MONTAGNA AND PETRIE/SEABY/FRASER OR ANTHONY/VINCE AND COX?

Chej14 · February 23, 2011, 07:16:28 PM

Hi guys. I know it looks a bit confusing but I really need some advice on who to pick; should I go with montagna and petrie/seaby/fraser (if I went with this partnership, which ruckman should I pick out of petrie, seaby and fraser) or should I go with cox and anthony/vince?
Thanks guys!

Blueboys · February 23, 2011, 07:33:07 PM

Montagna/Petrie - as long as you have a back up that plays round 1 for Petrie.... ;)

Chej14 · February 23, 2011, 07:59:26 PM

Quote from: Blueboys on February 23, 2011, 07:33:07 PM
Montagna/Petrie - as long as you have a back up that plays round 1 for Petrie.... ;)

Thanks for the feedback Blueboys. I've got Z. Smith and T. Derickx on my bench, so if I start with Petrie and Montagna, Derickx will be playing. Is that good enough? Or do you reckon R. Campbell or M. Bailey serve as better backup then Derickx?

popedelio · February 23, 2011, 08:41:03 PM

Quote from: Blueboys on February 23, 2011, 07:33:07 PM
Montagna/Petrie - as long as you have a back up that plays round 1 for Petrie.... ;)

I disagree, my opinion is that he is going to be one of the many fail mid pricers. I would choose Cox/Vinny combo, coz cox is moving like a man possessed, and i prefer vinny over anthony.

Chej14 · February 23, 2011, 09:07:28 PM

Quote from: popedelio on February 23, 2011, 08:41:03 PM
Quote from: Blueboys on February 23, 2011, 07:33:07 PM
Montagna/Petrie - as long as you have a back up that plays round 1 for Petrie.... ;)
I disagree, my opinion is that he is going to be one of the many fail mid pricers. I would choose Cox/Vinny combo, coz cox is moving like a man possessed, and i prefer vinny over anthony.

Yeah, I agree with you, popedelio. I know it's harsh to say this but I feel that Petrie didn't really excite me in his first game back. Even though he's just come back from two broken feet and he was playing Geelong at Skilled, I still don't think he's going to be as good as everyone thinks he will. Popedelio, if I get Cox, I'll have the Sandi/Cox combination. You reckon that's ok?

popedelio · February 23, 2011, 09:15:44 PM

I have the same combo, how is it not the best ruck combo? Though still keep an eye on NAB form, who knows petrie could amaze, or anthony so on.

Chej14 · February 23, 2011, 09:20:01 PM

Quote from: popedelio on February 23, 2011, 09:15:44 PM
I have the same combo, how is it not the best ruck combo? Though still keep an eye on NAB form, who knows petrie could amaze, or anthony so on.

yeah, fair enough. just wasn't sure if i was spending too much on the rucks.

popedelio · February 23, 2011, 09:21:48 PM

well if it makes you feel more confident, your not the only one with that combo, and the Sanox vs the Sandetrie combo, which combo is going to win? I think its pretty obvious

Chej14 · February 23, 2011, 09:28:56 PM

Quote from: popedelio on February 23, 2011, 09:21:48 PM
well if it makes you feel more confident, your not the only one with that combo, and the Sanox vs the Sandetrie combo, which combo is going to win? I think its pretty obvious

you're 100% right. but if you look at it that way, then the montagna and petrie combo vs the vince and cox combo, it's not that easy to pick?

RAFA · February 23, 2011, 10:10:49 PM

Quote from: popedelio on February 23, 2011, 08:41:03 PM
Quote from: Blueboys on February 23, 2011, 07:33:07 PM
Montagna/Petrie - as long as you have a back up that plays round 1 for Petrie.... ;)
I disagree, my opinion is that he is going to be one of the many fail mid pricers. I would choose Cox/Vinny combo, coz cox is moving like a man possessed, and i prefer vinny over anthony.

just rememer that cox's high NAB cup score was against a non existant hawks ruck divivion

Chej14 · February 23, 2011, 10:52:12 PM

good point, RAFA. will have to watch him against gold coast and see how he goes against fraser.

popedelio · February 24, 2011, 02:27:13 AM

Quote from: RAFA on February 23, 2011, 10:10:49 PM
just rememer that cox's high NAB cup score was against a non existant hawks ruck divivion

Thats not really an excuse, no ruckman would mean he would dominate the hitouts, not dominate the game, Coxy floated in the back getting some delicious cheap possessions. Even though there was no ruckman, it doesn't mean there was no player on him.

Chej14 · February 24, 2011, 08:14:30 PM

Quote from: popedelio on February 24, 2011, 02:27:13 AM
Quote from: RAFA on February 23, 2011, 10:10:49 PM
just rememer that cox's high NAB cup score was against a non existant hawks ruck divivion
Thats not really an excuse, no ruckman would mean he would dominate the hitouts, not dominate the game, Coxy floated in the back getting some delicious cheap possessions. Even though there was no ruckman, it doesn't mean there was no player on him.

+1