quickly. They are more expendable early on than premos who you don't want to sideways trade, and rookies who you really want to make more money out of. The 4 midpricers that he lost early, gave him the scope to target whatever he felt he most needed. Pairs of midpricers allow you the flexibility to go one-up one-down, or target other value players that have got off to a flyer. Rowell was a bad pick overall, but he took advantage of his early 157 to quickly adjust, when it appeared he wouldn't produce consistently.
Those midprice selections you mention at point 2. were not in every side. Basically, the more you had from that group, the better you went. It already appears there is a group of common options this year - Yeo, Bowes, Hopper, Sheed and Fyfe will be very popular, but everyone won't pick all of them and some will pick none.
No-one should be trying to talk others into changing their teams to be more like their own. Hopefully what this discussion does, is give people a bit more to think about and we end up with more varied strategies.
No-one is suggesting it should be mimicked. That would be ridiculous due to the value lying in different areas and price ranges.
What it tells me is, you don't have to keep as high a number of players all year as would generally be expected. He kept 8 all season, and they certainly weren't all at "keeper level prices" to begin with. They ranged from Brodie at 200K to Macrae at 700K. He kept a player at 380K and another at 460K. Neale was a bit of a gimme at 540K. You don't have to spend "keeper money" to get a keeper - you really don't know where they are going to pop up until the season unfolds. He only really kept 3 that he paid top dollar for - Macrae, Miller and Dunkley. I agree that we are highly unlikely to get the 2 keepers in the 200's, but that affects everyone regardless of what starting strategy you start with.
The other takeaway that someone else mentioned, is the midprice failures are the perfect route to adjust your side quickly. They are more expendable early on than premos who you don't want to sideways trade, and rookies who you really want to make more money out of. The 4 midpricers that he lost early, gave him the scope to target whatever he felt he most needed. Pairs of midpricers allow you the flexibility to go one-up one-down, or target other value players that have got off to a flyer. Rowell was a bad pick overall, but he took advantage of his early 157 to quickly adjust, when it appeared he wouldn't produce consistently.
Those midprice selections you mention at point 2. were not in every side. Basically, the more you had from that group, the better you went. It already appears there is a group of common options this year - Yeo, Bowes, Hopper, Sheed and Fyfe will be very popular, but everyone won't pick all of them and some will pick none.
No-one should be trying to talk others into changing their teams to be more like their own. Hopefully what this discussion does, is give people a bit more to think about and we end up with more varied strategies.
Is the sort of pick that could work but I just think hell get managed at the wrong time and stuff you around, body is nowhere near as durable as it once was and he seems happy enough to be a bit part moreso than the main main these days, do think there will be greater mid time this year though really no spot up forward when theres Hawkins,Cameron,Henry,Rohan,Stengle and Close.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,890
- Likes
- 11,150
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 418
- Likes
- 2,699
- AFL Club
- Bulldogs
I have already made some earlier points (post #222) regarding the commentary on the way last year's winner (Raymagoos) went about it.
I do think there are some lessons to be learned there.
The main one for me is that its what you do during the season is more important than the way you set up your starting team.
Its pretty obvious that the more good R1 picks that work the better, but its not like you have to nail it to win.
Raymagoos had chopped 8 of his starters coming into round 5 and none of these were base-grade rookies..
R3 Gawn(657) – Berry(269) – McGovern(256)
R4 Crisp(571) – Daniel(511) – Stephens(168)
R5 Hinge(181) – Rowell(342) and Bowey(traded in earlier)
He kept on trading very aggressively - in light of the info that had come to hand - it seemed that he was prepared to ruthlessly jettison players losing value in favour of those with rising prices.
Naturally he had to pick winning replacements, but you're not guessing so much - the scores & price projections are on the board.
This early reset showed up in the trend line of his overall rank.. 2605 - 4820 - 7420 -11086 - 2872 - 830 - 216 etc..
So it wasn't his starting side that made the difference - he made perhaps 10-12 good picks, but he also had plenty of flops.
Where I'd say he was really lucky was that he only had 2 trades left after R16 and he got through absolutely unscathed from there.. not sure I'd go that hard but..
Out of interest this is the make up of his starting squad by price range.
I do think there are some lessons to be learned there.
The main one for me is that its what you do during the season is more important than the way you set up your starting team.
Its pretty obvious that the more good R1 picks that work the better, but its not like you have to nail it to win.
Raymagoos had chopped 8 of his starters coming into round 5 and none of these were base-grade rookies..
R3 Gawn(657) – Berry(269) – McGovern(256)
R4 Crisp(571) – Daniel(511) – Stephens(168)
R5 Hinge(181) – Rowell(342) and Bowey(traded in earlier)
He kept on trading very aggressively - in light of the info that had come to hand - it seemed that he was prepared to ruthlessly jettison players losing value in favour of those with rising prices.
Naturally he had to pick winning replacements, but you're not guessing so much - the scores & price projections are on the board.
This early reset showed up in the trend line of his overall rank.. 2605 - 4820 - 7420 -11086 - 2872 - 830 - 216 etc..
So it wasn't his starting side that made the difference - he made perhaps 10-12 good picks, but he also had plenty of flops.
Where I'd say he was really lucky was that he only had 2 trades left after R16 and he got through absolutely unscathed from there.. not sure I'd go that hard but..
Out of interest this is the make up of his starting squad by price range.
After the initial corrections he targeted all of the top line premiums on each line, much the same as the rest of us. His only 'value' pick was Dale as Hewetts replacement in rnd 19, we've all noted that he also had a couple of failures.
What I have noted is that there were no trades in the 1st 2 rnds which gave him a good look, both price and pts wise, to then adjust over the next 3 rnds with 9 trades.
What I have noted is that there were no trades in the 1st 2 rnds which gave him a good look, both price and pts wise, to then adjust over the next 3 rnds with 9 trades.
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 270
- Likes
- 190
Haha, did you read what I wrote. I have zero faith in anything to do with that side 
I just don't think he's worth the risk in this midfield group personally but logic says the Giants should really just play Greene, Green, Kelly and Coniglio to me. 2 of them are endurance beasts, Coniglio isn't bad and Green is an absolute clearance monster to make up for not being an endurance beast but I'll be shocked if Greene actually plays midfield, I'd bet it will be Ward instead, so basically reduce your forward supply significantly to please a guy who really should have retired last year.
There's a huge gap in talent from their top 4 to their 5th, which is either Ward or Ash at this point.
If I was them it would be easy. It would be Greene/Coniglio should play maximum TOG rotating forward/midfield, Kelly however high TOG he can play which should be ~90%, Green however high he can play with Greene/Coniglio picking up his slack. Whitfield and Perryman on the wings. Preuss is clearly their best ruck and should be #1, I wouldn't be going a 2nd ruck personally for them, just ruck Ward who should play forward when not rucking. That 4 matches just about anyone in the league, imo.
I must add, that's exactly what I would have done last year and probably the year before also (Greene not ready yet then so go Taranto/Hopper) and they've never done it.
Trying to apply logic, sense or any kind of rationale to GWS is a fool's errand. Just let Kelly go and if he hits 125 this year just nod to yourself knowing you were right all these years and Cameron is complete twit and let that be the win. I'm pretty sure he's torched me for half a decade now so I'll be there nodding along as a tear rolls down my face also...
I just don't think he's worth the risk in this midfield group personally but logic says the Giants should really just play Greene, Green, Kelly and Coniglio to me. 2 of them are endurance beasts, Coniglio isn't bad and Green is an absolute clearance monster to make up for not being an endurance beast but I'll be shocked if Greene actually plays midfield, I'd bet it will be Ward instead, so basically reduce your forward supply significantly to please a guy who really should have retired last year.
There's a huge gap in talent from their top 4 to their 5th, which is either Ward or Ash at this point.
If I was them it would be easy. It would be Greene/Coniglio should play maximum TOG rotating forward/midfield, Kelly however high TOG he can play which should be ~90%, Green however high he can play with Greene/Coniglio picking up his slack. Whitfield and Perryman on the wings. Preuss is clearly their best ruck and should be #1, I wouldn't be going a 2nd ruck personally for them, just ruck Ward who should play forward when not rucking. That 4 matches just about anyone in the league, imo.
I must add, that's exactly what I would have done last year and probably the year before also (Greene not ready yet then so go Taranto/Hopper) and they've never done it.
Trying to apply logic, sense or any kind of rationale to GWS is a fool's errand. Just let Kelly go and if he hits 125 this year just nod to yourself knowing you were right all these years and Cameron is complete twit and let that be the win. I'm pretty sure he's torched me for half a decade now so I'll be there nodding along as a tear rolls down my face also...
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2020
- Messages
- 12,069
- Likes
- 42,460
Same story as the mids.
Assuming Greene is playing forward, their first midfield group should be Coniglio, Kelly and Green. If Kingsley can't see that then he should just quit now. There's just no room for debate on it. Two inside out class players and a total bull, it's a perfect mix and balance.
Coniglio was the victim of too many options and Leon Cameron preferring to play the 2nd tier mids at the expense of his absolute class at all costs, McVeigh had two genuinely great moves as the interim coach, Himmelberg to his natural position in defense and Coniglio into the guts as a pure midfielder. From that point forward he averaged 111, he's averaged close to that in past seasons when playing midfield heavy roles.
I think he's genuinely underpriced at 101 and has upside to 115, if his body were to hold together totally I don't really see why that can't even go to 120 but I feel pretty good about him at 110-115 with good health.
Durability is a mare for him, never managed 22 in 11 years, I don't think it's reasonable to expect he does this year but if he's scoring at 110 and can play 20, you'll live with it.
I have Dunkley, Rozee, Coniglio and Taranto all as genuinely underpriced and all great picks. All 4 are pretty ordinary on durability but all are so cheap compared to where they should score that it really is a risk that has to be taken.
Dunkley the safest on scoring projection, he's always scored in that 115+ range when playing as a pure midfielder and he should do that now he's got a decent coach at a team with limited midfield options. He's the first picked.
Coniglio already covered but I'll add that I think he's the next safest of the 4 because he's proven his range a lot more.
I have Rozee third because his ceiling is huge, he definitely can push 115, his durability is also the best of a bad bunch. He's my personal first picked of the group but Dunkley has to be taken as a defensive pick even if you're not as high as I am because he's the first picked for about 95% of teams right now.
Taranto for mine is 4th because his horrific disposal caps him, he's not good by either hand or foot. If Richmond can fix that then it would be a minor miracle, I've joked that Dimma is coach of the year if he somehow does. Taranto's kicking is pretty broken technically so would be a serious rebuild I think, his handballing though just seems to be decision making. That said, Taranto has a safer role than Rozee and while I'll chase the upside I think Taranto might be safer to hit 100 but if things go as I expect he caps out around 105 while Rozee is closer to 115. Taranto also has the advantage that he's never getting tagged and if he does it's because he fixed his disposal so you've already won. Dunkley isn't likely to get tagged either with Neale around.
To be fair, I think Butters, Moore (if midfield), Zorko and Cunnington all deserve a lot more talk than they're getting right now also. All of them have the potential to go 105+ region as well if things land right and the last pair are significantly cheaper.
Basically I think the forwards are loaded and the only reason I won't take 4 of the above is because I'm hesitant to lockout the DPP guys, it really hurt my season last year having 5 forward keepers in my round 1 side when so many value targets popped up later in the year that were superior players. I couldn't go for Cameron, Parker and really shouldn't have gone for Rozee and Himmelberg except my season was over so I went POD chasing. Also meant I could only go one of the Bont, Libba and Smith group when they got it. Given I'm likely to take Fyfe and/or Ziebell that would leave me where I was last year very quickly.
Assuming Greene is playing forward, their first midfield group should be Coniglio, Kelly and Green. If Kingsley can't see that then he should just quit now. There's just no room for debate on it. Two inside out class players and a total bull, it's a perfect mix and balance.
Coniglio was the victim of too many options and Leon Cameron preferring to play the 2nd tier mids at the expense of his absolute class at all costs, McVeigh had two genuinely great moves as the interim coach, Himmelberg to his natural position in defense and Coniglio into the guts as a pure midfielder. From that point forward he averaged 111, he's averaged close to that in past seasons when playing midfield heavy roles.
I think he's genuinely underpriced at 101 and has upside to 115, if his body were to hold together totally I don't really see why that can't even go to 120 but I feel pretty good about him at 110-115 with good health.
Durability is a mare for him, never managed 22 in 11 years, I don't think it's reasonable to expect he does this year but if he's scoring at 110 and can play 20, you'll live with it.
I have Dunkley, Rozee, Coniglio and Taranto all as genuinely underpriced and all great picks. All 4 are pretty ordinary on durability but all are so cheap compared to where they should score that it really is a risk that has to be taken.
Dunkley the safest on scoring projection, he's always scored in that 115+ range when playing as a pure midfielder and he should do that now he's got a decent coach at a team with limited midfield options. He's the first picked.
Coniglio already covered but I'll add that I think he's the next safest of the 4 because he's proven his range a lot more.
I have Rozee third because his ceiling is huge, he definitely can push 115, his durability is also the best of a bad bunch. He's my personal first picked of the group but Dunkley has to be taken as a defensive pick even if you're not as high as I am because he's the first picked for about 95% of teams right now.
Taranto for mine is 4th because his horrific disposal caps him, he's not good by either hand or foot. If Richmond can fix that then it would be a minor miracle, I've joked that Dimma is coach of the year if he somehow does. Taranto's kicking is pretty broken technically so would be a serious rebuild I think, his handballing though just seems to be decision making. That said, Taranto has a safer role than Rozee and while I'll chase the upside I think Taranto might be safer to hit 100 but if things go as I expect he caps out around 105 while Rozee is closer to 115. Taranto also has the advantage that he's never getting tagged and if he does it's because he fixed his disposal so you've already won. Dunkley isn't likely to get tagged either with Neale around.
To be fair, I think Butters, Moore (if midfield), Zorko and Cunnington all deserve a lot more talk than they're getting right now also. All of them have the potential to go 105+ region as well if things land right and the last pair are significantly cheaper.
Basically I think the forwards are loaded and the only reason I won't take 4 of the above is because I'm hesitant to lockout the DPP guys, it really hurt my season last year having 5 forward keepers in my round 1 side when so many value targets popped up later in the year that were superior players. I couldn't go for Cameron, Parker and really shouldn't have gone for Rozee and Himmelberg except my season was over so I went POD chasing. Also meant I could only go one of the Bont, Libba and Smith group when they got it. Given I'm likely to take Fyfe and/or Ziebell that would leave me where I was last year very quickly.
I'm very bullish on all 3 of the GWS mids that you listed, Kingsley was the midfield/stoppage coach at Richmond and I would be gobsmacked if doesn't play those 3 as the 1st midfield rotation.
I get your point about being hesitant in loading up on the forwards, but I think comparing last year to this year carries assumptions that possibly aren't relevant.
I assume that your 5 starting keepers last year included Cogs and Brodie, maybe F4 & F5? Those 2 cost a combined 477k and delivered an average of 203 between them. My guess is that those who started them were hopeful that they would be good stepping stones, the fact that they proved to be keepers was a huge bonus, both in pts for their positions, the money saved and then spent on a better starting side combined with the added value of at least 4 trades saved in upgrading them. A very small price to pay for a lack of flexibility, hell hindsight says that Brodie should have been flicked for Parker at his bye who averaged 10 PPG more for the rest of the season (just an example).
As you highlighted, all of the 4 mentioned for this year have durability issues (as well as say Fyfe & McLean) I would think that the chances of 1 of those 6 going down in the season is extremely high, I can see a revolving door scenario being a real possibility. What I don't see however is Fyfe and McLean becoming keepers, there is a world where it could happen but the chances of both happening are extremely thin, obviously a huge win should it eventuate.
Cogs, Rozee and Taranto each share the rnd 15 bye and one of them could be sideways traded to someone who has gained DPP. So I think that the flexibility issue could be a bit overplayed, if we do end up that way then it's because 2 x cheapies became keepers and I'll take that everyday.
I get your point about being hesitant in loading up on the forwards, but I think comparing last year to this year carries assumptions that possibly aren't relevant.
I assume that your 5 starting keepers last year included Cogs and Brodie, maybe F4 & F5? Those 2 cost a combined 477k and delivered an average of 203 between them. My guess is that those who started them were hopeful that they would be good stepping stones, the fact that they proved to be keepers was a huge bonus, both in pts for their positions, the money saved and then spent on a better starting side combined with the added value of at least 4 trades saved in upgrading them. A very small price to pay for a lack of flexibility, hell hindsight says that Brodie should have been flicked for Parker at his bye who averaged 10 PPG more for the rest of the season (just an example).
As you highlighted, all of the 4 mentioned for this year have durability issues (as well as say Fyfe & McLean) I would think that the chances of 1 of those 6 going down in the season is extremely high, I can see a revolving door scenario being a real possibility. What I don't see however is Fyfe and McLean becoming keepers, there is a world where it could happen but the chances of both happening are extremely thin, obviously a huge win should it eventuate.
Cogs, Rozee and Taranto each share the rnd 15 bye and one of them could be sideways traded to someone who has gained DPP. So I think that the flexibility issue could be a bit overplayed, if we do end up that way then it's because 2 x cheapies became keepers and I'll take that everyday.