Roast NAB AFL Rising Star committee's vendetta against Jake Stringer.

[TheHoneyBadger]

If Taylor plods along at the rate he's going, he'd be a deserving third. With KK injured and Langdon's form dropping off a cliff, probably a two horse race between Aish and the Bonts.

With the risk attached that Prudden may strike me down, I'd say Aish probably gets the nod. But who knows what the Bont could do in the last 5 rounds.

 

[Scary_Foot_9]

The three you've mentioned have been far more consistent over a longer period of time. This isn't Bonts' fault mind you and is no reflection on his play, seeing that he was injured pre round 1 and is significantly less developed than those guys. However, stats don't lie and it's harsh to give it to him over those guys because of a couple of high impact games.

Fair enough.

 

[Igloo]

The three you've mentioned have been far more consistent over a longer period of time. This isn't Bonts' fault mind you and is no reflection on his play, seeing that he was injured pre round 1 and is significantly less developed than those guys. However, stats don't lie and it's harsh to give it to him over those guys because of a couple of high impact games.

Reckon you're underrating Bonts a bit (which is a hard thing to do on this board ). Since coming into the side in round 10, his last 6 games have been excellent, and had 3 average-good games. Hasn't put in a poor performance yet. Before then, he had one games as sub where he did very little and his first game, which you can give him a bit of leeway for.

For consistency, I'd say he's easily number 1.

edit: anyway, on topic, pretty annoyed Stringer didn't get it. Pretty obviously had the better game. But what are you gonna do... When you're a bottom club it's nice to get these kinds of things, which is why i'm not so much in the "lol it's just rising star nomination" camp.
Hopefully he smashes it the next few weeks.

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

Reckon you're underrating Bonts a bit (which is a hard thing to do on this board ). Since coming into the side in round 10, his last 6 games have been excellent, and had 3 average-good games. Hasn't put in a poor performance yet. Before then, he had one games as sub where he did very little and his first game, which you can give him a bit of leeway for.

For consistency, I'd say he's easily number 1.

I'm inclined to agree, perhaps drawing the inference that Aish is in the hunt because he hasn't missed a beat whereas Bonts missed a few early on.

I can't knock any of Bontempelli's performances - I was actually rather impressed by him on debut and will disregard his game as sub because it was a blindingly stupid decision by the MC to give him the vest after he took a quarter to work his way into the contest against Carlton.

 

[immortalmike]

Reckon you're underrating Bonts a bit (which is a hard thing to do on this board ). Since coming into the side in round 10, his last 6 games have been excellent, and had 3 average-good games. Hasn't put in a poor performance yet. Before then, he had one games as sub where he did very little and his first game, which you can give him a bit of leeway for.

For consistency, I'd say he's easily number 1.

Not entirely sure I agree with his last 6 being excellent, I'd say since round 10 he's been excellent 3 times and good to okay the rest. I agree he hasn't put in a poor performance though, but he drifts in and out of games more than the others mentioned (as he bloody should!) and has played less games. As I said harsh to give him the nod. But there's certainly an argument for it. Although I wouldn't begrudge Brisbane or GC supporters (do they exist?) reacting the way we have this week about Stringer's snub if Bonts wins.

 

[Scary_Foot_9]

Not entirely sure I agree with his last 6 being excellent, I'd say since round 10 he's been excellent 3 times and good to okay the rest. I agree he hasn't put in a poor performance though, but he drifts in and out of games more than the others mentioned (as he bloody should!) and has played less games. As I said harsh to give him the nod. But there's certainly an argument for it. Although I wouldn't begrudge Brisbane or GC supporters (do they exist?) reacting the way we have this week about Stringer's snub if Bonts wins.

If a GC player gets RS snubbed does their board make a sound?

 

[Super Hans]

GWS: Alright pal, where'd you get the power forward for that team?
WB: We nicked him while you let your guard down for that split second, and we'd do it again.

SOS's reaction:

 

[arrow_dactyl]

Reminds me a lot of the round 4 nomination too, my boy Sammy Lloyd puts up great numbers, only to be robbed of the nomination by the Father-Son pick.

Sam Lloyd is 24, way past the age of eligibility. On the topic of Stringer, they seem to give nominations in the back end of the season to players who have been solid over a period of a time without one spectacular game. See Menzel and Patton's nominations. Stringer should get a nomination before the end of the season, leave your complaining until then. You've got a good crop of young players, a rising star nomination is not needed to validate that.

 

[Bazza Bulldog]

Whilst I also think it should have gone the other way ...

Patton's numbers from the weekend. 15 disposals, 9 marks, 3 HO's, 1 tackle, 2.1 Goals.
Stringers numbers from the weekend. 10 disposals, 1 marks, 0 HO's, 0 tackles, 5.0 Goals.

I don't think it was as clear cut as many are making out.

 

[Dazb86]

Who cares.

 

[TempleKelvington]

Who cares.

exactly...such an overrated award....it's just a sponsorship thing that gets the bank's name into the news. While I like to see our guys get recognition, it's hardly the end of the world. Liber didn't even get nominated in his year and look what a player he is. We have some great talent coming through, we don't need this award to validate it.

Who they pick each week and who wins appears random, subjective and unaccountable and therefore can't be taken too seriously.

 

[Leezorr]

Be happy Patton got it, just another Bulldog to get a rising star nom

 

[SonOfScray]

I wasn't surprised, for a few reasons:

Mickey Mouse award
Pro-expansion club agenda set by the AFL
Media bias
The Man keeping a brother down, again.

This is why as Dog's fans we need to get a bit more vicious and unashamedly parochial. Flipping the bird left right and centre as we stomp on people's throats in pursuit of a flag.

 

[fronkalicious]

Sam Lloyd is 24, way past the age of eligibility. On the topic of Stringer, they seem to give nominations in the back end of the season to players who have been solid over a period of a time without one spectacular game. See Menzel and Patton's nominations. Stringer should get a nomination before the end of the season, leave your complaining until then. You've got a good crop of young players, a rising star nomination is not needed to validate that.

Like they did with Libba??

The award/nomination isn't important, but the snub does in some small way, point to where we are on the AFL's "like-list" of clubs. No question about that.

 

[Aldo]

What, twice? His other games this year have been fairly average. He'll still get a nomination IMO

Was three times, but it was a figure a speech.

I am sure he'll get a nomination by the end of the year, and I'm sure it will ironically be for a game where he wasn't even that good.

 

[Martyn_30_]

Isn't it just Sheehan who does the weekly nominations not a panel?

 

[Prince Imperial]

Whilst I also think it should have gone the other way ...

Patton's numbers from the weekend. 15 disposals, 9 marks, 3 HO's, 1 tackle, 2.1 Goals.
Stringers numbers from the weekend. 10 disposals, 1 marks, 0 HO's, 0 tackles, 5.0 Goals.

I don't think it was as clear cut as many are making out.

I agree. Indeed, I think the nominations should be based less on individual games and more on performance over the course of the season. Let's not forget that Stringer was running around in the VFL just a few weeks back. Though stats shouldn't count for everything, their season's comparison is:

Patton: (16 games), 11.69 disposals, 1.31 goals; Super Coach points 63.9
Stringer (13 games), 11.77 disposals, 1.15 goals (I know Stringer has also played in defence this year); Super Coach points 65.5.

 

[flamethrower]

Not entirely sure I agree with his last 6 being excellent, I'd say since round 10 he's been excellent 3 times and good to okay the rest. I agree he hasn't put in a poor performance though, but he drifts in and out of games more than the others mentioned (as he bloody should!) and has played less games. As I said harsh to give him the nod. But there's certainly an argument for it. Although I wouldn't begrudge Brisbane or GC supporters (do they exist?) reacting the way we have this week about Stringer's snub if Bonts wins.

Having been to a game at Metricon this year I can assure you they have as many passionate fans as we do (not hard considering how poor some of our crowds have been the last few years).

If the rising star was awarded right now, I would be surprised if Bontempelli won it. I have him behind guys like James Aish, Lewis Taylor, Luke Dunstan and Kade Kolodjashnij. However there are 5 weeks to go, and a few good games from the Bont (especially against the Hawks, Kangas and Swans) may just give him the edge.

 

[RedWhite&Blue]

Gee wiz! I was certain he'd get the nomination after that game. I thought he really announced himself against the Bombers.
Really scratching my head over that one. Oh well...
I'm absolutely loving our kids - Bont, Stringer, Macrae, Hrovat, Hunter, Libba and Wally - bloody love them all!

I had a look through the last 15 years of Rising Star nominations and it is very, very rare for a team to get more than 2 in a year. in the late 90's and early 2000's we had quite a few years where we didn't get any at all.

 

[Werewolf]

Historically, the RS winner is nominated early in the year - more than half have been in the first month and only 3 winners have been nominated after round 8, with Koschitzke the latest (Round 14, 2001). So Bontempelli will have to dominate the rest of the season in order to win. I'm not expecting it TBH

 

[dogwatch]

In the interests of transparency, who does decide the weekly winner?
(It would not surprise me if it was the AFL's PR department.)

 

[RedWhite&Blue]

Gordon knows it was a s**t decision. Great Bloke

That's a nice little insight into how our President thinks but I think you need to be careful posting an email answer he sent to you in confidence - he wouldn't expect it to be posted in such a public forum.

 

[dogwatch]

That's a nice little insight into how our President thinks but I think you need to be careful posting an email answer he sent to you in confidence - he wouldn't expect it to be posted in such a public forum.

Should be OK. He's been around too long to send out any messages he wouldn't want in the public gaze.

It's a clever response because if it does just happen to get some currency in the social media (eg BF) and then gets picked up by the footy commentariat and then the AFL he gets to have a passing shot at them while technically keeping his powder dry. Then hopefully somebody in the commentariat picks up his case without him having to fight the battle.

 

[True Dog]

Whilst I also think it should have gone the other way ...

Patton's numbers from the weekend. 15 disposals, 9 marks, 3 HO's, 1 tackle, 2.1 Goals.
Stringers numbers from the weekend. 10 disposals, 1 marks, 0 HO's, 0 tackles, 5.0 Goals.

I don't think it was as clear cut as many are making out.

I heard Stringer got 8 coaches votes and Patton got 2 (I stand corrected if not true)...surely that shows what impact each had on there respective game?

 

[Scary_Foot_9]

I heard Stringer got 8 coaches votes and Patton got 2 (I stand corrected if not true)...surely that shows what impact each had on there respective game?

Patton got a doughnut.