Kerridge.Who's the MID/FWD we're picking for the midfield? I have about 4 in the forward line but zero in midfield.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Kerridge.Who's the MID/FWD we're picking for the midfield? I have about 4 in the forward line but zero in midfield.
Fyfe, limited pre-season.
He's still had a limited pre-season. He's just not human, so it doesn't affect him as much as others.What is Fyfe's limited pre-season? He's played all 3 NAB games.
I don't think it really matters as you can swap them any time. As long as you have the link.Who's the MID/FWD we're picking for the midfield? I have about 4 in the forward line but zero in midfield.
Basically if you're going to take them you must be confident they'll become keepers and be premiums. (I'd consider Bartel and Buddy premos out of that list, only because they have good history, in saying that, I don't like either of them as picks)So do we loosely class (or hope!) Sam Gray, Aaron Hall, Buddy, Bartel, JJ, etc as Premiums at this stage?
And whilst everyone is focusing on the Guns and Rookies, what is the consensus about players such as Libba, Croch-Brothers, DeGoey, Seedsman, Wells etc and fitting them into the G'n'R plan? Its difficult to get a balance this year with so many middle-tier options, or is it just me??
Or turf an underperforming premo.Yeah if Danger starts like he did last year he'll be 550k at about round 8.
So you'll need 2 rookies to be averaging 80 to be able to afford him.
Update: Most popular midfielders as at 15 March 2016:
(removing players who are DPP, who are better used on the non-MID line)
1. Liberatore (53%)
2. Dangerfield (42%) on the rise
3. Ablett (42%) on the nose
4. Fyfe (36%)
5. Rockliff (31%) on the nose
6. Mills (29%) on the rise
7. Pendlebury (23%)
8. Parish (22%)
9. Mathieson (17%) on the nose
10. B.Crouch (15%)
11. Crowley (15%)
12. Oliver (13%) on the rise
13. O'Meara (12%)
14. M.Crouch (11%) on the rise
15. Priddis (11%)
16. Davis (11%) on the rise
17. Gore (10%)
18. Keays (10%)
19. Gresham (10%)
20. Hannebery (9%)
What is Fyfe's limited pre-season? He's played all 3 NAB games.
Only have 4 of these (not including rooks)
Happy as a pig in shit with that
I didn't say "no chance", I said "no chance for mine".Parker is probably the 3rd or 4th best mid in the team, so he's not as important as Gablett.
For you to say he's "no chance" to play forward minutes is misleading.
I'm pointing out what a coach has said, and what actually transpired on the weekend to allow people to be more informed.
Speculative calls on Pendles and Hanners. Dangerfield is playing for a new club, new game plan, new team mates. There's as much risk there, if not more, than taking Pendles and Hanners I would have thought.I just think, given the question marks with the other guys in his price range, Dangerfield is about as safe as it gets.
Ablett, injury cloud.
Fyfe, limited pre-season.
Pendlebury, potential role change? Also a few new midfielders in there.
Hannebery, depth of Sydney's midfield, and him not being the 1a midfielder means he could potentially be volatile.
Priddis, safe as houses, but probably the lowest ceiling.
Even if Danger starts a little slow, you won't have the money to upgrade to him yet, and by the time you do, he will be firing 130s every week, so will be 650k anyway. And his average over the season will level out.
Quoting you as saying "no chance" isn't misquoting you if you said "no chance", notwithstanding that you qualified it with "for mine".I didn't say "no chance", I said "no chance for mine".
There's a big difference between the two, no need to misquote me.
Well it sort of is if removing words alter the meaning of what you are quoting, because then you're misrepresenting the intention of the sentence, which is therefore a misquote. Especially when you remove the part that qualifies that it's my opinion rather than fact, and then proceed to attack me for being misleading, which I wasn't being given I was stating my own personal opinion on what I think is going to transpireQuoting you as saying "no chance" isn't misquoting you if you said "no chance", notwithstanding that you qualified it with "for mine".
https://www.esc.edu/online-writing-center/resources/research/research-paper-steps/quotations/Yes, you can leave out words you deem unnecessary in a quotation, but you can't take out words that will change its meaning.
For example, if the quotation is "This movie is wonderful drivel," you can't quote it as "This movie is wonderful . . ." and leave out the word "drivel," since it changes the meaning of the quotation.
Pendles + danger probably the safest lot of the expensive mids. Both are very durable and produce big points. Imo theres a good chance that Pendles, Danger and Hanners will be top 3 mids for total points
Isn't it implied that it's your opinion rather than fact? Especially when one considers he already quoted you in full as saying "no chance for mine" in the conversation.Well it sort of is if removing words alter the meaning of what you are quoting, because then you're misrepresenting the intention of the sentence, which is therefore a misquote. Especially when you remove the part that qualifies that it's my opinion rather than fact, and then proceed to attack me for being misleading, which I wasn't being given I was stating my own personal opinion on what I think is going to transpire
what was said?Did you hear Swan last nite?
what was said?
Treloar and Adams the new engine room
Pendles to spend more time across halfback
No, I'm referring to the earlier post where he quoted you directly.You're confused.
Here's the post accusing me of being misleading, with a misquote, and no quotation of my original statement
View attachment 225219
I have no problem with that post, I'm talking about the post where he misquoted meNo, I'm referring to the earlier post where he quoted you directly.
I'm not saying you have a problem with that post; I'm suggesting it's clearly implied that Parker being no chance to play forward is your opinion when one considers he'd already quoted you as saying "no chance for mine" in the earlier post.I have no problem with that post, I'm talking about the post where he misquoted me
I disagree. Happy to have alternative opinions.I'm not saying you have a problem with that post; I'm suggesting it's clearly implied that Parker being no chance to play forward is your opinion when one considers he'd already quoted you as saying "no chance for mine" in the earlier post.
To me, that is a totally different statement to: For your to say he's "no chance for mine" to play forward minutes is misleading, because an opinion can't be misleading; it's an opinion, rather than a statement of fact. Do you believe an opinion can be misleading?For you to say he's "no chance" to play forward minutes is misleading.