Another very frustrating night that did nothing positive for my mental health.
Remember:
[1] At least 3 players need to get a mention.
[2] No more than 10 votes for any one player.
[3] Give a rating of team performance. It can be anywhere from A+ to F.
[4] Votes must add up to 15.
Team: E-
Not happy. Apart from a period in the 2nd quarter we were pretty ordinary and well beaten by a team that wanted it more and that can hit targets.
I eventually turned the TV off: the anger and frustration was simply not good for my health and mental well-being.
Votes:
[3.5] Ed Curnow
[3.5] Dale Thomas
[3] Kade Simpson
[2] Patrick Cripps
[1.5] Lochie O’Brien
[1] Sam Kerridge
[0.5] Paddy Dow
Explanations:
[3.5] Ed Curnow: A tremendous effort.
[3.5] Dale Thomas: Daisy continues to produce in what is easily his best season for us.
[3] Kade Simpson: We game Simmo a terrible birthday present, but he really put in.
[2] Patrick Cripps: Tried his guts out.
[1.5] Lochie O’Brien: Very good early, but faded
[1] Sam Kerridge: A good, solid effort
[0.5] Paddy Dow: Good in patches.
Honourable Mentions:
Matthew Kreuzer: Not 100% but worked hard and was reasonably effective.
Andrew Phillips: Tried hard.
Aaron Mullett: Not as ordinary as a lot of our players.
Team E
4 Thomas
4 Ed Curnow
3 Cripps
1 Wright
1 Kreuzer
1 Dow
1 Garlett
Team F
Curnow Ed 5
Thomas 4
Wright 2
Cripps 2
Dow 1
Obrien 1
Team E
6 E Curnow
5 Cripps
3 Fisher
1 Dow
Team D
4 Ed Curnow
3 Cripps
3 Thomas
1 Wright
1 Kreuzer
1 Dow
1 Garlett
1 O'Brein
HM
H and Zac Attack
Team E
7: Thomas
2: Kruezer
2: Fisher
1: Wright
1: Dow
1: Obrien
1: E. Curnow
Team E
4 - Curnow E
4 - Thomas
2 - Cripps
1 - Dow
1 - Fisher
1 - Garlett
1 - Kreuzer
1 - O'Brien
HM: Kerridge, Wright.
HM: Fisher, Garlett, O'Brien & Wright
4 Fisher
4 Thomas
3 Ed Curnow
2 Kreuzer
1 Petrevski-Seton
1 Cripps
F
5. Thomas
5. Fisher
3. Curnow
2. Kerridge
Team D
3 Thomas
3 Ed Curnow
2 Jones
2 Cripps
1 Kreuzer
1 Dow
1 Garlett
1 O'Brein
1 Graham
Team. E
5. Thomas
4. Ed. Curnow
2. Cripps
2. Kerridge
1. Wright
1. Simpson
Team F
Thomas 5
E. Curnow 5
Fisher 5
Perhaps - out of interest - we could have a weekly post game vote for worst players too - get a feel for who's not putting in, who's likely to get culled etc? (serious comment)
Team - F
5: Thomas
4: E. Curnow
3: Cripps
2: Simpson
1: Kerridge
If I recall correctly this was tried years ago on the old site and got canned due to negative comments and lack of participation.
Too many forum members take it personal when their favourite player gets potted!
I don't like the potential for backlash if word were to get out at the club. We would have had Thomas and Jones delisted last year had they paid any attention to negative comments and thoughts in forums like this one.
Instead both have become renaissance men.
Team D
5 Ed Curnow
4 Thomas
3 Cripps
2 Kreuzer
1 Simpson
I tried that a few years ago.
People had a sook because you are not allowed to shine a light on anything that is not positive.
Honestly surprised you were the one to raise this considered how aggressive you've been towards me when i 'predicted' how poor of a team we had. Can't say anything negative.
'
No from me. We already have enough analysis / commentary / opinion in every other thread.
Any more voting? Only 14 people to this point.
No from me, just too negative. There are separate topics where we can express disappointment.
I'll close this thread off tomorrow. Please vote if you are going to.
We should have another thread, with a voting option attached, for the discussion about recognizing the 'worst players'.
My own feelings is that is a bit negative, but I will go with the majority.
If by majority you mean those who have already spoken out, that would be a no.
This place is already full of negativity as it is. We have a post game thread for each and every game - the perfect place to state who was good and who wasn’t.
The idea has already been tried and failed - the same forum regulars who saw to its failure the first time are still here - why is it a good idea now and what’s changed ?
Notwithstanding the above, a formalised rating for poor performance reminds me of bitchy industries like the film industry, or egregiously trashy publications like Who magazine, with all their best and worst dressed nonsense.
Sorry, but I think it’s tacky and completely lacking in class.
Agreed.
There is enough venting without a need to formalise it!
Further to the negative argument. I expect that forums members would probably end up unloading on the kids more often than not, for simple mistakes they make as part of learning the game. It's an unnecessary criticism beginners do not need to formalised!
From memory the old thread was a "give them the axe" or something similar.
Not only was there a resistance from our own members, the thread was often referenced by folks on other sites as reflecting poorly on this one.
I'd prefer we didn't resurrect it.
Team E
4: Ed Curnow
3: Thomas
2: Kreuzer
2: Cripps
1: Kerridge
1: Dow
1: Simpson
1: Wright
Don't remember that one, but it sounds like a shiek one.
Here is an example of one that i had going and was talking about earlier...
http://www.carltonsc.com/index.php?topic=1297.msg64102#msg64102
Got quite a few voters each and every week.
The Give em the axe award made the news back in 2002 or 2003? and it's what made me look for the forum.
With the voting finished, I'm going to lock this thread now.
The discussion, on the other hand, does not appear to be finished at all. Please create a thread to continue that on if you wish to continue. At the moment it appears that the majority of those replying are against the idea. But that is up to you guys.