Joel Selwood V Jobe Watson

Written by Duck on March 27 2012

Dazz said he wanted to see these blokes head to head ….. so here you go,ย  who would you have out of these 2 mid fielders?

Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.
0
0


Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom

43 thoughts on “Joel Selwood V Jobe Watson”

  1. think this will be one-sided

    plenty of upside to Selwood with a couple of low scores last year

    Watson is too big a risk with hammies

    0

    0
  2. jobe watson all the way, he was off to a great start at beginning of last year and will be even better this year, only problem is Watson is known for injury . question: D Martinn or drew petrie in forward line?

    0

    0
  3. Thanx Motts for putting the poll up as a Bombers supporter i love Jobe but his hammies worry me if i knew he was gonna play every game he would definately be in my team but who ever wins this poll ill probably go with and it looks like Joelwood atm.

    0

    0
  4. I have both. Joel is unders at that price and Jobe has had a whole preseason to add to his already massive legs and I have a feeling that he will be pushing the Brownlow this year. He will be easily in the top 7 mids at the end of the year.

    0

    0
  5. Thumbs up: Dangerfield
    Thumbs down: Sidebottom

    And comment for this:
    Pendlebury and Dagerfield/Sidebottom or
    Selwood and Pavlich

    0

    0
  6. Agreed BigRuss, Geelong more SC points and I just don’t trust Jobe’s Hammies
    but at least he started kicking the ball last season, previously his disposal by foot was atrocious at best, so was always looking to handball.

    0

    0
  7. Currently locked in Selwood and Ablett in the midfield

    Can’t decide between two of: Thompson, Watson, Hayes, Gibbs, Murphy :S

    0

    0
  8. Boyd and B.ellis for me there

    what do people think of Leroy Jetta 381,900$ sound like a lot of money but been given role of half back runner this year like Chris Yarran

    0

    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *