Noticing a lot of people have warnock locked in as 3rd ruckman.
Why does everyone get concerned with ruck bench options? We only get to choose 3 emergencies, and I always select emergency for backs, mids, and fwds (as these have 7 or 6 players and more likely for a late withdrawl). Therefore I never have an emergency ruck. I just choose 2 x 77k ruckmen on bench and use the extra cash elsewhere.
Sure its taking a bit of a risk your starting 2 ruckmen arent going to miss a match, but If a starting ruckman goes down with an injury and is out for a week or longer I trade him to a new ruckman. (if you are unlucky you may lose 3 ruckmen a year and thats only 3 trades worst case scenario)
Id rather waste a trade and get a decent score that week if I know he's going to miss, than cop a 30pt week from warnock. If my new ruckman scores 60-80 or higher, surely im better off, even though I used a trade for this.
Whats everyones thoughts?
Just curious, cos I know Im always selecting my emergencies to cover back, mids and forwards.
Why does everyone get concerned with ruck bench options? We only get to choose 3 emergencies, and I always select emergency for backs, mids, and fwds (as these have 7 or 6 players and more likely for a late withdrawl). Therefore I never have an emergency ruck. I just choose 2 x 77k ruckmen on bench and use the extra cash elsewhere.
Sure its taking a bit of a risk your starting 2 ruckmen arent going to miss a match, but If a starting ruckman goes down with an injury and is out for a week or longer I trade him to a new ruckman. (if you are unlucky you may lose 3 ruckmen a year and thats only 3 trades worst case scenario)
Id rather waste a trade and get a decent score that week if I know he's going to miss, than cop a 30pt week from warnock. If my new ruckman scores 60-80 or higher, surely im better off, even though I used a trade for this.
Whats everyones thoughts?
Just curious, cos I know Im always selecting my emergencies to cover back, mids and forwards.