Premature Celebration for Our New Rising Star (Hanners re-signs for 3 years)

[aardvark]

Just for interest sake I checked Dream Team Averages.
Rockliff 85
Hanners 79
Scully 77
Trengrove 77
Martin 71
Bastinac 65
Nic Nat 60
Morabito 56

[Primmy]

oh - still.....

[Triple B]

Just for interest sake I checked Dream Team Averages.
Rockliff 85
Hanners 79
Scully 77
Trengrove 77
Martin 71
Bastinac 65
Nic Nat 60
Morabito 56

To emphasis my point that Hanners has had more games that jump out and say to the RS selectors 'Hey, look at me', here are each of the lists top 4 DT scores for the first 20 rounds...

[ugg]

SC scores would be slightly more relevant than DT scores.

[Triple B]

Ok then..

Both Hanners and Rockliff have 6 100+ scores.

[Primmy]

Love your work B.

[Triple B]

Love your work B.

Thx Primmy. Ugg deserves the kudos, it was his program I used to get all the DT and SC info...lol

[ugg]

Ok then..

Both Hanners and Rockliff have 6 100+ scores.

So it is pretty close stats-wise. However, given all the media adulation has been splashed on Hanners, it will no doubt unduly influence the judges' votes. Good thing Rockliff doesn't play for a Melbourne-based.club.

[supersall]

Have been hooking into a lot of melbourne media, they don't all seem that keen on young Dan. Not exactly sure why.

[Nico]

He should get the nod over Scully.

Hanners has now had 2 games where he was a bona fide contender for BOG. Of course one was on Saturday, the other was a no-brainer BOG against Norf down in Melb.

There are some strong contenders for sure, but I don't believe any of them have actually been BOG in a game this year.

You forgot the Hawthorn game at the "G".

[mcs]

Have been hooking into a lot of melbourne media, they don't all seem that keen on young Dan. Not exactly sure why.

That's because he doesnt play for a Melbourne team. If he played for any club based in Melbourne, they would have spent the whole season creaming themselves over him. Doesn't worry me if they don't rate him- for I certainly do, and he will be a key part of our continued rebuilding over the next couple of years.

[liz]

Nothing against your numbers Triple, but I cringed a little when I read the way the discussion has moved. I hate the reliance on raw statistics to assess performances. It is a recent malaise driven by the various fantasy footy games, and while they can be fun at times, a player's real contribution to his team is far more than stats.

I have not watched enough of Melbourne or Brisbane this season to really assess the contributions of Trengove, Scullly or Rockliffe, who seem to be the main contenders other than Hannebery. Therefore I can't really comment on whether he should win the award over them. But I do believe he would be an extremely worthy winner when compared to the attributes other winners have shown (as have many other highly placed players).

But it is less about his average possession count (either on its own, or relative to others) and more about his ability to influence games. I realise that is the argument Triple started with, before adding in the stats. His game at the weekend was super, but not because he got 38 possessions. It was more about where he gathered / received the ball, the quality of his handballing to set team mates up, and the fact he was able to keep contributing in a very meaningful way when the game got tight at the end and players were exhausted. I was nearly as impressed by his game against Melbourne when, despite being less effective with his disposals, he was one of the few players who realised the team was playing like crap and decided to get down and dirty, win the hardball, and try and do something about the way things were panning out. It would be very easy for a younger player, in those circumstances, to lose confidence, or think that if his more seasoned midfield colleagues couldn't / wouldn't do anything about the flow of the game, then he couldn't.

One of my favourite games of his was the Carlton game. He "only" finished with 20 odd possessions and more than half of those were in the first quarter. But that was the point. It was that quarter that the Swans blew the game apart and practically took it away from the opposition. He was absolutely crucial to our midfield dominance during that half hour, so the fact he faded out of the game as it went on, makes little difference to my assessment of his importance.

His games against North at Ethihad and Hawthorn at the G was little short of breath-taking for the impact he had.

Rockliffe certainly has racked up impressively consistent possession counts. For anyone who has watched a bit of Brisbane this year, can you enlighten me about where / how Rockliffe tends to get his disposals and how he uses the ball? I have to confess I tend to discount first year Brisbane midfielders who get huge possession counts because the Lions seem to turn out one every season who rarely goes on to be much. It is almost as if they give one youngster with impressive endurance the green light to go possession hunting without necessarily playing a key role in the team and rarely using the ball with any purpose, nous or skill. That could be grossly unfair on Rockliffe (as I've not watched him much) but I am thinking of the likes of Scott Harding from 4 or 5 years ago (who after his first year never really estalbished himself as more than a fringe player and is no longer there), then Cheynee Stiller the next season (who is still at the Lions but as a fringe player) and most recently Brad Dalziell, who is now struggling to get a game in arguably the worst midfield in the competition. Lions fans have routinely lauded these players as superstars in the making for a year or so, before turning on them as ineffective cloggers.

Has Rockliffe already shown himself to have far more substance than those who have gone before him? I know enough about him to know he was acclaimed as having a great footy brain at U18 level (but slow and with limited endurance) and I do recall him ripping it up one year in the TAC Cup final.

[aardvark]

Nothing against your numbers Triple, but I cringed a little when I read the way the discussion has moved. I hate the reliance on raw statistics to assess performances. It is a recent malaise driven by the various fantasy footy games, and while they can be fun at times, a player's real contribution to his team is far more than stats.

In this case its what influences the people on the selection panel that counts and who knows, maybe they do look at things like fantasy games.

As you say Liz not many rising stars have gone on to great things so maybe its better if he misses out.

[liz]

As you say Liz not many rising stars have gone on to great things so maybe its better if he misses out.

I don't believe I said that. I certainly don't believe it. Most players who have placed in the top handful of the award have been very good players at worst. Many have become superstars. Of the actual winners, only Pearce and Rivers have had patchy careers, and at least in Rivers' case, injuries have played a big part in that. It is too early to call on Rich and Palmer.

More pertinently

- whether he wins or not will have zero influence on whether he goes on to have a great career, a good career, or fades into oblivion; and

- whether he wins or not should have zero impact on how we, he, the club or anyone else in the football world judges the season he has had. It would provide external validation and no doubt to actually take home the award would be thrilling for Dan. But it doesn't actually affect the football he has played. That is what it is.

[Primmy]

Goodsey did ok.