true_blue24 wrote:
Dr.SHERRIN wrote:
I think the award is becoming farcical. I mean take last week - Troy Chaplin has been on an AFL list for 3 years. If the kid can't make it for 3 years - that's bad luck - ok getting the nomination - but should be ineligable...I'd say the same thing if it was a Carlton boy, don't worry.
spot on, the award should be restricted to first-year players only, its bullshit that heath shaw can still be eligible when he is 3 years older than murphy, is it murph's fault it took shaw so long to develop?
That's a bit silly.
It's the
Rising Star award, not the "Best First Year Player" award.
As for Murph and Shawry...one was #1 pick in the draft, the other was a Father/Son selection who was generally rated as a 4th round pick by most other clubs. Usually a big difference between the development/game-time of pick 1 and pick 50-75 odd.
You could easily argue that based on their respective wraps, Shaw should be favoured due to the fact that Murphy was expected to be astar anyway.
i wasnt arguing about the name of the award, i was just saying that the rules surrounding who it is given should be changed to be awarded only to first year players.
you're very biased in what you're saying. is it murphy's fault that he went at one and shawry was expected to go in the fourth round is it his fault that he was better than shaw at the time he got drafted? the award is for best player, better players go earlier in the draft the award is not given according to how much players exceed expectation about themselves. it is unfair that heath shaw's body can be 3 years more developed to cope with afl footy, when murphy is 3 years older he will be way better than shaw and a comparison between the two wont even exist. IMO the award should be awarded to the best first year player not a player who wasnt good enough to get a game for 2 years and then became good at 20 years of age.
Login
Register
FAQ
