- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 19,074
- Likes
- 80,340
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Opinion Player X vs Player Y
- Thread starter yakka
- Start date
Simpson, as he's a definitely keeper. If you go the latter, the loose change with Malceski should be ensuring you nail a keeper somewhere else in your starting squad. During the season, 117k might allow you to upgrade to a fallen premium somewhere with one trade, but it's probably not enough money most times.
I have both, but for this particular scenario I'd be with Kade.
I have both, but for this particular scenario I'd be with Kade.
Was not good to hear he had a poor intraclub. However I think if you have a decent backup plan, you can almost assess how he tracks over the first 3 rounds (e.g. if you also have a poor scoring speculative defender - e.g. Malceski - you can make 2 trades to 'fix' those issues by downgrading that defender to a solid rookie - who hopefully at that stage has made themselves known - and upgrade Lobbe to a premium ruck)
Again, just to reiterate...have a backup plan/a plan B
Again, just to reiterate...have a backup plan/a plan B
I would disagree with saying that Pendles is useless for the loophole; if anything, his consistency means that he should be perma-captain. If your VC misfires with an 80, then Scott Pendlebury, who is usually reliable for around 125, is exactly the kind of backup you want.
And he does have a history of monster scores - maybe not as many as Ablett; but they still happen. He was playing sore last year; in a Collingwood side that wasn't as good as a few years ago. Additionally, he's the kind of player that can perform well against any team, regardless of their ladder position.
And he does have a history of monster scores - maybe not as many as Ablett; but they still happen. He was playing sore last year; in a Collingwood side that wasn't as good as a few years ago. Additionally, he's the kind of player that can perform well against any team, regardless of their ladder position.
Just for the records...
Scott Pendlebury
2015: 4 x 130+ scores (158,135,184,155)
2014: 6 x 130+ scores (182,153,139,131,134,148)
2013: 9 x 130+ scores (160,136,161,132,145,154,153,150,157)
2012: 9 x 130+ scores (167,134,140,145,147,132,136,155,142)
2011: 13 x 130+ scores (162,132,130,138,149,160,145,160,133,154,135,140,143)
Agreed that his frequency of hitting 130+ is dropping, but to say that he never gets over 130+ is just an incorrect statement going off his history.
Scott Pendlebury
2015: 4 x 130+ scores (158,135,184,155)
2014: 6 x 130+ scores (182,153,139,131,134,148)
2013: 9 x 130+ scores (160,136,161,132,145,154,153,150,157)
2012: 9 x 130+ scores (167,134,140,145,147,132,136,155,142)
2011: 13 x 130+ scores (162,132,130,138,149,160,145,160,133,154,135,140,143)
Agreed that his frequency of hitting 130+ is dropping, but to say that he never gets over 130+ is just an incorrect statement going off his history.
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 2,301
- Likes
- 1,721
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
'Never' was an exaggeration, sorry for being unclear.
That is very true, he's useful when playing second, but most of the time Gazza/Rocky will have already gotten you a 130.
And when playing first, it can cause a real headache if he gets 130, and you've got Gazza playing second. Danger and Fyfe are more likely to give you an advantage over others if they get 150+, and if they get less than 120, you can just back in Gaz.
That is very true, he's useful when playing second, but most of the time Gazza/Rocky will have already gotten you a 130.
And when playing first, it can cause a real headache if he gets 130, and you've got Gazza playing second. Danger and Fyfe are more likely to give you an advantage over others if they get 150+, and if they get less than 120, you can just back in Gaz.
