The Top 15 overs, unders or fair value?

[lozza63]

We've been discussing the value of many of the top players so thought they could be condensed into one discussion point.

For this I decided to set the bar at 110 pts plus average for last season and would ask our readers to rate them on their merits going into 2010.

My opinions are as follows:
Over the Odds - Swan, Montagna, Hayes, Chapman, Davis and perhaps Sewell and Goddard who all achieved stunning new levels.

Fair value - GAJ, Goodes, Riewoldt, Murphy, Selwood, Cox and NDS - the usual old faithfuls

Unders - Judd - possibly the only one who i would expect to exceed that level this year.

All opinions wanted Cheers

 

[Jabbot]

You might want to add in Pendlebury, as if the zero isn't included, his average is about 112.

I agree with your list, though I would probably put Pendlebury and Selwood as players who might step it up again...

 

[lozza63]

Re: The Top 16 overs, unders or fair value?

My bad
Right u are Pendles at 112 is probably just fair value also!

 

[Mooo]

We've been discussing the value of many of the top players so thought they could be condensed into one discussion point.

For this I decided to set the bar at 110 pts plus average for last season and would ask our readers to rate them on their merits going into 2010.

My opinions are as follows:
Over the Odds - Swan, Montagna, Hayes, Chapman, Davis and perhaps Sewell and Goddard who all achieved stunning new levels.

Fair value - GAJ, Goodes, Riewoldt, Murphy, Selwood, Cox and NDS - the usual old faithfuls

Unders - Judd - possibly the only one who i would expect to exceed that level this year.

All opinions wanted Cheers

My opinion is - Don't type GAJ rather than Ablett, it reeks of tosser.

 

[Rack Watts]

My opinion is - Don't type GAJ rather than Ablett, it reeks of tosser.

And making the correction doesn't.

 

[PAFCsince1870]

My opinions are as follows:
Over the Odds - Swan, Montagna, Hayes, Chapman, Davis and perhaps Sewell and Goddard who all achieved stunning new levels.

So anyone who had their best year is considered over the odds?

Wow, what a remarkable theory.

 

[lozza63]

Mooo

My opinion is - Don't type GAJ rather than Ablett, it reeks of tosser.


Now i am suprised that typing GAJ would evoke such a response - some response is better than none i suppose.
BTW you're on the money about me, but this thread was all about having a SC discussion. Thanks for your input.


And making the correction doesn't.

BipolarBear sounds like you think Moo and I both are! I can't make that observation about him on one sentence.

The obvious conclusion i have arrived at is that my thread went down like a lead balloon as evidenced by
So anyone who had their best year is considered over the odds?

PAFCsince1870, that was only my personal opinion - not an assertion of fact.
I started this topic looking for a bit of robust discussion re: the individual merits of the top 16 and whether they could repeat in one's opinion.

I apologise to all who find me a tosser and unbelievably opinionated!

Deestroy u may as well cut this shocking thread man, clear the board a bit. - it obviously stinks

 

[geelong30]

hey lozza its me SC FANATIC. I thinks goodes and murphy are over the odds.and cox i personally dont like spending alot of money on ruckman.


DAVIS IS $10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
OVER THE ODDS AND EVEN THOUGH I DOT THINK SWAN IS THAT GOOD OF A ACTUAL PLAYER I THINK HE WILL HOLD HIS VALUE AS A SUPERCOACH PLAYER