all Australian

[HAL]

It's possible.

[afisher]

Sorry Daniel , but statistics only tell part of the story. As soon as you start to break it down to finals (this doesnt come into AA selection anyway), average goals per game, and number of marks you will always distort the "perception" of who is the best. I would think (as always) it is very subjective " and for that reason one cannot always have universal agreement.
Lets say for example the AA ruckman; is it the big man who has the most taps , the most effective taps, creates the most clearances or who is best around the ground. Perhaps Full forward is a little different because you can more easily quantify ONE ASPECT of their effectiveness (goals), however this only tells part of the Tarrant story. Taz exploits his natural attributes at full forward and thus plays it a little different to a Lloyd or a Neitz. My argument is that he is still Full Forward and his on field contribution , is greater than both these players who have alone kicked more goals.

[Daniel]

afisher.... u may view Taz as a FF, but I can pretty much guarantee u, if all things remain as they are.... Taz won't be named at FF. How can he be if he's 19 goals shy of the leading goalkicker who plays the role more traditionally. Where would u put Neitz then?

If I was a selector I would think it's more logical to put Taz at HFF as I think this more accurately reflects his 'mobility' in the role that he currently plays.... and gives say Neitz who is significantly ahead on goals and plays pretty much within the confines of the F50, without the freedom of Tarrant.

But that's just my opinion, u don't have to agree.... the only way to find out is wait till September.

[Broadie]

They changed the selection criteria after the 1999 "precedent" so that the FF in the All-Australian team MUST be the Coleman Medalist.

At this stage last year we'd pencilled in about 8 players for All-Australian: we're not even half-way through the season, folks! Let's not get carried away or put too much more pressure on than already exists. But let's not shy away from extolling the virtues of Tarrant's current form, either.

Plenty of players have warranted AA selection at Rd 10, but then faded (one S.Rocca certainly springs to mind), so let's keep the focus on the main issue: winning games, not individual honours. How's that for a new take on the "one-week-at-a-time" answer?

[afisher]

Thanks for that info, didnt realised they had changed that. That being the case that changes the argument somewhat. Good debate anyway. Cheers

[The Prototype]

Tarrant wouldn't be forward, I reckon they'd give it to Neitz.