The Rising Star
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests Registered Users: None |
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Boogie Knights
Joined: 18 Sep 2015
|
Post subject: | |
|
Eligibility criteria could work in our favour next year when Sier becomes the first unanimous winner.... |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | Pies2016 wrote: | The rising star awards is another AFL event in danger of becoming a joke.
Doodee was the runner up and had been in system for three seasons ( Witherdon was third placed and in his second year )
How can they even nominate Doodee when he has been in the AFL system three times as long as Stephenson.
Either keep the rising star award for first year players only or introduce another money making event for the most improved under 22 year old ( then at least Stephenson can win another award in a year or two ) |
Why? It's always been that way and hasn't been a problem as far as I can see. No fewer than eight of the twenty-six Rising Star winners made their debuts in the season prior. Heath Shaw was in his second year as an AFL player and third year on the list when he controversially (if you ask most Collingwood fans) finished third in the award in 2006.
Of course you could limit the category to first-year players*, but then you potentially miss out on someone who plays a couple of games the year before and then has a breakout season. I don't see any reason to think that that's a better scenario than a second- or third-year player winning it.
*Under which, ironically, Doedee would probably still qualify because he only made his debut this year. |
I just don’t see it as an apples for apples comparison. One guy has done three pre seasons and Stephenson was in his first. I accept you could cap it to include candidates who were in the second preseason like Witherdon.
To me Doodee is more eligible to qualify for best first year player, which Kelly ( Geelong ) won anyway.
I see the rising star as an award for “ kids “ to strive for, not players who couldn’t crack a game until their third year in the system.
The criteria is the criteria and it’s the same for all.
Obviously we just don’t agree on the criteria for selection. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
I don’t necessarily disagree; I just don’t think it’s obvious that the current eligibility criteria is wrong. I take your point about Doedee having an advantage, but it seems an arbitrary distinction (particularly if we’re allowing second-year players but not third-year players). One of the advantages of letting second and third-year players compete, I think, is that it broadens the pool – a lot of players don’t get a chance to make it at senior level in their first season, so you’d have a smaller field and thus fewer quality candidates. Of course we could quibble at the specific criteria – why have an age cut-off of 21 and not 20 or 22? – but, again, it doesn’t feel obviously wrong to me.
Sier, unfortunately, will be ineligible next year – he turns 21 in December (and he’ll be doubly ineligible if we make the prelim and he plays, as he’ll have surpassed the ten-game maximum). Otherwise, I agree that he’d have to be a front-runner! Flynn Appleby, Nathan Murphy, Max Lynch, Tyler Brown and Sam McLarty will be eligible next year, otherwise. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
|