Walsh wins with 183 votes
Weitering a close 2nd
183 Walsh
172 Weitering
117 McKay
112 Cripps
100 Ed Curnow
97 Saad
86 Plowman
80 Jones
75 Betts
71 Silvagni
Everybody's whipping boy Lachie Plowman polls well again. Even i'm surprised he got more votes than Jones, but there you go.
About time he gets some respect.
At a minimum I'd be swapping the votes of Jones and Cripps. Jones was super this year.
And congratulations to Walsh.
Closer than many people had it, the coaches love defenders.
Plowman, just keeps committing to the contest, I bet he is a favourite of Weitering and Jones! ;)
Well done to Walsh and, also Weitering.
Probably one of the keys to performing well in these type of awards is not only how the coaches see things and their expectations (which don't always match the supporters), but actually getting on the field...and we had our share of injury troubles this year.
All of the top ten, bar Silvagni, played at least 19 games.
Sensational year by Walsh but only winning by 11... I love Weit but really? And Plowman - indictment on the playing group that he makes top 10... as well as those voting obviously.
Congratulations to Sam Walsh on the first of what should be several hotly contested John Nicholls medals ... and runner-up Jacob Weitering will undoubtedly snare a few more in the years to come.
I reckon the top ten really do capture our best performers for the season ... but the Plowman detractors will continue to fail to see how valuable he is to our defence. Ed Curnow's fifth place should also pour cold water on ideas that he's past it.
Eddie's ninth place is interesting. Could he have gone around again? Probably, but at what cost in terms of his wellbeing and the progression of the likes of Owies and Honey.
634205627]
Everybody's whipping boy Lachie Plowman polls well again. Even i'm surprised he got more votes than Jones, but there you go.
About time he gets some respect.
Not really. The award is a joke and pretty much fixed.
Not really. The award is a joke and pretty much fixed.
It's a coach's award and is hugely influenced by the role they're asked to play, and also by the number of games they play...but you probably wouldn't get a lot of argument about the top 3...only perhaps the margins.
It's a coach's award and is hugely influenced by the role they're asked to play, and also by the number of games they play...but you probably wouldn't get a lot of argument about the top 3...only perhaps the margins.
While money (bonuses) is involved in placings it is never going to be legit.
While money (bonuses) is involved in placings it is never going to be legit.
It's all a scam, eh?
I didn't realise Plowman was that clever, manipulating the club for profit, seems odd given a lot of his haters spend all day telling us how dumb he is! :o
What's more believable a club manipulating it's best and fairest to suit their salary cap or channel 7 all secretly barracking for the bombers or the the AFL having secret anti Carlton meetings?
I'm a believer in "None of the above" ;)
Next thing they'll be telling us is that "Captain Kirk never went to Space" ;D
If every one of our best 22(3) played every game you might get a slightly different result down the order,
Plowman might have dropped a bit, but clearly the coaching group were generally happy with how he performed.
Of course most of them have now gone and with different expectations might come different criteria for a top 10 finish.
But...
Walsh, Weitering and McKay were our best in order.
No problems with the result.
Well done Walshi., and well done Weitering too.
Also well done to Plowman. Once again in the top few as he has been in the past few years.
Tend to agree with MBB that it can a bit of a popularity award with the coaches and that there is room for manipulation depending on contract triggers etc.
The top three was clearly right which was the important result to look at.
Tend to agree with MBB that it can a bit of a popularity award with the coaches and that there is room for manipulation depending on contract triggers etc.
The top three was clearly right which was the important result to look at.
So somehow magically and arbitrarily the coaches collude to place legitimate votes for the winners who happen to be fan favourites, but submit corrupt votes for the rest who just happen to be fan whipping boys!
IC, we are through the looking glass here people! 8) :-X
In Plowman's case, they / he has been doing this his whole career, I mean he's been manipulating relationships to deliver favourable results since he began, and yet he is stupid apparently. Smarter than some it seems! He must be a master fraudster, and we've let him in the door! :o
Tend to agree with MBB that it can a bit of a popularity award with the coaches and that there is room for manipulation depending on contract triggers etc.
The top three was clearly right which was the important result to look at.
Agree. Call out to Ed Curnow who once again had an outstandingly consistent year. To paraphrase Mark Twain, “The reports of his death are greatly exaggerated.” Think he can go on for more than the one year extension.
What's more believable a club manipulating it's best and fairest to suit their salary cap or channel 7 all secretly barracking for the bombers or the the AFL having secret anti Carlton meetings?
So Jab Snr barracks for Carlton, Eddie Everywhere is just genuine, Caro is a fan girl, Whatley declared his love and Kevin Sheedy is a prophet, so we'd do well to take their advice!
And Carlton manipulated the B&F results so that the guy they are yet to sign but want to sign long term finished 1st, massively increasing his worth! To do what for the salary cap, and the coaches and coaching assistants planned this from Rnd 1, what insight, what planning and foresight!
Yet they didn't see the sack coming! :o
Sort of like the Psychic having to cancel the show due to unforeseen circumstances!
Agree. Call out to Ed Curnow who once again had an outstandingly consistent year. To paraphrase Mark Twain, “The reports of his death are greatly exaggerated.” Think he can go on for more than the one year extension.
Agree on Ed Curnow, solid performer all year and imo probably more consistent than Cripps..
So Jab Snr barracks for Carlton, Eddie Everywhere is just genuine, Caro is a fan girl, Whatley declared his love and Kevin Sheedy is a prophet, so we'd do well to take their advice!
And Carlton manipulated the B&F results so that the guy they are yet to sign but want to sign long term finished 1st, massively increasing his worth! To do what for the salary cap, and the coaches and coaching assistants planned this from Rnd 1, what insight, what planning and foresight!
Yet they didn't see the sack coming! :o
Sort of like the Psychic having to cancel the show due to unforeseen circumstances!
I know of a club where a big name polled the most votes in the final game of the year in a game which he struggled bumping his way into 10th to trigger his 50k bonus. Whispers all around the room , the player was embarrassed especially as he told all his team mates before of his trigger.
Oh Corey McKernan.
Sensational year by Walsh but only winning by 11... I love Weit but really? And Plowman - indictment on the playing group that he makes top 10... as well as those voting obviously.
Yep, what would they know…
Not really. The award is a joke and pretty much fixed.
The
Big
Steal
Yep, what would they know…
Half them got fired didn't they lol.
So it begs the question...
Which players out of the top 10 should have been there....and before answering, just check how many games they played?
If you don't play there's a fair chance you won't attract too many votes.
Jack Silvagni played only 15 games
The rest of the top 10 played at least 19
Had Jack played those extra four games there's a fair chance he would have jumped up a spot or two.
Half them got fired didn't they lol.
Deservedly so !
And the sackings will continue until Plowman doesn’t get a vote…!
So it begs the question...
Which players out of the top 10 should have been there....and before answering, just check how many games they played?
If you don't play there's a fair chance you won't attract too many votes.
Jack Silvagni played only 15 games
The rest of the top 10 played at least 19
Had Jack played those extra four games there's a fair chance he would have jumped up a spot or two.
Do we give votes for participation?
Betts finished 9th and was delisted. Pretty obvious what happened there.
Do we give votes for participation?
Betts finished 9th and was delisted. Pretty obvious what happened there.
What happened?
Did you expect him to go on...I didn't.
He played 19 games.
Many of those he was hardly sighted.
But he obviously performed a role that the coaches were happy with...whether that was as a decoy, or his forward pressure.
He did what was asked of him to the extent he earned votes.
Do we give votes for participation?
Betts finished 9th and was delisted. Pretty obvious what happened there.
I didn't realise they are supposed to sit down at the end of the season and issue votes retrospectively as per the list management guidelines.
Perhaps they just give votes on the day when and where it is deserved?
If you think Plowman getting votes is corrupt, then Walsh winning must be corrupt as well, you can't have it both ways. If Plowman's votes came undeservedly, they came from someone who deserved them, maybe from Walsh but maybe also from Weitering or McKay. You can't know, you are free to arbitrarily choose a bias, but it is still a bias!
I know of a club where a big name polled the most votes in the final game of the year in a game which he struggled bumping his way into 10th to trigger his 50k bonus. Whispers all around the room , the player was embarrassed especially as he told all his team mates before of his trigger.
Sure, the exception is the norm, year after year after year! :o
Believing that is another example of a choice you make that affects your perception of the world! ;)
Oh Corey McKernan.
Despite a slow first few rounds he had an outstanding year in 2002. 40 goals on top of having to carry the entire ruck duties most of the year, due to injuries, where he was terrific around the ground. Thought that one was obvious that year at the time.
Not really. The award is a joke and pretty much fixed.
Lol!!! Why, because the result doesn't agree with you.
You related to Donald Trump?
What happened?
Did you expect him to go on...I didn't.
He played 19 games.
Many of those he was hardly sighted.
But he obviously performed a role that the coaches were happy with...whether that was as a decoy, or his forward pressure.
He did what was asked of him to the extent he earned votes.
Betts is only retiring because of the north Melbourne match where he hurt himself he looked done. Before that he looked like playing to 400.
A cynic might say that his decision was made based on income he might be getting vs what he would have gotten to play on.
I wonder if Betts moved on because he was aggrieved about the Teague decision ? His reasons for taking the Geelong job could be seen as somewhat unconvincing.
Betts is only retiring because of the north Melbourne match where he hurt himself he looked done. Before that he looked like playing to 400.
A cynic might say that his decision was made based on income he might be getting vs what he would have gotten to play on.
Yep, age waits for nobody, it's a harsh reality.
People might say "But he's getting less as a part time coach than a player", but that assumes he only doing one part time job!
Anyway, in several cases recently, Simmo, sMurph, Betts and Kreuzer, the time was right for the club to move on, it is not like it came as a shock even if some had trouble accepting it!
I know of a club where a big name polled the most votes in the final game of the year in a game which he struggled bumping his way into 10th to trigger his 50k bonus. Whispers all around the room , the player was embarrassed especially as he told all his team mates before of his trigger.
The B&F bonusses still come under the cap. So, it would make more sense for the award to be manipulated to drop someone OUT of the top 10 (or top 3), to avoid a bonus and save on $ and TPP. Doesnt make a lot of sense to manipulate to push someone into the money for no valid reason
I didn't realise they are supposed to sit down at the end of the season and issue votes retrospectively as per the list management guidelines.
Perhaps they just give votes on the day when and where it is deserved?
If you think Plowman getting votes is corrupt, then Walsh winning must be corrupt as well, you can't have it both ways. If Plowman's votes came undeservedly, they came from someone who deserved them, maybe from Walsh but maybe also from Weitering or McKay. You can't know, you are free to arbitrarily choose a bias, but it is still a bias!
Most of the voters were sacked at the end of the season so who did the votes; Sayers and Diesel?
I think most supporters would agree that Walsh and Weitering were our two best players and would have McKay, Cripps, Ed Curnow or Saad in their top five, taking into account games played of course. In fact, all of those players were in the top six in our Jim Park Award. Kennedy and Newman make the top ten in the Jim Park Award, displacing Plowman and Betts.
If the voting was manipulated, why would the beneficiaries be Plowman and Betts? What would be the point?
It's hard to argue against Walsh, Weitering, McKay, Cripps, Ed Curnow and Saad leading the voting; their performances were overt , easily recognised and they played most games. It becomes harder for the average punter to recognise players who are following instructions and unobtrusively carrying out selfless acts.
Some of us see a player outnumbered but never giving up, making an effort to win with some success against the odds on nearly every occasion, sacrificing their own game for the benefit of those around them. ;D
Others see the same player in the same set of events being defeated over and over again, and getting lucky and winning a battle occasionally. :o
Only one perspective offers some consideration of the real world circumstance, I don't believe in luck, but I do believe hard work delivers a better outcome!
Only 3 onballers in the Top 10. Is that a reflection of our weak mid or does it show that it is an award for the role players? I assume the latter.
Most of the voters were sacked at the end of the season so who did the votes; Sayers and Diesel?
I think most supporters would agree that Walsh and Weitering were our two best players and would have McKay, Cripps, Ed Curnow or Saad in their top five, taking into account games played of course. In fact, all of those players were in the top six in our Jim Park Award. Kennedy and Newman make the top ten in the Jim Park Award, displacing Plowman and Betts.
If the voting was manipulated, why would the beneficiaries be Plowman and Betts? What would be the point?
It's hard to argue against Walsh, Weitering, McKay, Cripps, Ed Curnow and Saad leading the voting; their performances were overt , easily recognised and they played most games. It becomes harder for the average punter to recognise players who are following instructions and unobtrusively carrying out selfless acts.
The voting would have to be done on a week to week basis by the coaches and the results filed away. ;) ;D
You wouldn't remember much about Round 1 at the end of August.
Any fiddling would have to take place post season and not involve the coaches at all.
Kennedy and Newman polled well in our Jim Park
Kennedy played only 13 games
Newman played 14 games
The way the CSC (Jim Park) award is structured it depends a lot on numbers voting each week and a the ability for there to be a wide variance in vote allocation.
A big number one week for a player who impressed in a week where a lot of folks voted would be possible.
A tighter voting system would apply in the CFC Best and Fairest and number of games played would be a more significant factor.
Only 3 onballers in the Top 10. Is that a reflection of our weak mid or does it show that it is an award for the role players? I assume the latter.
Yes, it's not a midfielders award like the Brownlow, Weitering only has 3 Brownlow votes for his whole career!
Deservedly so !
And the sackings will continue until Plowman doesn’t get a vote…!
It's more a mark of how far we've fallen. Would Plowman get a list spot at any other club right now? Not in a million years.
Yet he's not just getting a game but getting pats on the back from our coaches despite the numerous obvious deficiencies in his game and never dropped no matter how poorly he performs. Think back to the Dean, Sexton, SOS, McKay, Christou, etc. or the Bruce Doull / Geoff Southby days.... our standards are woeful by comparison.
Intercepting in the back half is more important now than it ever was back in those days so having poor decision makers / turnoverers down there is a problem I'm hoping the new coaching staff come with a level of intolerance for. I've had enough of hearing Carlton supporters making excuses and accepting mediocrity.
The voting would have to be done on a week to week basis by the coaches and the results filed away. ;) ;D
You wouldn't remember much about Round 1 at the end of August.
Any fiddling would have to take place post season and not involve the coaches at all.
Kennedy and Newman polled well in our Jim Park
Kennedy played only 13 games
Newman played 14 games
The way the CSC (Jim Park) award is structured it depends a lot on numbers voting each week and a the ability for there to be a wide variance in vote allocation.
A big number one week for a player who impressed in a week where a lot of folks voted would be possible.
A tighter voting system would apply in the CFC Best and Fairest and number of games played would be a more significant factor.
The senior coach and three assistants cast votes after each game. Each coach can award from one to four votes to every player they feel has performed at the expected level or above. After a good win, votes could be awarded to most of the team while few players would receive votes after an effort like round 22. That's a little like the Jim Park Award but the maximum of four votes would minimise the reward for an outstanding performance. It also means that every player's performance is assessed rather than just focusing on the players in the spotlight for better or more showy play.
Plowman got 86 votes from19 games meaning that he averaged just over one vote from each coach. If he's routinely assessed as playing trademark games and gets a couple of above expectations and an outstanding (say Rounds 1 or 3), 86 points is done and dusted.
Check out how well he played against Richmond in Round 1:
https://www.carltonfc.com.au/video/885968/afl-r1-plowman-weitering-get-their-job-done?videoId=885968&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1616313490001
And that's pretty well his benchmark.
Not really. The award is a joke and pretty much fixed.
1. Not all clubs even award B+F bonuses. Ross Lyon ditched it when he was coaching.
2. Not all coaches, if any, would be aware of player triggers even if they did.
3. Just because it might've happened once, at one club, doesn't mean it happens at every club, all the time.
4. Different voting systems make things much more difficult to manipulate, and easy to catch out excessive votes.
5. All that being said, and i could go on, lets simply look at this.
Jim Park top 10 vs (Club B+F placing)
5895 - Walsh, Sam (217) - (1st)
3205 - Weitering, Jacob (163) - (2nd)
1832 - Curnow, Edward (380) - (5th)
1634 - Cripps, Patrick (5) - (4th)
1538 - Saad, Adam (5) - (6th)
1538 - McKay, Harrison (0) - (3rd)
1457 - Jones, Liam (0) - (8th)
1152 - Kennedy, Matthew (37) - (unknown)
1024 - Silvagni, Jack (0) - (10th)
765 - Newman, Nicholas (226) - (unknown)
FWIW,
Plowman was 7th and finished 17th in Jim Park
Betts was 9th and finished 12th in Jim Park
Reading between the lines, you are suggesting that Teague looked after his mate Betts to sneak him into the top 10....even though we had him 12th.
If thats incorrect, then your theory is Plowman is the one we give extra votes too (which holds more water based on results than Betts) but that theory doesn't work either because Plowman has been getting more votes than we expect over multiple coaches now and that kind of collusion is something we are not capable of without it being plastered all over the front page.
So i go back to theory 1.....and answer your other question as to why he was delisted. I think that answer is a relatively simple one. He has played 350-odd games and turns 35 next month. Age catches up with everyone!
(https://i0.wp.com/thenerdistheword.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/mythbusted-004.jpg?resize=678%2C381)
Round by Round
Round by Round
So both Eddie and Plowman got more votes in the first half of the year, rather than at the back end of the year to meet whatever triggers some might suggest they were pushed towards.
*oops*
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/extraordinary-walsh-hailed-after-claiming-maiden-john-nicholls-medal-20211014-p58zz9.html
The 21-year-old was a ball magnet, averaging almost 30 disposals per game. He was No.1 ranked at the club for tackles, uncontested possessions and score involvements. His toughness in the contest, outside run, and ability to hit the scoreboard were impressive.......................................................
It's more a mark of how far we've fallen. Would Plowman get a list spot at any other club right now? Not in a million years.
Yet he's not just getting a game but getting pats on the back from our coaches despite the numerous obvious deficiencies in his game and never dropped no matter how poorly he performs. Think back to the Dean, Sexton, SOS, McKay, Christou, etc. or the Bruce Doull / Geoff Southby days.... our standards are woeful by comparison.
Intercepting in the back half is more important now than it ever was back in those days so having poor decision makers / turnoverers down there is a problem I'm hoping the new coaching staff come with a level of intolerance for. I've had enough of hearing Carlton supporters making excuses and accepting mediocrity.
Yes, all these coaches being happy enough with his performances that they can’t help themselves but pick him each week, if only they’d be more open to your advice…
By the way, I don’t know if any other team would give him a game, as he plays for us, but he did play 20 games for GWS, but they’re fools as well…
Yes, all these coaches being happy enough with his performances that they can’t help themselves but pick him each week, if only they’d be more open to your advice…
By the way, I don’t know if any other team would give him a game, as he plays for us, but he did play 20 games for GWS, but they’re fools as well…
He is slow, a poor kick and a poor decision maker. He wouldn't get a game at GC right now let alone GWS.
Don't think he'll ever be anymore than a 6 / 7 outta ten
Don't think he'll ever be anymore than a 6 / 7 outta ten
In the B&F…?
I (and his coaches) can live with that.
So both Eddie and Plowman got more votes in the first half of the year, rather than at the back end of the year to meet whatever triggers some might suggest they were pushed towards.
*oops*
What are you on about? I said I believe the votes are rigged/made up. Not done after each round.
What are you on about? I said I believe the votes are rigged/made up. Not done after each round.
Well that takes the conspiracy level to a whole new height of crazy then.
Well that takes the conspiracy level to a whole new height of crazy then.
Fixing a best and fairest is a whole new level?
Some people here believe 9/11 was an inside job.
I wonder if sometimes Plow hasn't been somewhat unfairly judged due to his high draft position? I don't see a world beater, but I do see a bloke who gives his all for the club and his mates. I do see someone who has been given some dreadful match-ups and expectations. My only knock on him would be his joking and laughing with opponents after a horrible loss... but that's likely just his nature. Conversely, I don't think I've ever seen him take a short step and I've often seen him one of the first blokes to come to a mate's help in a dustup, etc. He was often the bloke, along with Weiters and Jonesy, who'd come to Stocks' support as he was learning and making mistakes.
He's just the sort of bloke who could do better under our new coaching regime. Time will tell. And that goes for a good number of our blokes. Plenty of cautious optimism here.
Plowman is just one of those defenders that when he makes an error it usually costs a goal and people remember that error but he also does a lot of the hard team things that coaches know but supporters don’t.
Jones errors give away just as many goals but he doesn’t cop the crap that Plowman does.
All in the view of the supporter I got a friend who when we were discussing Plowmans B&F placing said maybe the opposition gave him votes or he had pics of defensive coach Amos in a comprising position! I thought he had an alright year.
Interesting though how defence was our problem but our defenders placed prominently in the top 10 🤔
..................................
Interesting though how defense was our problem but our defenders placed prominently in the top 10 🤔
IMO our defensive problems were further up the ground.
Just a quick scan of some of those round by round numbers.
Jack Silvagni polled in 14/15 games.
Doc in every game he played.
and after the bye Kennedy had the most votes after Walsh and Weitering.
I wonder if sometimes Plow hasn't been somewhat unfairly judged due to his high draft position? I don't see a world beater, but I do see a bloke who gives his all for the club and his mates. I do see someone who has been given some dreadful match-ups and expectations. My only knock on him would be his joking and laughing with opponents after a horrible loss... but that's likely just his nature. Conversely, I don't think I've ever seen him take a short step and I've often seen him one of the first blokes to come to a mate's help in a dustup, etc. He was often the bloke, along with Weiters and Jonesy, who'd come to Stocks' support as he was learning and making mistakes.
He's just the sort of bloke who could do better under our new coaching regime. Time will tell. And that goes for a good number of our blokes. Plenty of cautious optimism here.
He's not Robinson Crusoe; most players have a laugh with opponents, many of whom are former teammates. I think it's a sign of the times but it doesn't mean that Plowman, or any other player, isn't hurting after a loss. Perhaps it's a coping mechanism.
I think that Plowman will do better under the new regime ... if we play more effective defence before the ball gets to our defensive 50.
I saw an interesting statistical comparison:
PlowmanDisposal Efficiency: 80.4%
Clangers: 1.9 per game
Turnovers: 1.7 per game
Contested Defensive Losses: 21.6%
Defensive Half Pressure Acts: 6.1 per game
JonesDisposal Efficiency: 77.4%
Clangers: 2.4 per game
Turnovers: 3.1 per game
Contested Defensive Losses: 11.8%
Defensive Half Pressure Acts: 4.1 per game
WeiteringDisposal Efficiency: 74.0%
Clangers: 2.6 per game
Turnovers: 3.4 per game
Contested Defensive Losses: 20.8 percent
Defensive Half Pressure Acts: 4.2 per game
The significance of those statistics is diminished by the different roles of the three players but we don't pile on Jones or Weitering when their turnovers or defensive losses give up goals.
Another day, another Plowman debate. Polled in the top 10 under 2 coaches. Spoken of by Teague as a real team player, and would be one of the few who goes against what SOS says is our biggest flaw : not being a selfless team and not sacrificing for each other.
Well done Walsh, magnificent 👏🏽
And Weiters and H.
Top 3 - forward, mid, back 👌🏼 let’s go 2022 boys!
Another day, another Plowman debate. Polled in the top 10 under 2 coaches. Spoken of by Teague as a real team player, and would be one of the few who goes against what SOS says is our biggest flaw : not being a selfless team and not sacrificing for each other.
Look at the 2nd post in this thread.
Look at the 2nd post in this thread.
?
What are you on about? I said I believe the votes are rigged/made up. Not done after each round.
Um, yes Donald.
Do we give votes for participation?
Betts finished 9th and was delisted. Pretty obvious what happened there.
It is. We really had a poor year.
Walsh, Weitering and McKay had good seasons. Jones too. Ed Curnow. Who else on the list would get a pass mark?
Betts finished 9th and while he didn't have a great season was it better than Newnes, Dow, Fogarty, Stocker, Murphy, SPS, Williams, Docherty, Cottrell and Newman? All played more than 14 games.
Being our 9th best player in 2021 is not a great result.
I thought Betts was ordinary for most of 2021, lacking opportunities down forward maybe but he played one year too many IMO.
Finishing 9th in our B&F was flattering for him and probably points to a lack of depth and consistency with many of our players.
Jones would have been in my top 5.......saved us many times and hardly played a bad game considering the duress he was under.
Jones would have been in my top 5.......saved us many times and hardly played a bad game considering the duress he was under.
I think Jones brought himself undone in ball use and the occasional chaos he sometimes causes, he saved us plenty of times, but he cost quite a few times as well.
But I accept that in this regard Jones and Plowman are similar, and too much is left up to too few! You know they are not perfect, they'll do 8 out of 10 things right every game, and do it without fear or hesitation, but you can't let them be swamped with events because it will cost you eventually. Weitering and any defender is no different, Stocker is about an 8 out of 10 man, so was SPS, Weitering ands Saad were probably at 9 out of 10, but the difference is critical.
The key to Jones and Weitering, is in that 8 or 9 are some things they do that others just can't ever do!
It's a bit like Robbo before MM cut him, all the good was undone by one bad, the coaches never forget those coach killing moments! If Robbo hadn't punched that ball through the goals, all his off-field stuff would have been forgotten like Didak or Shaw, and he could probably have continued at Carlton.
Look at the 2nd post in this thread.
That should end the debate, not start it.
But it's all made up anyway because.....why again?
I thought Betts was ordinary for most of 2021, lacking opportunities down forward maybe but he played one year too many IMO.
Finishing 9th in our B&F was flattering for him and probably points to a lack of depth and consistency with many of our players.
Jones would have been in my top 5.......saved us many times and hardly played a bad game considering the duress he was under.
Betts had a really good patch through the middle of the season where he kicked a number of goals, which is reflected through the period where he got a good run of votes. Was easily our 2nd best goalkicker.
That should end the debate, not start it.
Ask the mods to lock the threads then after your statements if you don't want replies.
Betts had a really good patch through the middle of the season where he kicked a number of goals, which is reflected through the period where he got a good run of votes. Was easily our 2nd best goalkicker.
I reckon Eddie should have been awarded votes in rounds 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-12,14,16 and 18.
There were a number of aspects to the JNM I thought were interesting. Four players that were drafted since 2015 were in the top ten and three made up the top three. Four players in the the top ten were defenders and only three were mid-fielders. For all the criticism of the back line, clearly the coaching panel thought they were amongst our best players and since the game is now very much a mid-field game, the result shows a lack of depth in the mid-field. Hence the recruiting of Cerra and Hewitt.
There were a number of aspects to the JNM I thought were interesting. Four players that were drafted since 2015 were in the top ten and three made up the top three. Four players in the the top ten were defenders and only three were mid-fielders. For all the criticism of the back line, clearly the coaching panel thought they were amongst our best players and since the game is now very much a mid-field game, the result shows a lack of depth in the mid-field. Hence the recruiting of Cerra and Hewitt.
B&F voting is often obscure - because the votes are cast by 4 of the coaches (in the current CFC system), the vote-givers are very aware of the task(s) that have been given to a player on a given day. So, a defender who stops a specific opponent may get no kudos via the Brownlow or the media, but get big votes internally (and this where guys like Plowman get votes that we in the grandstand don't necessarily understand).
Just to make it even more obscure, the coaches don't have to submit votes - so, on the days where we play poorly, very few votes are allocated, and vice versa when we win well.
Despite the ambiguities in the system, not too many would disagree with the final order.
Its all a clear indication of how poor we've been and how few of our highly paid (& arguably talented) players fired a short in 2021. If Plowman & E Curnow are in our top 10 next year I'd say we're in deep trouble.
I'm hoping that we see a good representation of Williams, McGovern, Martin, TDK, Dow, Cerra, Hewett, C Curnow, Cunningham, Honey, Kemp etc in the top 10 next season. Hoping and praying.
Its all a clear indication of how poor we've been and how few of our highly paid (& arguably talented) players fired a short in 2021. If Plowman & E Curnow are in our top 10 next year I'd say we're in deep trouble.
I'm hoping that we see a good representation of Williams, McGovern, Martin, TDK, Dow, Cerra, Hewett, C Curnow, Cunningham, Honey, Kemp etc in the top 10 next season. Hoping and praying.
I agree, but by the same token, its relatively simple why those guys ARE in the top 10. They play selfless footy. Include Betts in there too.....and Jack.
If you play your role, do the team thing, the coaches like you and as a result award you votes. Its not rocket science.
People keep talking up a big conspiracy theory over the whole thing...forget that....look at who does their role.
Of the top 10, i'd argue that only Cripps (and to a lesser extent Saad) could use a bit of work on improving the 'team' part of their game. All of the other blokes do the little things and play to instruction. Ask yourself how many players 'block' for their teammates. Come up with a list.....i reckon you'd just about come up with our top 10 this year.
Its all a clear indication of how poor we've been and how few of our highly paid (& arguably talented) players fired a short in 2021. If Plowman & E Curnow are in our top 10 next year I'd say we're in deep trouble.
I'm hoping that we see a good representation of Williams, McGovern, Martin, TDK, Dow, Cerra, Hewett, C Curnow, Cunningham, Honey, Kemp etc in the top 10 next season. Hoping and praying.
That's the point. We had so many injuries this year there was zero chance of success. Jack Martin was too 10 in the 2020 B&F but never fired a shot this year. He's one I hope has a brilliant preseason.
I’m hoping all 44 have brilliant seasons.
I agree, but by the same token, its relatively simple why those guys ARE in the top 10. They play selfless footy. Include Betts in there too.....and Jack.
If you play your role, do the team thing, the coaches like you and as a result award you votes. Its not rocket science.
People keep talking up a big conspiracy theory over the whole thing...forget that....look at who does their role.
Of the top 10, i'd argue that only Cripps (and to a lesser extent Saad) could use a bit of work on improving the 'team' part of their game. All of the other blokes do the little things and play to instruction. Ask yourself how many players 'block' for their teammates. Come up with a list.....i reckon you'd just about come up with our top 10 this year.
Regardless of punters criticising our B&F results and bemoaning the recognition of blokes like Ed Curnow and Plowman, the fact is that coaches like players who are selfless and do the team thing.
Ed Curnow and Lachie Plowman will continue to attract coaches' votes for as long as they pull on the boots.
I agree, but by the same token, its relatively simple why those guys ARE in the top 10. They play selfless footy. Include Betts in there too.....and Jack.
If you play your role, do the team thing, the coaches like you and as a result award you votes. Its not rocket science.
People keep talking up a big conspiracy theory over the whole thing...forget that....look at who does their role.
Of the top 10, i'd argue that only Cripps (and to a lesser extent Saad) could use a bit of work on improving the 'team' part of their game. All of the other blokes do the little things and play to instruction. Ask yourself how many players 'block' for their teammates. Come up with a list.....i reckon you'd just about come up with our top 10 this year.
Well said, K. And if I could add my 38c worth...
For starters, I have absolutely no issue with our JNM. None. I think, in the circumstances, the club did a ripper job and I really appreciate the effort they went to, to bring the evening to our screens - inclusion. We became a part of the event. Connection. Bravo.
I cut blokes like Saad, Williams, McGovern and Martin in particular, a fair bit of slack. Why? Injuries and a somewhat confusing game plan which changed during this season. They were trying to fit into a football department that was, let's say, less than ideally run with a number of people in coaching roles not suited to, or not experienced enough, to be totally competent in those roles. Rather than now dwelling on the past I keenly await to see how these blokes (and others) respond to a clearly defined game plan/set of expectations/standards well led, articulated, supported and driven.
Yes, as has been pointed out, it will be a good day when our top 10 includes names like those above. Personally, I remain optimistic and am looking forward to my membership and fronting up in person to games next year.