Bennel v Swan

[Sabretooth Tigers]

 ???

Agreed about team sameness JF. Just checked my POD %'s and where I had 11 players under 10%, five of which I consider premiums. I now have five with two prems, quick change, and now it's six with three prems which are :-
                                                                                                  Mumford   7.77   Ward   2.44   Prestia   1.18
Probably only need one or two good one's otherwise I'm playing myself a bit, in that, if I have two that do no good, two that go well to cover them then I need another who goes well to have the desired affect of a scoring POD. So just one or two I think. Best of luck and cheers mate.    ;)

[Colley Dogs]

My two cents worth:

If you're setting up with four premium Forwards, then Swan's an absolute must at F4 (with Bennell at F3).

If you're setting up with 3 premium Forwards, then Bennell beats out Swan at F3.

My thinking is that you're buying both players with the expectation of a 110 - 115 return. I believe each has an equal potential to hit that range. However, Swan's potential base is lower. If things go south (plays forward, age, Collingwood's form etc.), he could average low 80s. Whereas injury aside I can't see Bennell averaging less than high 90s. Therefore, you're essentially paying 40K insurance... a guarantee for 95-100 at F3. Swan is the greater risk: it's a strong bet at F4, but it feels like a gamble at F3.

Should you opt for 3 premium forwards and take Swan at F3, chances are you're going to be trading in Bennell further down the line as a top 6 Forward (and vice versa should you take Bennell at F3). The extra 40K is therefore an upfront payment for a guaranteed minimum 100 points at F3.

Personally, I'm going with both: F3 - Bennell; F4 - Swan.

I don't want to miss out on Bennell, and I don't want to gamble with Swan.

[Nige]

Both!

[Ricochet]

Swan. have to lock him in at that price