![]() | |
After taking on the role as St. Kilda's key ruckman, Ben McEvoy surprised many fantasy coaches in mid 2011 by scoring 100+ in five consecutive matches. By scoring above 90 in more than half of his games last season, Ben McEvoy has earned the title of most improved Dream Team player, increasing his average over 2010 by over 50%. There are certainly safer options for the price McEvoy is at in 2012, though the big man has continually improved from season to season, so he's certainly worth the risk. | |
Position | RUC |
Average 2011 | 90.5 |
Games Played | 21 |
Average 2010 | 59.4 |
Games Played | 19 |
Difference | 31.0 |
Percentage | 52% |
![]() | |
Fyfe's early adopters last year could not have asked for more. With over 16 games of scores above 90, Fyfe was one of the more consistent players of 2012. His value has increased greatly and is now premium priced, though with Fremantle expected to be on the rise in 2012, Fyfe is almost certain to have a great season. | |
Position | FWD, MID |
Average 2011 | 98.4 |
Games Played | 21 |
Average 2010 | 70.4 |
Games Played | 18 |
Difference | 28.0 |
Percentage | 40% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 109.2 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 79.5 |
Games Played | 22 |
Difference | 30.0 |
Percentage | 37% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 86.8 |
Games Played | 18 |
Average 2010 | 63.6 |
Games Played | 14 |
Difference | 23.0 |
Percentage | 36% |
![]() | |
2011 was Robinson's breakout year, as he was spent more time in a midfield with the likes of Chris Judd and Marc Murphy. His 36% increase over 2010 was mainly due to his better consistency, scoring above 90 in more than half of his matches throughout the year. Robinson, who often went under the radar by fantasy coaches last year, will be seen as a unique leading up to the 2012 season. He's seen as a ferocious and determined individual, so expect to see him carry over his impressive form into this year | |
Position | FWD, MID |
Average 2011 | 92.2 |
Games Played | 21 |
Average 2010 | 67.9 |
Games Played | 16 |
Difference | 24.0 |
Percentage | 36% |
![]() | |
After an injury interrupted 2009 and 2010, not many took the risk with Jed Adcock in 2011. Those who did would have been pleased with his started to the year, scoring 90+ in all matches between rounds two to nine. All was well in the world until the second half of the season arrived. Adcock went from averaging 91 in the first half to just over 75 in the second half. This was mainly due Adcock adopting a more defensive role. Given Adcock's history, he certainly is a risk at his price. | |
Position | DEF |
Average 2011 | 84.5 |
Games Played | 20 |
Average 2010 | 62.7 |
Games Played | 9 |
Difference | 22.0 |
Percentage | 35% |
![]() | |
Like McEvoy, Todd Goldstein surprised many in 2011. Not only did he average 100 points per match, he also averaged the highest amount of hitouts per game, 35 The positive with Goldstein is that he only averaged 13.7 disposals per game. If North Melbourne improve this year, Goldstein should likely get the ball more often in his hands throughout matches and improve his average. | |
Position | RUC |
Average 2011 | 99.4 |
Games Played | 21 |
Average 2010 | 74.9 |
Games Played | 21 |
Difference | 25.0 |
Percentage | 33% |
![]() | |
Position | FWD, MID |
Average 2011 | 84.0 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 63.4 |
Games Played | 14 |
Difference | 21.0 |
Percentage | 32% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 85.9 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 66.8 |
Games Played | 22 |
Difference | 19.0 |
Percentage | 29% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 112.1 |
Games Played | 20 |
Average 2010 | 87.3 |
Games Played | 19 |
Difference | 25.0 |
Percentage | 28% |
![]() | |
Position | DEF |
Average 2011 | 80.2 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 62.7 |
Games Played | 9 |
Difference | 18.0 |
Percentage | 28% |
![]() | |
After a year full of injuries, Dean Cox return to all his former glory in 2011 by once again averaging over 100 points per round. Despite his price Cox is one of the safest players to pick, though one has to ask, would it be worth it to skip on him and pick up a Goldstein or a McEvoy, who are both expected to continue on their great from in 2012? | |
Position | RUC |
Average 2011 | 107.5 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 84.7 |
Games Played | 22 |
Difference | 23.0 |
Percentage | 27% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 93.7 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 74.1 |
Games Played | 17 |
Difference | 20.0 |
Percentage | 26% |
![]() | |
Zaharakis was seen by some as a unique player last year. Finishing with an average of 89, Zaharakis became a viable sixth or seventh forward. With that said, he'll be seen as a big risk this year, due to both his price and his history of inconsistencies. | |
Position | FWD, MID |
Average 2011 | 89.6 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 71.2 |
Games Played | 20 |
Difference | 18.0 |
Percentage | 26% |
![]() | |
Position | FWD, MID |
Average 2011 | 89.5 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 71.5 |
Games Played | 21 |
Difference | 18.0 |
Percentage | 25% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 87.1 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 70.1 |
Games Played | 20 |
Difference | 17.0 |
Percentage | 24% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 81.7 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 66.3 |
Games Played | 10 |
Difference | 15.0 |
Percentage | 23% |
![]() | |
Position | RUC |
Average 2011 | 87.8 |
Games Played | 19 |
Average 2010 | 71.6 |
Games Played | 13 |
Difference | 16.0 |
Percentage | 23% |
![]() | |
Position | FWD, MID |
Average 2011 | 101.6 |
Games Played | 14 |
Average 2010 | 82.4 |
Games Played | 25 |
Difference | 19.0 |
Percentage | 23% |
![]() | |
Along with McEvoy and Goldstein, Leuenberger was one of the standouts in the ruck divisions last year. Leuenberger has always been highly rated by the Brisbane camp and last year he showed his worth by averaging over 33 hitouts per game, fourth highest in the competition So far, a third of his points come from his hitouts, which is good news, as he'll begin to accumulate more points with as his career advances. Should be considered as a second ruckman if one is limited by the salary cap | |
Position | RUC |
Average 2011 | 92.8 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 77.1 |
Games Played | 22 |
Difference | 16.0 |
Percentage | 20% |
![]() | |
Position | FWD, MID |
Average 2011 | 81.3 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 68.0 |
Games Played | 11 |
Difference | 13.0 |
Percentage | 20% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 88.1 |
Games Played | 16 |
Average 2010 | 73.9 |
Games Played | 22 |
Difference | 14.0 |
Percentage | 19% |
![]() | |
Position | FWD, RUC |
Average 2011 | 83.8 |
Games Played | 11 |
Average 2010 | 70.7 |
Games Played | 23 |
Difference | 13.0 |
Percentage | 19% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 89.7 |
Games Played | 19 |
Average 2010 | 76.1 |
Games Played | 18 |
Difference | 14.0 |
Percentage | 18% |
![]() | |
Position | RUC |
Average 2011 | 91.5 |
Games Played | 17 |
Average 2010 | 78.0 |
Games Played | 21 |
Difference | 14.0 |
Percentage | 17% |
![]() | |
Travis Cloke started the year off slowly but finished it off in impressive fashion. He averaged 108 in the second half of the year as opposed to only 86 in the first half of the season. While a bit pricey, Cloke is the key forward for the runner ups of 2011, so he's guaranteed to be fed the ball on many occasion in each match. | |
Position | FWD |
Average 2011 | 95.7 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 82.5 |
Games Played | 24 |
Difference | 13.0 |
Percentage | 16% |
![]() | |
Position | DEF |
Average 2011 | 89.7 |
Games Played | 21 |
Average 2010 | 77.4 |
Games Played | 21 |
Difference | 12.0 |
Percentage | 16% |
![]() | |
Position | FWD |
Average 2011 | 86.8 |
Games Played | 19 |
Average 2010 | 75.8 |
Games Played | 18 |
Difference | 11.0 |
Percentage | 15% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 93.5 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 81.1 |
Games Played | 19 |
Difference | 12.0 |
Percentage | 15% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 108.9 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 95.7 |
Games Played | 21 |
Difference | 13.0 |
Percentage | 14% |
![]() | |
Position | FWD |
Average 2011 | 107.2 |
Games Played | 20 |
Average 2010 | 94.2 |
Games Played | 22 |
Difference | 13.0 |
Percentage | 14% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 86.5 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 75.9 |
Games Played | 24 |
Difference | 11.0 |
Percentage | 14% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 105.4 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 93.6 |
Games Played | 19 |
Difference | 12.0 |
Percentage | 13% |
![]() | |
Position | FWD |
Average 2011 | 86.2 |
Games Played | 19 |
Average 2010 | 76.0 |
Games Played | 21 |
Difference | 10.0 |
Percentage | 13% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 93.5 |
Games Played | 21 |
Average 2010 | 82.4 |
Games Played | 19 |
Difference | 11.0 |
Percentage | 13% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 111.5 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 99.2 |
Games Played | 22 |
Difference | 12.0 |
Percentage | 12% |
![]() | |
Position | DEF, MID |
Average 2011 | 91.9 |
Games Played | 16 |
Average 2010 | 81.8 |
Games Played | 23 |
Difference | 10.0 |
Percentage | 12% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 107.0 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 95.4 |
Games Played | 23 |
Difference | 12.0 |
Percentage | 12% |
![]() | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 112.0 |
Games Played | 20 |
Average 2010 | 100.6 |
Games Played | 19 |
Difference | 11.0 |
Percentage | 11% |
![]() | |
After an impressive 2010, who would have thought Pendlebury would have increased another 10% in 2011? Pendlebury is one of the few players who we can always depend on getting above 110. He scored 130+ nine times last year, making him one of the must have elites in 2012. Not many can fit both Swan and Pendlebury in their teams so one has to consider the tradeoff. $15,000 saved or an average of 3 points per round? | |
Position | MID |
Average 2011 | 116.6 |
Games Played | 22 |
Average 2010 | 106.5 |
Games Played | 26 |
Difference | 10.0 |
Percentage | 9% |
Ads provide web developers the support to continue providing their services. If our ads are of annoyance, please provide recommendations to help us improve.