View Full Version : Crawford out of All Aus side, why???
A very ignorant non selection of our captain i thought. Considering the guy was AA captain last year and i think has had a better season this year shows how pathetic the non selction was.
Crawford still avg 24 touches a game despite playing with injuries and constant tagging. Selectors need to ask them selves how did Willaims and Hayes get there possesions, i can tell you they didnt get them with the attention Crawford got from the opposition.
Thoughts!!!
Adelaide Hawk
10 Sep 2003, 19:39
The selectors got it wrong, simple as that. How can a panel of 5 pick an All-Australian team? Do they all see every game? Not possible. The AA side is a nonsense anyway, just like the Team of the Century was. It all boils down to who was on the selection panel, and then they will pick their favourites.
Incidently, I don't think Crawford was last year's AA captain. I believe he captained the Australian team last season in the absence of Michael Voss.
Dutchy's Gal
10 Sep 2003, 20:22
Originally posted by Adelaide Hawk
The selectors got it wrong, simple as that. How can a panel of 5 pick an All-Australian team?
Just listening to the radio, and they say that they have meetings three times during the year (Eg Rd 8, Rd 16 and Rd 22) and decide who is doing well at those points of the season, then when they meet at the conclusion of Rd 22, they shortlist the players who have been mentioned each time. Then they speak to people at the club, and look at their stats....and this lead them to the final AA Team.
If you want my opinion, they need to change this, because there are at least 4 selections that I just don't agree with. They need to work out whether they choose an AA player based on their stats and impact on the game, or if they go purely by the positions on the ground. They can't seem to make their mind up and that has been found out this year.
I just hope Crawford wins the Brownlow, that would be a huge slap in the face to the AA selectors…..
If I may be so bold as to name the players Crawf should have been selected before. P Bell, P Williams (averaged 18 posessions per game), P Haselby and L Hayes
They really got this one wrong.
Crawf for the Brownlow.
|D_J^B_J|
11 Sep 2003, 01:32
Originally posted by saaam
If I may be so bold as to name the players Crawf should have been selected before. P Bell, P Williams (averaged 18 posessions per game), P Haselby and L Hayes
They really got this one wrong.
Crawf for the Brownlow.
Try using both eyes to judge next time. If Crawford had a better season than Bell, Hasleby and Hayes; then I am not here.
Originally posted by |D_J^B_J|
Try using both eyes to judge next time. If Crawford had a better season than Bell, Hasleby and Hayes; then I am not here.
Then you are not here. Get a hold of Hasleby's stats and compare them to Crawford. No contest.
Wouldn't argue with Hayes and Bell, they had terrific seasons.
People have got to ask them selves a question. How damaging is Lenny Hayes and Peter Bell?? not very at all, i mean how often do they break through a pack and kick goals or take the odd specy??. Another 1 is how much attention do these guys get?? not half as much as Crawford.
This is were the selectors have it wrong, Crawford would be with Buckley and Voss the most heavily tagged player in the comp and he still racks them up.
Hayes,Bell and Hasleby have nothing on crawf!!!1
|D_J^B_J|
11 Sep 2003, 17:31
Originally posted by Becker
Get a hold of Hasleby's stats and compare them to Crawford. No contest.
2003 Stats:
Bell -
15.39 kicks, 10.52 handballs, 4.83 marks, 3.13 tackles and 0.87 goals per game.
Hayes -
15.54 kicks, 10.27 handballs, 4.23 marks, 4.59 tackles and 0.59 goals per game.
Hasleby -
14.82 kicks, 9.57 handballs, 5.74 marks, 2.22 tackles and 0.74 goals per game.
Crawford -
12.68 kicks, 10.77 handballs, 2.95 marks, 3.68 tackles and 0.59 goals per game.
No contest, indeed.
Adelaide Hawk
11 Sep 2003, 19:19
Originally posted by |D_J^B_J|
2003 Stats:
Bell -
15.39 kicks, 10.52 handballs, 4.83 marks, 3.13 tackles and 0.87 goals per game.
Hayes -
15.54 kicks, 10.27 handballs, 4.23 marks, 4.59 tackles and 0.59 goals per game.
Hasleby -
14.82 kicks, 9.57 handballs, 5.74 marks, 2.22 tackles and 0.74 goals per game.
Crawford -
12.68 kicks, 10.77 handballs, 2.95 marks, 3.68 tackles and 0.59 goals per game.
No contest, indeed.
I simply don't believe those stats, they are not the ones I have seen. Just ask any other club's supporters this ... you can have your pick of either of these players, Crawford or Hasleby.
They would say, "Hazel who?"
Grendel
11 Sep 2003, 20:10
Personally, Ive seen a better years from Crawf. During our 'bad' spell he was as poor as he's been (forget the stats) in influence as anyone else.
That he didnt make it doesnt overly surprise OR bother me.
Brad-clare
14 Sep 2003, 02:04
Maybe the selectors took into account the dirty incidents that he got away with during the season, ie throwing Simon Goodwin into a fence, I just hope you guys dont scream for blue murder when someone returns the favour.
Grendel
14 Sep 2003, 06:08
*YAWN* , now THAT was a pathetic an attempt at a troll if ever ive seen.
Originally posted by |D_J^B_J|
Try using both eyes to judge next time. If Crawford had a better season than Bell, Hasleby and Hayes; then I am not here.
Who said that....where are you....show yourself!!!
roosforever
23 Sep 2003, 13:20
Crawf lost the Brownlow by 1 vote and was unlucky not to be another equal winner = AA selection.
This is the end of debate he should have been in there. One of the top 5 players.
Adelaide Hawk
23 Sep 2003, 19:32
Such a pity that umpires are better judges than those buffoons entrusted with selecting the AA side.
Originally posted by Adelaide Hawk
Such a pity that umpires are better judges than those buffoons entrusted with selecting the AA side.
Wouldn't say they were better judges, just less conflicted.