Position 2015 SuperCoach midfielders

[Super Hans]

People like Mumford, Rioli, Shaw etc could be great picks, I just don't wanna see people bitching and moaning when they miss a game or two. You should expect 20 games from them max.

 

[Souup]

Mumford's risk outweighs Fyfe's imo as you at least have bench coverage in the midfield if he's out for a game or two, if Mumford is out, you're starting at a donut.

There are plenty of good options around Fyfe's price in the midfield. In the rucks there isn't. Also, have a look at how Mumford scored against the first 6 teams he's facing this season. He averaged 140 last season against 4/6 teams he's facing in the first 6 rounds. 2 of them he didn't face last season, West Coast and Gold Coast. I've very little doubt he would ton up against Gold Coast in a big way.

I'm completely aware Mumford comes with a lot of risk. But considering the ruck options, I'm completely happy to go take the risk that comes with selecting him. His ceiling is huge, and he is a genuine captain option in many of the first 6 games in the season. If he injures himself, it wont be hard to sideways trade to any other ruck I want to. In fact, i totally expect him to break down at one point, and I wont complain, I know it's coming, but im hoping his scoring potential will justify the risk associated with knowing i'll have to trade him.

So in summing, the way i see it, there are a lot of better options in the midfield that come with less risk than Fyfe. While there are no good ruck bench covers, I dont mind, as I believe the scoring potential Mumford provides is too huge to ignore. If he injures himself, I'll sideways trade him to a Goldstein/Jacobs/Maric or anyone else I like the look of. At worst, Mumford will cost me 1 single trade, and maybe 100 points if he injures himself in the first 5 minutes of a game which would just be terribly unlucky.

 

[TheOz]

There are plenty of good options around Fyfe's price in the midfield. In the rucks there isn't. Also, have a look at how Mumford scored against the first 6 teams he's facing this season. He averaged 140 last season against 4/6 teams he's facing in the first 6 rounds. 2 of them he didn't face last season, West Coast and Gold Coast. I've very little doubt he would ton up against Gold Coast in a big way.

I'm completely aware Mumford comes with a lot of risk. But considering the ruck options, I'm completely happy to go take the risk that comes with selecting him. His ceiling is huge, and he is a genuine captain option in many of the first 6 games in the season. If he injures himself, it wont be hard to sideways trade to any other ruck I want to. In fact, i totally expect him to break down at one point, and I wont complain, I know it's coming, but im hoping his scoring potential will justify the risk associated with knowing i'll have to trade him.

So in summing, the way i see it, there are a lot of better options in the midfield that come with less risk than Fyfe. While there are no good ruck bench covers, I dont mind, as I believe the scoring potential Mumford provides is too huge to ignore. If he injures himself, I'll sideways trade him to a Goldstein/Jacobs/Maric or anyone else I like the look of. At worst, Mumford will cost me 1 single trade, and maybe 100 points if he injures himself in the first 5 minutes of a game which would just be terribly unlucky.

Totally agree with you with regards to Mumford's scoring potential, the bloke is a beast. Out of interest, are you going with a second premium ruckman or taking the punt on a midpricer?

 

[Souup]

Totally agree with you with regards to Mumford's scoring potential, the bloke is a beast. Out of interest, are you going with a second premium ruckman or taking the punt on a midpricer?

Second premium ruckman. I think there's too much risk going Mumford AND a mid-pricer. Plus, I'm not a fan of any of the mid-priced ruckmen.

My structure is as follows -
6-0-2 (if 430K+ = premium)
3-1-8 (Provided 200K+ = Rookie)
2-0-1
1-1-6 (Swan mid-price)

Which many may consider quite crazy.

 

[AngryRanga]

Second premium ruckman. I think there's too much risk going Mumford AND a mid-pricer. Plus, I'm not a fan of any of the mid-priced ruckmen.

My structure is as follows -
6-0-2
3-1-8 (Provided 200K+ = Rookie)
2-0-1
1-1-6 (Swan mid-price)

Which many may consider quite crazy.

I'd love to be able to find 6 backline premiums I have faith in. Currently I have 1.

 

[Souup]

I'd love to be able to find 6 backline premiums I have faith in. Currently I have 1.

I wouldn't say I have full faith... I just have more faith in the backline premiums than I do the mid-pricers or rookies. I don't want to have to piss around with underperforming mid-pricers or rookies that are in 1 week and out for 4

 

[SureBuddy]

Second premium ruckman. I think there's too much risk going Mumford AND a mid-pricer. Plus, I'm not a fan of any of the mid-priced ruckmen.

My structure is as follows -
6-0-2 (if 430K+ = premium)
3-1-8 (Provided 200K+ = Rookie)
2-0-1
1-1-6 (Swan mid-price)

Which many may consider quite crazy.

Sorry, but that is such a terrible structure! LOL
You will be leaking so many points early on that you will never be able to actually catch up. What is the point in having 6 'premo' defenders? None of them will average 100+, you will be lucky to get mid 90's from 4 of them at best. There is so many amazing priced options up forward that will average 105+ for you for not much more of a price.

 

[Souup]

Sorry, but that is such a terrible structure! LOL
You will be leaking so many points early on that you will never be able to actually catch up. What is the point in having 6 'premo' defenders? None of them will average 100+, you will be lucky to get mid 90's from 4 of them at best. There is so many amazing priced options up forward that will average 105+ for you for not much more of a price.

No it isn't, shit talk like this is exactly why a lot of the teams on here are clones of each other. it's a structure that has come from many hours of research, experimenting and assessing the options. I dont like people who claim their rankings, but i've finished top 200 and top 70 in supercoach in the 3 years I've played, so it's not like I have no idea what I'm doing.

What's the point of having 6 premium defenders? Set and forget. Dont have to piss around trying to trade out underperforming speculative mid-pricers (none of which I'm a big fan of) or rookies who don't play. If one of my defenders get's injured all I'll need to do is a simple side-ways trade to another premium. I dont need any of them to average 100+, that's not what I'm picking them for. I'm picking them for 90PPG, 20+ games.

There are also many amazing rookie options up forward, who will increase in price quicker than any of those "amazing" options up forward. I agree with the idea that there is a ton of value up forward, but many of the rookies on offer are far too good to pass up.

 

[King_Steele]

I understand the philosophy behind picking a player regardless of his red flags. I currently have Mumford in my team, so the idea of picking a player regardless of the huge risk is something I'm doing too.

However, the reason I'm willing to do it with Mumford and not Fyfe is because I don't like the ruck options this year. I believe taking the risk of Mumford is fully worth it (especially considering who he's facing in the ruck in the first 6 rounds) , and I completely understand the fact that he will almost certainly injure himself and I'll have to trade him out at some point, but I'm banking on him being able to string together enough games to get him to the bye rounds. If not, he's highly priced enough to be able to trade to any other ruckmen.

When I look at Fyfe as an option, the risk doesn't outweigh the reward for me, especially when I much prefer the other options around his price in the midfield. I don't see why I'd want to take a risk in a position where the premium options are great. I can't afford to take both him and Mumford (along with Shaw) into the season. A little bit of risk is always good, but I think you can push your luck too much.

A lot of teams I'm seeing around here generally have a starting backline with Shaw, 2-3 mid-pricers and a rookie, Fyfe in the midfield, and Naitanui in the rucks. Tom Mitchell used to be in every 2nd forward line too, but not so much anymore.

If this isn't a recipe for disaster I don't know what is. But, this is supercoach and anything can happen - if people have mulled over different options and like their structure and have confidence in the players they've chosen than I'm all for that.

Well geez if your gonna take every bit of advice on here to heart your not gonna last very long.

Nab challenge has a huge say on the fyfes, sloanes, heaters etc

Noticed how almost everyone changed from Wines to Griffen?

That's because he showed something in the nab cup & while Ollie showed jack.

It's natural to be going with who performs in the nab cup as it's some sort of gauge on what to look forward to IMO.

 

[Souup]

Well geez if your gonna take every bit of advice on here to heart your not gonna last very long.

Nab challenge has a huge say on the fyfes, sloanes, heaters etc

Noticed how almost everyone changed from Wines to Griffen?

That's because he showed something in the nab cup & while Ollie showed jack.

It's natural to be going gate who performs in the nab cup as it's some sort of gauge on what to look forward to IMO.

Not taking anything to heart mate, I completely understand NAB Challenge performances influence the way people choose their teams. I'm just stating that a player who's apparently a lock 1 week isn't the next. That's what happens around here, the flavour of the week 1 week is completely abandoned the next. You've pointed out Wines as another one of those who everyone was on one week, only to jump off the next. I was merely trying to understand the rise of interest in Fyfe, which some posters made great points as to why they've selected him and clearly aren't following the group think. However, I think a lot are.

 

[AngryRanga]

I wish someone somewhere had compiled data comparing NAB challenge SC averages to the regular season, to see exactly how much it tends to matter.

 

[King_Steele]

Not taking anything to heart mate, I completely understand NAB Challenge performances influence the way people choose their teams. I'm just stating that a player who's apparently a lock 1 week isn't the next. That's what happens around here, the flavour of the week 1 week is completely abandoned the next. You've pointed out Wines as another one of those who everyone was on one week, only to jump off the next. I was merely trying to understand the rise of interest in Fyfe, which some posters made great points as to why they've selected him and clearly aren't following the group think. However, I think a lot are.

Well Fyfe gets 16 touches & scores 132 sc points while JPK gets 33 touches & scores 151 sc points, who has the higher celling?

That's the way I look at it.

 

[Souup]

Well Fyfe gets 16 touches & scores 132 sc points while JPK gets 33 touches & scores 151 sc points, who has the higher celling?

That's the way I look at it.

A 1-game sample... Not exactly overwhelming evidence. Based off this logic you've locked in Yarran, Rioli and Walters too?

Kennedy is extremely durable and has never had any real injury issues. Played 22 games in 4 of the last 5 seasons, and 20 in the other.
Fyfe has played more than 20 games in a season once in his 5 year career. Dodgy shoulders.

There's more to supercoach than disposals to supercoach ratio

 

[toxic]

Well Fyfe gets 16 touches & scores 132 sc points while JPK gets 33 touches & scores 151 sc points, who has the higher celling?

That's the way I look at it.

More importantly
how often will fyfe get 16
how often will jpk get 30

 

[King_Steele]

A 1-game sample... Not exactly overwhelming evidence. Based off this logic you've locked in Yarran, Rioli and Walters too?

Just an example bud.

Fyfe has great consistency hardly ever goes under 100 that's my logic.

 

[Souup]

More importantly
how often will fyfe get 16
how often will jpk get 30

Qualifying final last year, Fyfe had 29 touches and only scored 87SC points.
Prelim final last year, Kennedy had 27 touches for 118SC points.

See, I can do it too.

 

[King_Steele]

Qualifying final last year, Fyfe had 29 touches and only scored 87SC points.
Prelim final last year, Kennedy had 27 touches for 118SC points.

See, I can do it too.

Well done.

Besides missing a game here or there, why the big agenda against Fyfe?

 

[Kk1ll]

No mmurphy because no nab games but watson is an option. ..

Am I reading it wrong?

Watson has only missed because of ASADA as far as i'm aware (Maybe i'm wrong i havent looked into it haha).
Murph has missed with injury. Big difference.

 

[Souup]

Well done.

Besides missing a game here or there, why the big agenda against Fyfe?

No big agenda against Fyfe. I like him as a player, and may well end up with him in my team at one stage during the season. If someone picks him based on assessing his positives and negatives risks, and see him as a solid option, that's great.

I'm against the group think that had Sloane and Wines as locks 2 weeks ago, only to completely abandon them and replace them with Fyfe and Griffen. A blind following of the masses. The same group think that once anyone does anything different based off their research and evaluation, is told they're going to go terribly.

I guess i shouldn't care as those purely following the group-think will inevitably fail during the season, while those who have done their own work will be fine.

 

[Super Hans]

Watson has only missed because of ASADA as far as i'm aware (Maybe i'm wrong i havent looked into it haha).
Murph has missed with injury. Big difference.

Watson has missed zero games from ASADA... He hurt his hip(?) last year and the year before he crunched his collarbone vs Port.

 

[Super Hans]

On that note, I will be locking Watson in if he's playing round one. Beast of a player.

 

[SnappyHappy]

No big agenda against Fyfe. I like him as a player, and may well end up with him in my team at one stage during the season. If someone picks him based on assessing his positives and negatives risks, and see him as a solid option, that's great.

I'm against the group think that had Sloane and Wines as locks 2 weeks ago, only to completely abandon them and replace them with Fyfe and Griffen. A blind following of the masses. The same group think that once anyone does anything different based off their research and evaluation, is told they're going to go terribly.

I guess i shouldn't care as those purely following the group-think will inevitably fail during the season, while those who have done their own work will be fine.

A lot of people have also been adding Mumford to there side of late, particularly after his 99 points in half a game last week. Congrats on following the group-think!

 

[Souup]

A lot of people have also been adding Mumford to there side of late, particularly after his 99 points in half a game last week. Congrats on following the group-think!

Had him in before then, but ok?

 

[Krujan]

Of course I'm not, he's the best midfielder of all time, why would he spend all his time forward? But he didn't spend all his time forward in 2010 either as you have suggested, that was the point I was trying to make

So basically 2010 & 2015 would be the same then.

 

[Krujan]

A lot of people have also been adding Mumford to there side of late, particularly after his 99 points in half a game last week. Congrats on following the group-think!

I had Mummy in my side a week before his 99