Is there a Brownlow Medalist on Swan's current list?

[Ajn]

Goodes is by far the best chance, eye catching, skillful and best of all a match-winner

[Jimmy C]

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]

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]

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]

[i]

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

.

[Skells]

Good point about Wanganeen and the same could be said for Wowoden (not sure on spelling).

[Dpw]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).