Duncan, Parker, Simpkin, Duryea, Suckling - Go down in history as unluckiest premiership winners?

[Watsclarkosmob]

Until 1978, the bench was 2 subs (called emergencies and often not played at all), no interchange, so really, no, they're not that hard done by.

This.

 

[Angus Young]

Someone had to do it.... poor them.

 

[cryptor]

Interesting, thanks! I don't think awarding ~6 extra medals per season to the players that made a contribution to each premiereship season is that outrageous, especially now that the sub rule is gone and top ups will be expected to play full games. Could be worth considering.

There would need to be some minimum requirement more than simply playing a game though. Derick Wanganeen playing his single career game off the rookie list in round 1 is not deserving of a premiership medal in 2013.

Premiership medallions should remain solely for the players who play and win on Grand Final day.

Perhaps some other way of recognising players who contributed in that season could be found. Maybe a premiership ring for all the players on the list, or who played a senior game, or met some significant minimum requirement. Trouble is that it's still only a consolation prize.

 

[dickballsack]

2011 - Mitch Duncan
2012 - Luke Parker
2013 - Jonathan Simpkin
2014 - Taylor Duryea
2015 - Matthew Suckling

These were the guys that were the subs in the Grand Final winning teams. They have that dubious honour and for several of them they only came onto the field for essentially the last quarter and as a result had a minimal impact on the outcome of the game. Had the sub rule not been in place at all then these players would have played a full game but instead because they were subs at the end of the game I suspect more than a few of them were not even tired.

So because they were subs and did not play for a large portion of their grand finals, having reasonably minimal impact on the outcomes of their games, do you think they feel like they might look back on these years and think they were not quite as involved, and it was less their premiership than their 21 team mates?

The sub rule is gone in 2016 as well so these 5 guys will be the only ones who have been the sub and won the premiership, separating them from every premiership winning player for over 40 years.

Is this a serious question? A 'team' is all 40 odd blokes who punish themselves physically and mentally to play and SUPPORT each other for an common purpose and yes there are times where players aren't picked to play on that final day but the players on the field that day celebrate the acheoment as a CLUB, and as disheartening as it would be to miss out on experiencing playing in the gf for many plyers that have unfortunately been in that boat. It's ridiculous to suggest that players who were actually picked and experienced/ played in the game but were subs would look back and feel like they were not involved.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

And Matty Egan.
Career ending injury in the last round of 2007.
Cats go on to break finals records.

Yeah, for guys like Menzel and Egan it would be heartbreaking. Menzel was our best forward coming into the finals and Egan was an All Australian tall defender. And the harshest thing is that they couldn't even come back and make up for it the next year. Egan got injured last game before the finals, missed the Premiership and never played again. Menzel went down in the first final, missed the premiership and had four knee reconstructions before playing another game.

 

[Seeds]

2011 - Mitch Duncan
2012 - Luke Parker
2013 - Jonathan Simpkin
2014 - Taylor Duryea
2015 - Matthew Suckling

These were the guys that were the subs in the Grand Final winning teams. They have that dubious honour and for several of them they only came onto the field for essentially the last quarter and as a result had a minimal impact on the outcome of the game. Had the sub rule not been in place at all then these players would have played a full game but instead because they were subs at the end of the game I suspect more than a few of them were not even tired.

So because they were subs and did not play for a large portion of their grand finals, having reasonably minimal impact on the outcomes of their games, do you think they feel like they might look back on these years and think they were not quite as involved, and it was less their premiership than their 21 team mates?

The sub rule is gone in 2016 as well so these 5 guys will be the only ones who have been the sub and won the premiership, separating them from every premiership winning player for over 40 years.

The VFL started out with subs and had subs for many many decades. Why only single out these players? Not to mention many bench warmers spent very little time on the ground before the 2000's. Duncan by the way was involved in some critical goals in the second half and had a significant contribution to our win. Don't know about the other four.

 

[Superstar swan]

May as well ask James Podsiadly and Clark Keating (I think it was him) if they feel part of the premiership team after going off the field injured early in the first half?

Dumb thread, if you were in the 22 on the day you're part of it.

Exactky, you have to be a very good footballer to be named in a side playing in an afl grand final

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Exactky, you have to be a very good footballer to be named in a side playing in an afl grand final

Yeah, like Robert Eddy....

 

[Natho]

Wow Parker was the sub in 2012. He is now Sydney's best mid (maybe behind JPK)

Duncan played a huge role in Geelong getting a hold of Collingwood in 2011.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

2011 - Mitch Duncan
2012 - Luke Parker
2013 - Jonathan Simpkin
2014 - Taylor Duryea
2015 - Matthew Suckling

These were the guys that were the subs in the Grand Final winning teams. They have that dubious honour and for several of them they only came onto the field for essentially the last quarter and as a result had a minimal impact on the outcome of the game. Had the sub rule not been in place at all then these players would have played a full game but instead because they were subs at the end of the game I suspect more than a few of them were not even tired.

So because they were subs and did not play for a large portion of their grand finals, having reasonably minimal impact on the outcomes of their games, do you think they feel like they might look back on these years and think they were not quite as involved, and it was less their premiership than their 21 team mates?

The sub rule is gone in 2016 as well so these 5 guys will be the only ones who have been the sub and won the premiership, separating them from every premiership winning player for over 40 years.

Mitch Duncan is a great player and one of my favourites, but if Daniel Menzel didn't wreck his ACL in the Qualifying Final, Duncan probably wouldn't have made the 22 at all.

Unluckiest premiership winners...? Hmmm, maybe someone like Trent Croad, or Alex Johnson (if he never makes it back)? Maybe Nathan Ablett?

 

[avishka5]

I would be extremely happy if i was one of those players as a i get to be known as a premiership player but i have only done fraction of the work the rest of my teammates have done.

 

[Major Colvin]

Duncan played a fairly pivotal role in the 2011 flag if I recall. Subbed on for Podsiadly and kicked a goal, set up another

Suckling and Duryea both got decent runs courtesy of playing in walkovers.

Simpkin and Parker both had very limited game time and would feel, I agree, a bit cheated.

Thank God the sub rule's gone

 

[Gralin]

I'm curious to know that too now you've asked. Had a look back, don't think I missed anyone here.

Players that played at least one senior game for Hawthorn without winning a premiership in '13-'15 were:
1. Jed Anderson
2. Sam Grimley
3. Luke Lowden
4. Shane Savage
5. Brendan Whitecross
6. Michael Osborne (played in '08)
7. Johnathon Ceglar
8. Tim O'Brien
9. Kyle Cheney
10. Jonathan O'Rourke
11. Derick Wanganeen
12. Billy Hartung
13. James Sicily
14. Ben Ross
15. Angus Litherland
16. Mitch Hallahan
17. Alex Woodward
18. Daniel Howe

Only Whitecross, Ceglar and Hartung have been really unlucky not to have played in a flag in this time.

Swiss may never get another chance either, anyone who plays in a GF is lucky, anyone who gets a medal even if they got knocked out of the game in the first five minutes goes down in history as a premiership player.

Doc and Suckling are interesting they both have two medals one each as a sub

 

[Samthegun]

Duryea sure looks bummed out about it:

 

[The Joker]

There would need to be some minimum requirement more than simply playing a game though. Derick Wanganeen playing his single career game off the rookie list in round 1 is not deserving of a premiership medal in 2013.

Premiership medallions should remain solely for the players who play and win on Grand Final day.

Perhaps some other way of recognising players who contributed in that season could be found. Maybe a premiership ring for all the players on the list, or who played a senior game, or met some significant minimum requirement. Trouble is that it's still only a consolation prize.

Im not sure about you but I think Modra would have been more than worthy of a Premiership Medallion in 1997! Even though he didnt play in the GF, i think he contributed a little bit that year. Some campaigners get lucky and make there way into a Premiership team, yeah they deserve it but more than people like Modra and Egan ect? I am a massive advocate for each player to be given a medal.

 

[cryptor]

Im not sure about you but I think Modra would have been more than worthy of a Premiership Medallion in 1997! Even though he didnt play in the GF, i think he contributed a little bit that year. Some campaigners get lucky and make there way into a Premiership team, yeah they deserve it but more than people like Modra and Egan ect? I am a massive advocate for each player to be given a medal.

That's the thing. A player could play every game of the season, get injured in the dying minutes of a PF and then miss out on being part of the winning GF side the following week.

And a player could even debut in a GF and not get a touch before being delisted but still walk away with a premiership medallion.

Of course the former deserves a medal and the latter does not.

So do we change the requirement for who gets awarded a premiership medallion to include anyone on the list? Anyone on the list who plays a senior game that season? 5 games? 12? A final?

Doesn't matter where you draw the line there will likely always be a fairly "undeserving" winner and a hard luck story.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

If you asked the players they'd tell you they wouldn't feel part of the Premiership anyway since they didn't play.
Would be a token gesture only and wouldn't mean all that much.

 

[Gone Critical]

Until 1978, the bench was 2 subs (called emergencies and often not played at all), no interchange, so really, no, they're not that hard done by.

I also grew up with the 19th man and 20th man. Banded together they were the reserve players not emergencies. 19th man more often got a bit of a run but sometimes the 20th didn't get on the ground at all. As a rule these guys played much less time on the ground that the modern sub did. As such they would be inclined to feel they contributed far less on GF day than the subs listed.

Bloody Hopkins excluded

 

[MinerBoy]

2011 - Mitch Duncan
2012 - Luke Parker
2013 - Jonathan Simpkin
2014 - Taylor Duryea
2015 - Matthew Suckling

These were the guys that were the subs in the Grand Final winning teams. They have that dubious honour and for several of them they only came onto the field for essentially the last quarter and as a result had a minimal impact on the outcome of the game. Had the sub rule not been in place at all then these players would have played a full game but instead because they were subs at the end of the game I suspect more than a few of them were not even tired.

So because they were subs and did not play for a large portion of their grand finals, having reasonably minimal impact on the outcomes of their games, do you think they feel like they might look back on these years and think they were not quite as involved, and it was less their premiership than their 21 team mates?

The sub rule is gone in 2016 as well so these 5 guys will be the only ones who have been the sub and won the premiership, separating them from every premiership winning player for over 40 years.

Duryea still had a better game than a large % of the Swans players.

 

[DangerSloane]

2011 - Mitch Duncan
2012 - Luke Parker
2013 - Jonathan Simpkin
2014 - Taylor Duryea
2015 - Matthew Suckling

These were the guys that were the subs in the Grand Final winning teams. They have that dubious honour and for several of them they only came onto the field for essentially the last quarter and as a result had a minimal impact on the outcome of the game. Had the sub rule not been in place at all then these players would have played a full game but instead because they were subs at the end of the game I suspect more than a few of them were not even tired.

So because they were subs and did not play for a large portion of their grand finals, having reasonably minimal impact on the outcomes of their games, do you think they feel like they might look back on these years and think they were not quite as involved, and it was less their premiership than their 21 team mates?

The sub rule is gone in 2016 as well so these 5 guys will be the only ones who have been the sub and won the premiership, separating them from every premiership winning player for over 40 years.

Nah they will feel part of the team.
Everyone knows the sub rule was crap, and its not like they added one to the end of the bench.

I once received a medal for being an emergency for a grand final. Now thats the kind of thing they would dismiss as undeserved, but just because you were 22nd of the 22, doesnt mean you werent an equal part of the team.

 

[DangerSloane]

Yeah, I'm sure Brendan Whitecross's heart just bleeds for guys like Duryea and Suckling.

Now that guy is unlucky.

 

[telsor]

I also grew up with the 19th man and 20th man. Banded together they were the reserve players not emergencies. 19th man more often got a bit of a run but sometimes the 20th didn't get on the ground at all. As a rule these guys played much less time on the ground that the modern sub did. As such they would be inclined to feel they contributed far less on GF day than the subs listed.

Bloody Hopkins excluded

From memory, one of the reasons they weren't played much was because if they didn't go one they didn't get a match payment (or got a reduced one) so it saved money. They also often played in the 2nds beforehand.

I remember the was a final in 73(?) where Royce Hart was injured and they were trying to manage him through the final series, but he was so good they wanted to be able to use him if needed so they made him 19th man, hoping/intending not to use him. Sure enough, Richmond was losing, so he was brought on at half time and turned the game around.

 

[Gone Critical]

From memory, one of the reasons they weren't played much was because if they didn't go one they didn't get a match payment (or got a reduced one) so it saved money. They also often played in the 2nds beforehand.

I remember the was a final in 73(?) where Royce Hart was injured and they were trying to manage him through the final series, but he was so good they wanted to be able to use him if needed so they made him 19th man, hoping/intending not to use him. Sure enough, Richmond was losing, so he was brought on at half time and turned the game around.

Yeah have read that about payments but I think that is going even further back in time.

Main reason they were not played was because teams didn't want to risk an injury occurring after they had come on and having no replacement. This applied even more to the 20th man who was kept on the bench almost always until deep in the last Q. The same thing was done in all other leagues, juniors etc so had more to do with that than payments.

 

[SJ]

It is instructive watching old finals. In the North v Geelong 94 prelim, a player coming off the bench is treated as if he'd been subbed on in that system.

"He's on! They've brought Crocker (whoever it was) on!"

In the last play of the day when Colbert has the ball, Cometti thinks it's so significant that he mentions that Colbert "started on the bench".

 

[thejester]

In the last play of the day when Colbert has the ball, Cometti thinks it's so significant that he mentions that Colbert "started on the bench".

Remember in 2004 (or 2005?) when Bomber Thompson was lauded for using Riccardi and Byrnes as a 1-2 punch off the bench....in the middle of the first quarter? Put another way: ten years ago it was considered a notable bit of tactical innovation to conduct two midfield rotations midway through the first quarter. That would happen now at what, the first stoppage?