Cameron or Cox?

[K]

[What'sinaname]

[BEAMER09]

[Rd10.1998_11.1#36]

[Cam]

[didick]

I only saw some highlights but the marks Cameron took looked like he had good use of his body. Something Cox lacks. Cox gets contested marls really only due to his height and reach but often gets outbodied trying to get there.

[RudeBoy]

Cox is potentially better, but Cameron is reliably better.

[Lazza]

[stui magpie]

[What'sinaname]

^ hell yeah....its time someone overpays for Cox.

[David]

Cameron holds his marks and can kick just as reliably as Cox if not more so. He's also the future. It's not a hard question to answer, sadly.

[princem007]

The 3 can play together in one team with them rotating through ruck , forward line and interchange and this would create less predictability with Grundy primarily Ruck , Cameron FF and Cox a combination Ruck / Forward

Starting Ruck - Grundy FF Cox Interchange Cameron
8 minute mark Ruck Cox FF Cameron Interchange Grundy
16 minute Ruck Grundy Ff Cameron Interchange Cox

Occasionally we could have a combination of 3 on ground to mix things up but we don’t want to be top heavy , prefer 2 on ground at once.

Commentators keep saying we have small forward line but if we had Cox, Cameron and a mobile Mihocek and either Ruscoe or Kelly in future I can see a potent forward line developing.

Cameron can relieve in ruck also.

Imagine our aerial prowess with 5 players over 200cm

Grundy
Moore
Roughead
Cameron
Cox

Unbeatable !!

[35reasons]

This is my post from the post-game thread the other night, which I think is germane to this thread:

I think the Cox vs Cameron issue is an important discussion. Personally I think Cox is the way to go.

Looking at last night’s game on the “macro” level we beat the Crows in I50s 42-30, demonstrating that the mids are doing their job well (yes, some entries are useless), but on the whole I50s are a decent metric of the output from the midfield group (and how much better had that stat been with Pendles and Treloar there too, and possibly JDG if/when he returns later in the season).

The next stat to look at is the % of shots at goal from those I50s - which we lost 29%-43%, which means it was only our straight kicking that won us the game (and in general, the accuracy of shots is a bit random and a bit hit-and-miss from one game to the next, so the I50 efficiency stat is more instructive I think).

What does that say? It says our forward line isn’t working well. It would work better with Cox, who even though he often mangles his efforts (particularly his marking, his kicking at goal is generally good), provides a target, draws defenders, and most importantly - provides structure and something intangible that improves the general performance of the forwards.

So where does that leave Cameron? Battling it for the second tall slot with (the admittedly not-that-tall-but-plays-tall) Checkers (we should never play three talls - too slow and it also negates one of our absolute competitive advantages, which is an impressive and ignore-them-at-your-peril cadre of small, potent forwards), and I would take Mihocek over Cameron every day of the week.

[eddiesmith]

[What'sinaname]

^ At 50+ games, the gulf between Cox' best and worst is the reason he's not in the team.

Cameron has played less than 10 games, he can afford to spud it up a few times.

Facts are, Cox just isn't good enough to hold a senior spot and be paid senior dollars.

That weird leg kick he did in the ruck in Round 2 or 3 was telling.