Captains Round 2 captains/vice-captains

[Daniels]

(Vice) Captain Obvious - Ablett

Excellent strike rate vs Swans. Coming off a 171 vs them last year. Ignore Round 16 in 2011 when got injured in Round 16 which tarnishes his record. An absolute no-brainer for loophole abuse.

What does he have to score to be left with the VC though? A 'safe' 130? More??

 

[BuddysBuddy23]

Yeap, a 130 for mine to keep as VC. otherwise C may go to any of Swan, Murphy, Pendles, Cox or even Danger to turn it around...

 

[Daniels]

Yeap, a 130 for mine to keep as VC. otherwise C may go to any of Swan, Murphy, Pendles, Cox or even Danger to turn it around...

Surely 130 is around the pin and anything else is a juicy bonus.

I'm thinking Pendles as plan B.

 

[BuddysBuddy23]

Surely 130 is around the pin and anything else is a juicy bonus.

I'm thinking Pendles as plan B.

If gazza can get 125+ i will keep. Otherwise Swan will get a huge look in. Remember last year Carrazzo was all over Pendles! As they say, the only thing that cures leather poisoning is carrots

 

[Daniels]

Otherwise Swan will get a huge look in.

Oh yes! Swan will def be getting a huge look in too

 

[Judd_Magic]

Man I wish I had Swan and Pendles in my team and it makes me sick saying it since I'm a Carlton supporter!

I have Swan but no Pendles. Had Pendles last year and Swan for a few years before that.

I am so tempted to go Dangerfield > Pendles next week if Dangerfield spuds it up again.

Whoops, this isn't round 2 trades thread, me bad!

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

Ablett (VC) Pendlebury (C)

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

What does he have to score to be left with the VC though? A 'safe' 130? More??

My missus took JPK's 145 with Ablett VC

 

[Judd_Magic]

Ablett (VC), Swan (C) if the little bald headed master has an off day .i.e anything below 140.

 

[Daniels]

My missus took JPK's 145 with Ablett VC

Oops!

 

[Daniels]

Ablett (VC), Swan (C) if the little bald headed master has an off day .i.e anything below 140.

So the bar is 140 for you JM? Interesting. 139?

 

[Judd_Magic]

So the bar is 140 for you JM? Interesting. 139?

I'm that confident Ablett will get around 140 against Sydney. Anything belows average I reckon and I'll hand the captaincy to Swan to rip out a 160 against us as long as we still win. LOL!

 

[Daniels]

I'm that confident Ablett will get around 140 against Sydney. Anything belows average I reckon and I'll hand the captaincy to Swan to rip out a 160 against us as long as we still win. LOL!

As I said, has great record vs Swans. Had 203 vs them in 2010 (Cats) Surely can jag a 150 if last week is anything to go by...

Bring on tonight. Need teams already!

 

[Judd_Magic]

Bring on tonight. Need teams already!

Uh huh!

(Sorry, had to say it!)

 

[Fireballs]

Could someone explain the loophole thing? I only thought you could do it with split rounds.

 

[Daniels]

Could someone explain the loophole thing? I only thought you could do it with split rounds.

Google search

 

[KardiniaPark]

Do we really need this every week? It's Ablett/Next best Mid. It's hardly rocket science.

 

[Daniels]

Do we really need this every week? It's Ablett/Next best Mid. It's hardly rocket science.

Does Ablett play early in round every week? He won't be VC every week obviously. Maybe Cotchin or Lids type are a better VC option this week and Ablett C?
Just this week in particular he is an obvious pick and I wanted to know what score people are willing to gamble with to keep the VC tag

 

[Mantastic]

Does Ablett play early in round every week? He won't be VC every week obviously. Maybe Cotchin or Lids type are a better VC option this week and Ablett C?
Just this week in particular he is an obvious pick and I wanted to know what score people are willing to gamble with to keep the VC tag

Then you flip it. You take Ablett and your next best mid. If Ablett plays first then you make him VC. If he plays second you make him C.

If you have a non-Ablett VC play first and they get to 140ish you keep it. If you have Ablett play first and he goes 130+ you keep that. Anything under on those scenarios you apply the loophole. There you go, that's it in a nutshell.

 

[Jmac2225]

Ablett for the VC Selwood C 130-140+ ill stay on it.

Tinkered with Stanton but realised the games are too close together (plus he spudded it against the dees last year).

 

[Mantastic]

Just realised that with Rowe being named on an extended bench for Sunday, that if he plays I won't be able to do the loophole since every one of my players is selected. Well with Terlich named maybe it won't be so bad if Port were to drop a rookie back so I can have them riding the pine for a week.

 

[Daniels]

Just realised that with Rowe being named on an extended bench for Sunday, that if he plays I won't be able to do the loophole since every one of my players is selected. Well with Terlich named maybe it won't be so bad if Port were to drop a rookie back so I can have them riding the pine for a week.

Shattered!

 

[MightyMark]

I bought in Sinclair from WC to assist me with the loop hole, thinking he will be sitting out for a while with Lycett assisting Cox, and playing more late games than McBean.

It took Lycett one game to destroy that plan. Hopefully he only gets named as emergency, otherwise I have a full team playing.

Go figure, the one time I actually plan to having a player miss games, and he comes in. Where has that luck been in previous years.

 

[Daniels]

I bought in Sinclair from WC to assist me with the loop hole, thinking he will be sitting out for a while with Lycett assisting Cox, and playing more late games than McBean.

It took Lycett one game to destroy that plan. Hopefully he only gets named as emergency, otherwise I have a full team playing.

Go figure, the one time I actually plan to having a player miss games, and he comes in. Where has that luck been in previous years.

Oh my! Unreal!

 

[MightyMark]

Oh my! Unreal!

Watch him get the boot when one of my starting rucks go down, just to complete the irony.