SA Footy

It shows how much of a farce this award is when a player wins it and is dropped. We don't have the amounts/talent of youth the AFL do to warrant a weekly award IMHO and this is a prime eg why as its just rewarding mediocrity. Replace it with a yearly award perhaps with a 1,2 and 3 depending on weekly performances over the season.

Wedgie wrote:It shows how much of a farce this award is when a player wins it and is dropped. We don't have the amounts/talent of youth the AFL do to warrant a weekly award IMHO and this is a prime eg why as its just rewarding mediocrity. Replace it with a yearly award perhaps with a 1,2 and 3 depending on weekly performances over the season.

you saw him play last week to make an objective assessment of course ...

dedja wrote:

Wedgie wrote:It shows how much of a farce this award is when a player wins it and is dropped. We don't have the amounts/talent of youth the AFL do to warrant a weekly award IMHO and this is a prime eg why as its just rewarding mediocrity. Replace it with a yearly award perhaps with a 1,2 and 3 depending on weekly performances over the season.

you saw him play last week to make an objective assessment of course ...

That's irrelelvent (and a stupid comment), if the best junior for the week plays so great that he's dropped it shows how mediocre the award is IMHO.
I assume the Glenelg selection committee saw his game last week, I'd trust their judgement more than yours or mine.
Im not having a go at the young fella or the GFC in anyway (I thought that was obvous but better spell it out), just the absurdity of this award which tried to copy an AFL award with a different competition.
If the best junior in the state this week can't even make his own teams best 18 then what sort of mickey mouse award is he receiving?
The SANFL doesn't have the junior talent playing league footy to warrant 23 different awards each year.
If by the 11th round the best junior going around who hasn't won an award yet is dropped from his team what sort of quality are we going to get by Round 23?
Make an award that suits our competition and not the AFL. Ive had an issue with this dumb award for a long time and this event makes perfect time to raise it.
The idea behind it is fine, the execution of it is flawed. Fix it, simple

I agree entirely with Wedgie, make it a monthly or a yearly award (or get better judges), but the credibility of this award has just nosedived.

nickname wrote:I agree entirely with Wedgie, make it a monthly or a yearly award (or get better judges), but the credibility of this award has just nosedived.

Good idea, but it may be a bit uneven or unfair because of the draw and bye.

(And thank you for actually having the nouse to work out what I was saying unlike 2 others)

Ive split this conversation from the Rd 11 award discussion.
Hopefully that will make it a bit more obvious to people its a discussion about the award and in no way about the young Glenelg player that won it last week.
Your thoughts on the award that was basically just copy and pasted from the AFL?
Do we have the depth to have 23 different award winners every year?
Would another format be better?

AFL rising stars get dropped, so what's the difference?

Mr Beefy wrote:AFL rising stars get dropped, so what's the difference?

The week after they win it? I don't follow it really so if you could advise when and who please?
If its happened in the AFL the week after they've won it I'd probably suggest they should look at restructuring their award too so in reply to your question I'd say none.

It is a good award and should be kept. It is rewarding young talent and something else for our young players to achieve. So a player got dropped after winning it , thats probably the first time that has happenned anyway. Would this thread have been started if he wasn't dropped ? Of course we have talent in the comp , its just not as good as the AFL . Every comp has talented players you just need to understand the level of the competition.

harley d wrote:Would this thread have been started if he wasn't dropped ?

No, but its something Ive been thinking about for over a year and thought it was a relevent time to bring up the discussion. My point would actually be more relevent at the latter stages of the minour round but I have no doubt if I brought it up after round 21 then you'd have supporters of the Rd 21 winners team jump on me saying I was putting him down and he's a good kid and he would have won it earlier if not for a quadruple amputation of all limbs, blah, blah, blah. I thought (incorrectly) that noone could argue like that if a club's own selection committee thought a player's game didn't even warrant him being picked the following week.

I know its extreme and unlikely but say there was only 23 kids who met the award come Round 23 with 22 of them all having won it previously?
Surely the player that wins it early in the season when more kids are eligible is a more deserving winner than the kid who wins it in round 23 because 22 better kids aren't eligible? (I have this issue with the AFL award and some other comps in general)

I'd actually even prefer if its given to the best kid each round and you can win it multilpe times, it would put more value on it IMHO.
At the moment it's almost like the Under 8s footy competition where the coach gives 3 different players an award each week to spread it around.
Great idea for 7 year old kids playing school footy, a good idea for semi professional football players playing SANFL? No IMHO.
If most think having a schoolyard idea for semi professional football players is the way to go then fair enough, just not me but I do have a bigger issue with mediocrity more than most. Must be because Im so mediocre at most things I do myself!

The award itself is fine but I agree that some weeks there may not be a whole lot available. Then again, I didnt see O'Gradys game last week and didnt see the ins for Glenelg this week. Chris Hall youd think will have more impact than O'Grady, so maybe its just one of those things this week.

If its going to be kept in this format then they maybe should relax the rules a bit. Maybe put the games limit up to 15-20 games instead of 8.

They actually "win" a weekly award. Shouldn't it be a nomination for the final honour like the AFL?

I would like to see a list of all the previous nominees from the last two years and where they are now before commenting.
Does someone have this easily available?

Just on O'Grady, yes I believe last week was easily the best of his 6 League games for Glenelg (he had 18 possessions, while his previous highest was 11), but with no injuries, someone had to be dropped to bring Chris Hall back after 48 possessions in the Reserves.

It was always probably going to be out of O'Grady and Chris Kane, and one of them had to be the unlucky one.

Wedgie wrote:It shows how much of a farce this award is when a player wins it and is dropped. We don't have the amounts/talent of youth the AFL do to warrant a weekly award IMHO and this is a prime eg why as its just rewarding mediocrity. Replace it with a yearly award perhaps with a 1,2 and 3 depending on weekly performances over the season.

While the weekly format works so well in the AFL and it's nice in theory, I agree 100%.

Wedgie wrote:It shows how much of a farce this award is when a player wins it and is dropped. We don't have the amounts/talent of youth the AFL do to warrant a weekly award IMHO and this is a prime eg why as its just rewarding mediocrity. Replace it with a yearly award perhaps with a 1,2 and 3 depending on weekly performances over the season.

I tend to agree and have thought the same. I think there are just not enough numbers to be able to do it as they must wonder week to week where the next winner is going to come from. I like the idea of it so perhaps as sugested a monthly or annual award would work better.

Ecky wrote:I would like to see a list of all the previous nominees from the last two years and where they are now before commenting.
Does someone have this easily available?

2007:
R1: Summerton (Port)
R2: Darling (Sturt)
R3: Evans (Sturt)
R4: Cubillo (North)
R5: Greenwood (Port)
R6: Caire (West)
R7: Aish (Norwood)
R8: Ebert (Port)
R9: Havelberg (Central)
R10: Hunter (South)
R11: Mcdonald (Sturt)
R12: Pavlich (WWT)
R13: Hutchins (West)
R14: Salter (WWT)
R15: Herring (Sturt)
R16: Fosdike (Glenelg)
R17: Hadden (Central)
R18: Wright (North)
R19: Blesing (West)
R20: Stewart (WWT)
R21: Watson (Port)
R22: Elliott (South)
R23: Wundke (North)

2008:
R1: Holmes (Glenelg)
R2: Turner (South)
R3: Watson (Port...2nd nom)
R4: Lane (WWT)
R5: Wright (North...2nd nom)
R6: Boyd (South)
R7: Donohue (Norwood)
R8: Elliott (South...2nd nom)
R9: O'Hara (Central)
R10: Puopolo (Norwood)
R11: Petrenko (WWT)
R12: Carr (Port)
R13: Broadbent (WWT)
R14: Fielke (West)
R15: Martin (Sturt)
R16: Hartlett (West)
R17: Hall (WWT)
R18: Redigolo (South)
R19: Rowe (West)
R20: Thring (Sturt)
R21: Speight (Norwood)
R22: Martin (West)
R23: Littler (Norwood)

Thanks Macca, wow 2007 looks a lot more impressive than 2008 and in 2008 they even had to put some up for their 2nd award which probably adds to my opinion.
First half of 07 looks the strongest.

Wedgie wrote:Thanks Macca, wow 2007 looks a lot more impressive than 2008 and in 2008 they even had to put some up for their 2nd award which probably adds to my opinion.
First half of 07 looks the strongest.

But earlier years are always going to look stronger in hindsight as players have had more time to develop.
eg Ty Allen would have probably been nominated in 2003 if the award was around then (he had one 16 possession game then and received B&F votes), but it wasn't until 2008 that he would have been regarded as a "strong" nomination.

Ecky wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Thanks Macca, wow 2007 looks a lot more impressive than 2008 and in 2008 they even had to put some up for their 2nd award which probably adds to my opinion.
First half of 07 looks the strongest.

But earlier years are always going to look stronger in hindsight as players have had more time to develop.
eg Ty Allen would have probably been nominated in 2003 if the award was around then (he had one 16 possession game then and received B&F votes), but it wasn't until 2008 that he would have been regarded as a "strong" nomination.

Yeah I agree, I was comparing first half of the years to the 2nd half of the years to tie in with my point moreso than the year to year basis.