53 minutes ago, Cheesy D. Pun said:

They're pretty consistent with the way they judge these.

Form across multiple weeks outweighs one big game. To be honest, I don't mind it.

Quaynor hardly has a string of notable games to fall back on.

I think what they've done here is recognise Quaynor for 2 reasons:

1. Sholl and Rivers were impossible to split and both are likely to be eligible next year, whilst Quaynor is not.

2. The AFL stuffed up, didn't check studs on boots and Quaynor missed 3 weeks as well as suffered a fair bit of pain because of it.

I don't mind Trent being made to wait until next year given this funny season we are having. He can build his tank and come out next year and light it up.

21 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Quaynor hardly has a string of notable games to fall back on.

I think what they've done here is recognise Quaynor for 2 reasons:

1. Sholl and Rivers were impossible to split and both are likely to be eligible next year, whilst Quaynor is not.

2. The AFL stuffed up, didn't check studs on boots and Quaynor missed 3 weeks as well as suffered a fair bit of pain because of it.

I don't mind Trent being made to wait until next year given this funny season we are having. He can build his tank and come out next year and light it up.

don't rule him out earning it against the peptides

The kid was robbed.   Weekly award is dumb anyway.  Every first year player 20 and under should be eligible .

Edited September 15, 20205 yr by Pickett2Jackson

A few Crows’ players left bewildered about Sholl missing out and have made their feelings known publicly. Not suggesting we should have done the same, just liked the support for a young kid that probably deserved the nom this week.

36 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

A few Crows’ players left bewildered about Sholl missing out and have made their feelings known publicly. Not suggesting we should have done the same, just liked the support for a young kid that probably deserved the nom this week.

Also this strange tweet from the Crows. 

 

13 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

What a joke!! Quaynor.  
 

1- Rivers kicks the winning goal in a tough elimination finals type game and he misses out.  Rivers kicks two crucial goals.  Even Rivers spoil in the last 15 seconds showed his heart and toughness to match his skill and run.

2- Quaynor got 17 possessions against Rivers 16 possessions.   Often running past for a handball.  Trent Rivers got 8 contested possessions compared to Quaynor 4 contested. 

3- Sexton kicks 3 goals in the first quarter on Quaynor who gets moved.  Somehow that must have been missed !! 

 

There is bias in the decision. Just my opinion. 

I'm afraid you'll be hearing from Gil & Eddie's press secretaries shortly SNS...

At the end of the day another nomination would have been nice, but i'm just thrilled we have Trent on board. What a future he has (hopefully all at this club!)

2 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

I'm afraid you'll be hearing from Gil & Eddie's press secretaries shortly SNS...

Head high contact. Reckless. Low impact. 
$1000 fine for Eddie.  That’s loose change !! 

5 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

I'm afraid you'll be hearing from Gil & Eddie's press secretaries shortly SNS...

Wish a vomit reaction button came with the website upgrade here :p  

47 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

A few Crows’ players left bewildered about Sholl missing out and have made their feelings known publicly. Not suggesting we should have done the same, just liked the support for a young kid that probably deserved the nom this week.

I didn't mind it either. I think it's good to have in a group that is rebuilding. 

I found the crows support of Scholl a bit weird 

On 8/30/2020 at 3:08 PM, Rusty Nails said:

He's a real footballer's footballer this kid but also has the spring and toe to be something extra.

He's averaging 74% efficiency, just above AFL average, and our 5th best intercept player this season behind some significant seniors up top.  Looking forward to watching this young fella's career develop.

Heart in mouth, maybe with more experience and some excellent development and encouragement, we may have another Hardeman coming along. For me, Gary was the best CHB I have ever seen, and since then, we have had quite a few greats in that position. He is not a Neitz, but smaller like Hardeman and has that poise coming along, nicely. 

How the hell did Quaynor get it Sexton kicked his first 3 goals on him. Rivers won the game he was robbed!

Anyway, I know who out of Quaynor, Sholl and Riv that I want on Melbourne's list for the next 15 years.  That will do me just fine thanks!

 

16 hours ago, DubDee said:

Ridiculous decision that makes a mockery of this award. Rivers won us the game. Quaynor got pantsed by his opponent and had 17 touches

wouldnt have minded Sholl getting it but Quaynor???  wtf

I haven't been following, but maybe poor old Colonwood hasn't had one yet, or not enough.

Its a dumb award the way it is currently

If you are going to have a best 1st year player award then make it so with everyone elegible, not just those who win a weekly award.

It has strayed away from its original purpose as is usual with many things AFL

 

 

You don’t need a nomination to be a “rising star”.  
 

Riv is a rising star ⭐️ and won it for the Dees on the weekend. Very happy with our new number 24. 

It’s stupid how it is awarded weekly but the argument that IQ got it for consistency of performance doesn’t hold. Hasn’t performed any better than Rivers (Sholl’s season averages are a bit down on those two). Collingwood factor

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Its a dumb award the way it is currently

If you are going to have a best 1st year player award then make it so with everyone elegible, not just those who win a weekly award.

It has strayed away from its original purpose as is usual with many things AFL

 

A weekly award is nice. Gives recognition to a lot of players and is something for fans - especially of rebuilding clubs to care about.

There's 23 (or 18 this year) chances to nominate the overall best player, the odds of the winner not having a standout game are astronomically low. Unlike similar awards that run on the back of 'player of the month' like the A league version. 

Quaynor didn't get the nomination because he's going to win the thing.

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

 

Quaynor didn't get the nomination because he's going to win the thing.

No one that gets the weekly award now will win the RS. This late in the season they just make up the numbers.

I’d still give it to Rowell though.

5 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

A weekly award is nice. Gives recognition to a lot of players and is something for fans - especially of rebuilding clubs to care about.

There's 23 (or 18 this year) chances to nominate the overall best player, the odds of the winner not having a standout game are astronomically low. Unlike similar awards that run on the back of 'player of the month' like the A league version. 

Quaynor didn't get the nomination because he's going to win the thing.

23 chances to get nominated in a regular year. MOst clubs have at least 2 good contenders each year so there is at least 13 that miss out.

I disagree with your assertion that a potential winner is likely to have a standout game. FOr a start he could have it on the wrong week when someone does something freakish. When Rankine was nominated it woudn't have mattered who else had a good game. Rankine was always going to get it.

GWS and GC have been 'favoured' in many cases as the AFL wants to give their fans some hope. That has reduced the number from other clubs that could be nominated.

I say make it clearer what the award is for. If its for a star of the future as it originally was then that could be someone who has a 7/10 game every week but gets beaten every week by a standout game from another club.

If its for a best 1st year player (which is what its morphed into) then reward consistency

The weekly award is fine. The annual award as it stands is dumb.

 

 

4 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

No one that gets the weekly award now will win the RS. This late in the season they just make up the numbers.

I’d still give it to Rowell though.

Analysis of the RS award I did a few years back shows that those awarded in the first 8 rounds have a significantly higher chance of winning. I recall that there were only 2 or 3 from later rounds.

That's a joke. Everyone should be eligible that qualifies. 

26 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

23 chances to get nominated in a regular year. MOst clubs have at least 2 good contenders each year so there is at least 13 that miss out.

I disagree with your assertion that a potential winner is likely to have a standout game. FOr a start he could have it on the wrong week when someone does something freakish. When Rankine was nominated it woudn't have mattered who else had a good game. Rankine was always going to get it.

GWS and GC have been 'favoured' in many cases as the AFL wants to give their fans some hope. That has reduced the number from other clubs that could be nominated.

I say make it clearer what the award is for. If its for a star of the future as it originally was then that could be someone who has a 7/10 game every week but gets beaten every week by a standout game from another club.

If its for a best 1st year player (which is what its morphed into) then reward consistency

The weekly award is fine. The annual award as it stands is dumb.

 

Obviously there's confirmation bias at play but the top 13 in the betting market have all been nominated. The first without one is Bailey Scott at $81 which really should be $8001.

Very rarely is there a Rankine like performance and especially later in a season when most of the standouts have been nominated. The impact of betting alone means the AFL won't let a genuine contender go without a nomination as the season rolls towards the 20 week mark.

The most likely case is a chronically underrated key defender who doesn't get a lot of stats but these days key defenders are racking up intercept marks and possessions so it really won't be an issue.

It's not the worlds best design award by any means but that doesn't mean the best player from those eligible won't get a nomination at some stage.

The far greater concern is the impact the media and group think has on the award and the judges. Serong $1.50 and Anderson $4 despite nearly identical seasons is a great example of it.

10 hours ago, WERRIDEE said:

How the hell did Quaynor get it Sexton kicked his first 3 goals on him. Rivers won the game he was robbed!

Strange choice all sounds contrived and political. Rivers is going to be a gun.

12 hours ago, adonski said:

I found the crows support of Scholl a bit weird 

Adelaide are a bit weird if you didn't know....