If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I just can't wait til the lohengrin Top 50 come out...
Some people say Football is a matter of life and death - I say it's a lot more important than that!
_____________________________
PREMIERS 2005
MEMBER SINCE 1991
I just can't wait til the lohengrin Top 50 come out...
I think you're taking this a little bit too personally. I just don't see Goodes' performance this year as warranting his inclusion in the top 50, the same as Mike Sheahan and probably a lot of other people too.
na not personal at all... Its funny how peoples opinions differ...
But I do honestly think Goodsey although not his best year is worthy of top 50.
Imagine if he polled better in just 1 game... He may well have been a Brownlow medalist and not included in the top 50?
Anyways... Its a better list than what it would have been if Wallsey or Blighty wrote it!
I'm just Glad McVeigh got the recognition he deserves!
Some people say Football is a matter of life and death - I say it's a lot more important than that!
_____________________________
PREMIERS 2005
MEMBER SINCE 1991
As a follow up, do you think S Black was the second best player this year and Richo the fourth best?
Valid point...
P.S.
Your still wrong!
Some people say Football is a matter of life and death - I say it's a lot more important than that!
_____________________________
PREMIERS 2005
MEMBER SINCE 1991
As a follow up, do you think S Black was the second best player this year and Richo the fourth best?
No, but "time" will say that Adam Cooney was the best player for 2008 - no one remembers the runners up.
Goodesy will be remembered as the best player in 2006, and will be remembered as being one of the tied three best players in 2003 (along with Ruccituo and Buckley).
Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun. Blessedare the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.
Goodes didn't play nearly well enough this year to make the top 50. He was great in 6-8 games (hence his high Brownlow finish) but ordinary or poor in most of the others. His groin was gone in the last couple of months and it showed.
No, but "time" will say that Adam Cooney was the best player for 2008 - no one remembers the runners up.
Goodesy will be remembered as the best player in 2006, and will be remembered as being one of the tied three best players in 2003 (along with Ruccituo and Buckley).
And what is the relevance of this to Goodes in 2008?
And what is the relevance of this to Goodes in 2008?
Its of no relevance to Goodes in 2008.
We're talking about Mike Sheahan's Top 50 (which, we all agree, needs a little tweaking).
Somewhere along the line, I said the brownlow determined who was the "best" (implying that Mike Sheahan had nothing to do with it).
Then you said the brownlow was of little relevance [compared to Sheahan's list] (or words to that effect) - that was my interpretation of what I thought you meant.
Than I said that the person who wins the brownlow is remembered as the best player for that year, i.e. Cooney for 2008 (or words to that effect). I used Goodesy's as an example of the No. 1 player in 2006 and one of a three-way tie in 2003.
Just because Mike Sheahan doesn't rate Goodesy in his Top 50 doesn't mean that Goodesy doesn't rate in "a" Top 50.
In the ratings that count (i.e. charlie votes), Goodesy came 5th.
I think I'd prefer the umpires take on a game than Mike Sheahans. They are, after all, a lot closer to the action.
Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun. Blessedare the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.
If it determines the 'best' then Goodes in fifth place is irrelevant, which was your original point.
It's amazing that you are going with the umpires on anything given what you say about them normally!
But they did get it horribly wrong with Goodes, it was bordering on embarassing...and tarnishes his image as it gives extra ammunition for those that boo him and call him "protected"
"In some ways we?re less predictable to ourselves and sometimes that can be detrimental because we don?t really know where we?re going" - P.Roos
If it determines the 'best' then Goodes in fifth place is irrelevant, which was your original point.
It's amazing that you are going with the umpires on anything given what you say about them normally!
Ah come on, you should know better.
I only love the maggots when they're handing out charlie votes to Goodesy. Other than that, there's no place for them in today's game!
Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun. Blessedare the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.
yeh but you'd think 5th would mean you sneak into the top 50!
Its a ridiculous statement to make that Goodes didn't play better than anyone on that list...
You might as well throw him around in trade week!!! straight swap for Lovett ya reckon swansrule100???
the brownlow votes goodes got were a joke, he would probably admit that. I did not say he was not a top player. Goodes is one of the top 20 players in the league.
But as i said he would struggle to knock out any of those 50 for 2008 form. He didnt even crack the top 10 in our best and fairest did he?? didnt go close to winning it, so for goodes to make it, surely mattner and bevan and co should be in ahead?
Or can we only use the brownlow medal to make the list?
Comment