Rookie Review – Round 16

Written by Huttabito on July 11 2017

Note: Mobile users turn phone sideways and refresh page to load full tables.

*  Denotes Bubble Boy

DEFENDERS

PlayerTeamPrice (Weekly change)Rd16AvgBE
Witherden (MID)Bris$193.3k (+$76.0k)7480.3-50
NyhuisFrem$117.3k7878-
RyanFrem$245.5k (+$35.6k)9165.8-10
ScharenbergColl$224.5k (+$23.1k)5759.38
MelicanSyd$294.8k (+$19.0k)7459.329
NielsonNM$123.9k5858-
Berry (MID)Bris$330.4k (+$20.1k)8557.643
Cox (FWD)Frem$180.0k (+$35.3k)61
49.31
Sheehan*Carl$117.3k4240-10
M.Hibberd (MID)NM$156.5k (+$32.6k)7436.8-31
Z.Guthrie*Geel$102.3k5435.5-10
J.Smith*Melb$117.3k3428.513

Witherden popped his bubble this week and was a good rookie to grab. I hope you all weren’t too distracted to trade him in like yours truly, what a rookie mistake that was 😳 He didn’t play the rebounding role but was still able to collect 21 disposals (13 kicks) at 76% DE to go with 6 marks and 3 tackles. Finishing up on 74 points, he was welcome cover by many.

Nyhuis has been knocking on the door of a debut for a while with a few outstanding performances in the WAFL and was taken over to Melbourne to face the Kangaroos as an emergency and with Mundy falling ill, he was a late inclusion. Playing solely as a defender in his career, Ross The Boss thought it was a genius move to use him as a forward. Only RTB could get away with something so outrageous that actually works with Nyhuis kicking 4 goals, including a couple of late pivotal ones to get Fremantle back in the lead. He had 9 disposals (8 kicks) at 78% DE to go with 5 marks, 1 tackle the 4 goals and a behind. Job Security would be shaky given a late inclusion but would be extremely unlucky to lose his spot after his match winning performance. Party at Nyhuis!

Ryan continues to settle into his role producing his best game of the season scoring 91 from 19 disposals (15 kicks) from an impressive 84% DE to go with 6 marks, 4 tackles and 4 1%ers. Being Fremantles 2nd top rebounder for the afternoon again, it can only bode well for increased scoring and I for one would welcome a few more scores like this.

Scharenberg was a late inclusion with Howe pulling up with muscle tightness and was pegged to play his loose man role. He started nicely before fading to end on 57 points from 20 disposals (12 kicks) at 70%, 7 marks, 2 tackles and 4 clangers. The clangers combined with only 5 contested possessions held back his score.

Melican had a team high 7 1%ers for the match which and with a team high DE of 93% from 14 disposals (7 kicks), he ended up posting his best score of the season of 74 points. Looks to be keeping Allir in the reserves and should tick past $300k next week.

Nielson made his debut and scored a passable 58 points from 15 disposals (7 kicks) at 73% DE. Let down by his first game jitters, he had 5 clangers which stopped him from posting 75+. With Brad Scott his coach, probably best to wait until he’s on the bubble before targeting.

Berry has now scored over 60 in 8 of his last 10 games with a career high score of 85 against Geelong. He collected 18 disposals (7 kicks) 56% DE so could have been pushing 100 had he been more accurate but he ended up with 6 marks, 6 tackles and a goal assist. This score has kept his BE hovering in the 40s and will see another fortnight and $20k to be made before he begins to flatten.

Cox had his best game for the season (just) with 61 points courtesy of 10 disposals (4 kicks) at 80% DE, 4 marks, 2 tackles, 3 1%ers and a goal. Played back up ruck but wasn’t able to get his hands on the ball a great deal only getting the 3 hitouts.

Sheehan played his second game for the season to score 42 points from 9 disposals (4 kicks). On the bubble with a 2 game average of 40, he can probably be passed on.

M.Hibberd popped his bubble this week yet was still not in the top 10 traded in players as coaches boycott Scott rookies. Rather clean with the ball for once, he had 22 disposals (10 kicks) at 86% DE to go with 7 marks, 3 tackles and 2 1%ers to score 74 points. Now that his 23 has been removed, his BE has dropped to -31 and could provide a potential downgrade target. Maybe. Anyone game?

Z.Guthrie only had the 7 disposals (5 kicks) but due to 100% DE and 4 marks (1 contested), he was able to post 54 points. Still needs to build a tank as he only had 67% TOG which is up from 54% last week but it was against much easier competition. On the bubble next game but offers little scoring potential and if he was to see the season out, will be required to be rested. Shame he’s started to affect next seasons starting price.

J.Smith is back from the injury he sustained in the opening round but just managed 34 points from 9 disposals (4 kicks). Combined with his injury affected game, he has a BE of 10 and looks unneeded.

Goodbye for now: J.Smith, Z.Guthrie and Sheehan

MIDFIELDERS

PlayerTeamPrice (Weekly change)Rd16AvgBE
Powell-PepperPort$361.1k (-$9.1k)4568.797
MountfordNM$227.8k (+$29.2k)5757.2-2
AtleyPort$117.3k4545-

Powell-Pepper got to come back home to WA and show the Eagles what they passed on in the draft last year. Unfortunately he injured himself on 23 in Qtr2 in a tackle on Yeo and spent a fair chunk on the bench looking grim. He got strapped up and soldiered on to 63% TOG to salvage a 45 but did lose some money for the first time this season. Collected 16 disposals (11 kicks) but only went at 38% DE to go with 5 clangers which left his 5 tackles to make up a fair chunk of his score. A sour end to what has been a fantastic debut season but looks like his days are over with a BE of 97.

Mountford scored right on his average (57) so I guess you couldn’t really ask for much more, although would have been cover for JPK/Ablett for a few with Greenwood missing. Still saw plenty of ball with 16 disposals (10 kicks) at 63% DE, he was let down by just the 2 tackles. Look for him to up the intensity next week.

Atley debuted for Port and was my sneaky pre-JLT midfield lock before gaining a fair amount of traction. Never end up getting named Rd1 though and was forced to earn a spot through the SANFL. Known for his contested ball, he racked up 9 contested possession (4th team high) but was very handball happy with 11 of his 14 disposals going off by hand. A few debut jitters with a DE of 57% combined with 4 clangers kept his score down to 45 points. If he can up his accuracy and foot use, he could become quite the decent scorer.

Goodbye for now: Sam Powell-Pepper

RUCKS

PlayerTeamPrice (Weekly change)Rd16AvgBE
DarcyFrem$184.0k (+$66.7k)7173.3-60

Darcy was one of the most popular trade in targets and had he not been a pure ruck rookie, he would have been targeted by a lot more than 15,000 coaches. Darcy was more or less the sole ruck so ended up with the most hitouts for the game (34) compared to Goldstein (32), Daw (15) and Cox (3). He finished up on 71 points courtesy of 7 tackles (team 2nd high) but was let down by so few disposals (10) at 50% DE and 5 clangers. Would have been looking at a score close to 100 again had he just had cleaner ball use. Not bad for $117k! Would have been a nice R2 for next year had he not played this year and Sandilands retired.

FORWARDS

PlayerTeamPrice (Weekly change)Rd16AvgBE
Greenwood (MID)Adel$342.0k-87.8-7
White (MID)Port$278.8k (+$28.4k)416952
SchoenmakersHaw$246.5k (+$37.7k)5667.314
Ainsworth (MID)GC$294.1k (+$6.5k)236353
BlackGeel$219.1k -66.315
ParsonsGeel$292.0k (+$33.2k)9855.527
Bolton (MID)Rich$199.0k -51.217
Buzza*Geel$123.9k4350.5-27
BeechAdel$150.4k-483
Stengle*Rich$121.9k3038.5-4

White threw up a score his owners would have feared given his high starting price as he just got to 41 from 10 disposals (6 kicks) at 70% DE. His score was heavily penalised with an equal ground high 5 clangers and he went on to take 2 marks and lay 4 tackles. His price will be stunted for the next fortnight as it rolls through his price cycle.

Schoenmakers remembered he’s only allowed an average in 60s so threw up a 56 to compensate the 71 he was currently running at. 12 disposals (10 kicks) at 50% DE with 7 marks, 1 behind and 1 goal assist was about all he did in the draw.

Ainsworth struggled all day to get into the game which is reflected in his 23 points from 6 disposals (3 kicks). His score was far from ideal given such a low BE only making $6.5k and looks to only have another week as when the 99 drops out, his BE will jump to about 90.

Parsons was my trade out target to bring in Witherden so at least kicking 3 goals and putting up 98 points took some string out of my blunder. He’s like the pest that just won’t go away and with such a high score rolling though his average, he still has another fortnight to lingering around. Still not impressed!

Buzza got a second run against Brisbane but just collected 9 disposals (6 kicks) and was the least accurate of the Cats going at 44% DE. No goals next to his name as he skewed a shot but he did set up 2 to go with 3 marks and a couple of 1%ers. On the bubble for his next game, he doesn’t look like a prolific scorer given he only managed 43 points in a 85 point win. Job security is of question too.

Stengle got the typical low possession count for a small forward in a drumming but unlike Bolten, gets most of his uncontested leaving him with 30 points from 8 disposals (5 kicks) at 63% DE. Dimma has stated that they will be rotating the small forwards to keep them fresh so would be very risky to jump on as you may get left stranded for cover if he’s rested and with an average of 39, you won’t get much and is a rookie who can be passed on.

Goodbye for now: Buzza and Stengle.

Who gets your Rookie Brownlow votes from your team in Rd16? (Top 3)

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
7
0


Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom

4 thoughts on “Rookie Review – Round 16”

  1. Needed Parsons and Witherden’s scores this week. Ryan and Hibberd scored great with these 74’s on the bench. Will probably need all 4 as cover at some time as trades are down to 5 and there will be late outs, managing/resting players and guys being sent off for early surgery late in the season.
    I love these rookie write-ups on Tuesdays as I don’t have access to the detail in the summaries.

    1

    0

Leave a Reply

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