PDA

View Full Version : Is there a Brownlow Medalist on Swan's current list?



TheHood
18th February 2003, 05:52 PM
Does anyone think there is a potential medalist on our list?

Can Baz be the first FF since Pluggar to pick up the big one?

Does Paul Williams have even more to give in his remaining years to scoop up the little gold medal with one hand on the run?

Can Adam Goodes realise all of his potential for an entire season to add another accolade to his Rising Star medal?

Has Jarrod Crouch been foxing and can he make 2005 his Brownlow year?

Am I just a dillusioned one eyed Swans man with absolutely no grip on reality and do we not have any champions in our squad?

Charlie
18th February 2003, 05:56 PM
I think that Willo had his best chance last year, and I'd be very surprised if he pinched one now. But who knows.

Hall will certainly be a chance if he strings his best out over a full season. If Hall kicks 6 and the Swans win by 4-5 goals, Bazza has at least 2 votes sewn up.

Tadhg and Goodes are flashy enough. Maybe one day.

I don't think Crouch is noticable enough. You have to a flashy player to win a Brownlow.

Charlie

LondonSwan
18th February 2003, 07:00 PM
Goodes maybe but hard to see it. Williams is possibly past the age limit on these things but would love to see him get it.

CureTheSane
18th February 2003, 08:28 PM
My picks for this year as potentials would be

Goodes
O'Loughlin
Hall
Maxfield
Fosdike

Reggi
18th February 2003, 08:43 PM
The only one with a chance given all the necessary qualities is Bolton, J

Cheer Cheer
18th February 2003, 08:44 PM
IMO Goodes is the standout at this stage, especially with the way he has played this year so far.

LondonSwan
18th February 2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by CureTheSane
My picks for this year as potentials would be

Goodes
O'Loughlin
Hall
Maxfield
Fosdike

With due respect to your greater knowledge - the only 2 with realistic chances of polling well would be Hall (if he gets the score on the board) with Goodes the likely Swans top poller.

Cheer Cheer
18th February 2003, 09:13 PM
I forgot to mention that i believe hall is a close second to goodes and that kenelly is one for the future at this stage

chammond
18th February 2003, 09:36 PM
With due respect to your greater knowledge - the only 2 with realistic chances of polling well would be Hall (if he gets the score on the board) with Goodes the likely Swans top poller.

Why?

To be a genuine Brownlow contender, a player needs to be BOG in five or six matches. Why are Goodes and Hall the only ones with realistic chances of doing that?

O'Loughlin, Cresswell and Williams have played at those exalted levels before, and could surely do so again? And if he could ever get fit, I've no doubt that Ball could also.

Anyhow, I'm interested to know what makes Hall and Goodes such obvious standouts?

LondonSwan
18th February 2003, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by chammond
Why?

To be a genuine Brownlow contender, a player needs to be BOG in five or six matches. Why are Goodes and Hall the only ones with realistic chances of doing that?

O'Loughlin, Cresswell and Williams have played at those exalted levels before, and could surely do so again? And if he could ever get fit, I've no doubt that Ball could also.

Anyhow, I'm interested to know what makes Hall and Goodes such obvious standouts?

Goodes and Hall attract attention from the umpires. Both will score votes. Hall because of his Hewitt type attitude and Goodes because he is a flashy player who attracts attention.

O''Loughlin - may score well but will need to play up to his best.

You would have to be a supreme optimist to see him win it.

Cresswell's age is against him and I cant seeing him playing as well as he did last year (Age!) and i dont remember him polling that well last year on an all in basis not just Sydney.

I think williams had his chance last year but didnt score well enough and this when his form was exceptional.

Apart from a couple of standouts the Sydney side is fairly well even and unfortunately they are going to take votes from each other .

Now I am putting you back on my ignore list .

chammond
18th February 2003, 10:04 PM
Now I am putting you back on my ignore list .

I'm sorry . . . I must have missed something here. I'm sure you're being wonderfully cute and interesting, but I'm afraid it's wasted on me because I don't pay that much attention.

I'll just assume that you have an ignore list because you like to be ignorant.

LondonSwan
18th February 2003, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by chammond
I'm sorry . . . I must have missed something here. I'm sure you're being wonderfully cute and interesting, but I'm afraid it's wasted on me because I don't pay that much attention.

I'll just assume that you have an ignore list because you like to be ignorant.

Neither cute nor that interesting, I put you on the ignore list because your posts are generally over the top and have, shall we say, a touch of malice. You asked a question and I answered and then you were advised that you were on the ignore list which is my right and Des has recommended it to use if you dont want to read someones opinions.

Notwithstanding, as usual you got stuck into me and that is why I prefer not to read your comments - so go for your life, sledge away.

liz
18th February 2003, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Reggi
The only one with a chance given all the necessary qualities is Bolton, J

Dunno about that Reggi - we just need to supply certain squad members with a bottle of peroxide!

More seriously, responding to the question...

Goodes I think could and possibly Fosdike if he can play consistently at just a step up from how he played at the end of last season. I'm sure he can play just slightly better - whether he can do it over a whole season remains to be seen.

While I'm sure umpires think they're being unbiased when they award votes, I'm convinced that they notice those players they expect to poll well more than others. So while it is possible to win a Brownlow "out of the blue" (which PK kind of did), more often players seem to build to it over a period of time.

In the longer term, I reckon Kennelly and Doyle might have the skills and flashiness to win. But they've still both got a long way to go.

NMWBloods
19th February 2003, 07:59 AM
Goodes and Hall attract attention from the umpires. Both will score votes. Hall because of his Hewitt type attitude and Goodes because he is a flashy player who attracts attention.

I agree on Goodes. I thinkn Hall will struggle as I can't see him keeping his anger in check long enough. The only angry player I can remember winning a Brownlow is Williams, and he was so good they couldn't not give it to him.



O''Loughlin - may score well but will need to play up to his best.

You would have to be a supreme optimist to see him win it.


Yes, I can't see him developing the consistency, but would love to.



Cresswell's age is against him and I cant seeing him playing as well as he did last year (Age!) and i dont remember him polling that well last year on an all in basis not just Sydney.

I don't Cresswell has ever polled particularly well, even at his best. He just doesn't stand out for this type of award.



I think williams had his chance last year but didnt score well enough and this when his form was exceptional.


Williams missed a number of games last year, which didn't help. However, he had less players taking votes from him. Still, if we perform better this year, that may help him also. I think he's still a shot.



Apart from a couple of standouts the Sydney side is fairly well even and unfortunately they are going to take votes from each other .

Now I am putting you back on my ignore list .

And you wonder why you fight with so many people on this message board!! :rolleyes:

Grant
19th February 2003, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Charlie
[
You have to a flashy player to win a Brownlow.

Charlie [/B]

Bit like Liberatore,lol

CureTheSane
19th February 2003, 08:16 AM
NMW is right about Cressa not polling well, that's why I left him out.
Just seems unlikely.
Willo would have to win a third B&F to win the brownlow and I think if he can't get there from the last 2 seasons, he is unlikely also.

Goodes
O'Loughlin

I rate these guys as the ones on our list who are far and above the rest as far as natural talent and smarts goes.
People seem to for get what O'Loughlin is capable of. He had a stinker last year, so suddenly he is written off.
With a good pre season, a different attitude, and most importantly, a new coach, he may star again. Of course he will have to play the best he ever has to win, but so would anyone else who has a chance.

Hall

If he can control himself he is a chance.
Obviously the biggest worry here is suspension....

Maxfield

I think he will take a big step up as captain.
Just got a good feeling about him being a real start this year.

Fosdike

Will have to continue building on his great form of late, bit of an outsider I suppose.....

redunderthebed
19th February 2003, 09:07 AM
jude bolton? jude bolton?now that seriously is the biggest laugh i have had since grandma slipped over into the wet concrete as wasn't found for a month.
keep 'em coming boys ....

CureTheSane
19th February 2003, 09:30 AM
Must admit, that is pretty damn funny.

Jude has never shown me that he has anything close to what it takes to win a Brownlow.
Maybe he'l gradually get better and who knows? Maybe one day, but at this stage I put him well down the list of our best players.

NMWBloods
19th February 2003, 09:43 AM
I had assumed that the Jude Bolton comment was tongue in cheek, reflecting his white blonde hair. Maybe the umpires will be starry-eyed and ignore his performances like some of the girls do... nah, not likely!! ;)

skilts stilts
19th February 2003, 11:08 AM
Jude Bolton is not a ridiculous choice at least for most votes.He is fearless,hard at the ball and never drops his head.None of those qualities could be associated with Goodes,who should of been traded last year while he was still worth something. I admire your loyalty to a bloke that is unaccountable on the field and delivers the goods about once every 2 months.

CureTheSane
19th February 2003, 11:22 AM
Welcome to the Twighlight Zone

A world where Jude Bolton is going to win the Brownlow, and Adam Goodes should have been traded.

Now that that crappy Kelly and useless Dunkley and Schwass have finally moved on, we will dominate.
(sarcasm mode turned off)

TheHood
19th February 2003, 11:27 AM
Willo may have missed his best chance - I agree.

I think Maxey may be just too old.

One thing we have learned from the past several winners is that they have all won when they were between age 24 to age 28.

Out of all the guys going back to 1993, Wanganeen and Voss were probably the really young pups.

Baz can do it in the next 2 years I'd say or never.

I would say when Goodesy, Kennelly, Doyley, Fossey or Fixter have their best chances over the coming 5 years.

One for the trivia night: Who was Richmond's last Brownlow Medalist and what year?

NMWBloods
19th February 2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by TheHood
One for the trivia night: Who was Richmond's last Brownlow Medalist and what year?

Ian Stewart '71

skilts stilts
19th February 2003, 12:48 PM
I think I left out the words "from Sydney" after "most votes" in my last post.Don't get me wrong, I don't believe for a moment that Bolton has a hope of ever winning a Brownlow but you are the eternal optimist if you are expecting a consistent quality contribution from a dud like Goodes.

TheMase
19th February 2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by skilts stilts
I think I left out the words "from Sydney" after "most votes" in my last post.Don't get me wrong, I don't believe for a moment that Bolton has a hope of ever winning a Brownlow but you are the eternal optimist if you are expecting a consistent quality contribution from a dud like Goodes.

Goodes a dud?
Surely not :confused:

TheHood
19th February 2003, 02:11 PM
Goodes a dud? Have you gone mad?

skilts stilts
19th February 2003, 03:43 PM
no just an honest appraisal of what he has delivered.He has been around long enough to turn it on more than once every 6 weeks.He is as much of a tease as O'loughlin.They should have been parcelled together and off loaded.Having said that they are both extremely gifted and class footballers but utterly unreliable as week in week out major contributors.

CureTheSane
19th February 2003, 04:25 PM
You, do have a point there.
Both have been incosistant of late.
I get the feeling taht Goodes has already taken the first step to hopefully a more consistant role.

Both of them really need to have set positions more IMO.
They both spent time covering deficiencies in otehr areas of the ground.
I think (hope) the Swans are starting to realise that Goodes and O'Loughlin aren't the 'out of the box' stars that they had thought.

desredandwhite
19th February 2003, 04:27 PM
goodes was pretty consistent and useful in the last few weeks of the season - i HOPE that means he is beginning to realise that flashy talent is nothing without results.

I think there's hope for both of them. frustratingly, they're not so bad you would DEFINITELY offload them :)

Cheer Cheer
19th February 2003, 09:41 PM
The day goodes an oloughlin realise their full potential and play consistenly heaven help the other 15 clubs :D

Ajn
19th February 2003, 10:19 PM
Goodes is by far the best chance, eye catching, skillful and best of all a match-winner

Jimmy C
19th February 2003, 11:55 PM
Whilst it's still way too early to call, my personal favourites come down to Hall or Goodes. Baz needs to get past wanting to knuckle/rake the opposition, and Adam needs to take consistency tablets.

CARNA BLOODS!

liz
20th February 2003, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by skilts stilts
no just an honest appraisal of what he has delivered.He has been around long enough to turn it on more than once every 6 weeks.He is as much of a tease as O'loughlin.They should have been parcelled together and off loaded.Having said that they are both extremely gifted and class footballers but utterly unreliable as week in week out major contributors.

Firstly Goodes came 3rd in this year's B&F. Given that he was beaten by two veterans who both had excellent (and consistent) seasons, that's hardly to be sniffed at.

Secondly, Goodes has been used as a fixit man. He is the most versatile player in the squad - by a mile - but it probably hasn't helped his consistency.

Thirdly, how many other players of his vintage are consistent matchwinners? Black certainly, maybe Pavlich, but you'd be hard pushed to name many others. We expect a lot of young players nowadays but few really hit their straps before 23 or 24 in terms of being consistent. As a comparison, look at Kouta. He "arrived" during Carlton's stellar season of 1995 but even then he was already 22 and had debuted 3 years later. For the next few seasons he struggled to deliver consistently, before finally becoming a truly dominant player a couple of years ago (and then promptly injuring himself). I hope Goodes doesn't take as long as Kouta to reach his true potential, but he still has a lot of time left to deliver.

Finally, Goodes was always going to take a bit of time to deliver. He took up the game seriously relatively late into his teens.

Skells
20th February 2003, 04:34 PM
I can see no reason why Hall could not win the brownlow sometime in the future. He does have a bad reputation but also has the ability to be a match winner and kick a bag of goals which would stand out to the umpires. Lockett didn't have a clean history and he won the brownlow whilst he was with St Kilda.

Apart from Hall Goodes would have to be the other main chance the swans have in the near future of a medal IMO.

LondonSwan
20th February 2003, 08:17 PM
[i]

And you wonder why you fight with so many people on this message board!! :rolleyes: [/B]

Okay I have taken him off the list......I thought it was the other way round - one against many never seemed that fair - they should have had more to be more effective.

Notwithstanding, I would like to see Willo take it out and if he plays up to last year and plays all year he will attract votes but apart from Goodes and Hall (temper held in check) I cant see any one else. But who knows - Wanganeen (at the start of the year he won) wouldnt have been considered likely either. Maybe there's a roughie amongst them

.:D

Skells
21st February 2003, 09:41 AM
Good point about Wanganeen and the same could be said for Wowoden (not sure on spelling).

Dpw
21st February 2003, 10:23 AM
I can't say any of our players have what it will take to win it (excluding new recruits haven't been around enough yet).

LondonSwan
21st February 2003, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Skells
Good point about Wanganeen and the same could be said for Wowoden (not sure on spelling).

Maybe this year is the year of the roughie - lets face reality who would have considered at the beginning last year that Black would beat some of his better fancied team mates.

Ajn
22nd February 2003, 11:04 AM
The brownlow is not always a clear cut decision and as long as we win 50% or more games, then we are a chance to have a medallist. It just depends on consistancy in winning games and leave the poor performances for when we lose. Still Goodes for me!

swansrock4eva
22nd February 2003, 11:30 AM
you don't even need to win 50% though - we won only 8 games in 1995 and that was the year Kells won it - it's not always the shining star from the shining team that catches the umps' eye.

LondonSwan
22nd February 2003, 03:14 PM
SR4EVER

I would agree that when Kells won it was the case but having watched the last 3 medal counts this is not the way its done nowadays.

I agree with Ajn that we need to win at least half the matches to get someone in the top 3. The umpires have changed their way of looking at things. There were 2 many instances last year where a player in a beaten side was clearly the best on ground but still failed to pick up a a vote.


In any case the voting for the medal should be changed with the umpires on ground being allowed 50% of the weighting with their votes and the remainder being cast by an off field panel (probably composed of senior AFL umpires to retain the tradition).

Andy

robbieando
22nd February 2003, 03:29 PM
Why mess with history????

Keep it as is. To change it now would only de-value the medal. Umpires see the game different to what we on TV and at the game see. To mix it up would make this medal a joke and a tad more easy to predict each year.

LondonSwan
22nd February 2003, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by robbieando
Why mess with history????

Keep it as is. To change it now would only de-value the medal. Umpires see the game different to what we on TV and at the game see. To mix it up would make this medal a joke and a tad more easy to predict each year.

It has always been a bone of contention that umpires who are concentrating on the game can overlook players who have played well and consistently all day and based their scorecard on a few flashy pieces of play - by having off and on field umpires doing it you are not messing with tradition - you are improving a flawed system. The saying if it aint broke dont fix it - does not apply with this one.

Jimmy C
22nd February 2003, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by robbieando
Why mess with history????


Excellent point. Technology probably accounts for some of the decision making. In an interview with Bobby Skiton, Wayne Carey asked (in his best dumb voice) "How can players aspire to your great levels and win three Brownlow medals?". Skilts looked a little perplexed, smiled, and replied that in today's game, with cameras and umpires everywhere, that he might be lucky to get one.

In stark contrast, the greatest Brownlow urban myth has to be the one concerning Ian Stewart needing to be sobered up before every game he played in what were considered to be his best football years (notably '71). Getting hammered before games didn't harm his Brownlow chances any (IF that's true).