can Howat be nominated for rising star

[Bojangles17]

does he still qualify?

 

[Darth_Tiger]

i thought it said Cam howatt qualifies for the rising star. would be quite a feat in a practice match. yes he does.

 

[skybeau]

I thought he was too old...

 

[Weaver]

Have to be under-21 on Jan 1st this year. Howat was already 21 - 22 now, so nope.

Our elligable players are ...

Casserley
Collins
Connors
Edwards
Hughes
McGuane
Oakley-Nicholls
Petterson
Reiwoldt
Thursfield
Clingan (r)
Graham (r)

 

[epping pingers]

if thursty can qualify...il say he would have the best chance .

 

[Darth_Tiger]

ok then, no he doesnt

 

[HBK619]

NO.

*Thread Closed*

 

[Weaver]

if thursty can qualify...il say he would have the best chance .

Yeah, it is actually a bit of an iffy award in some respects.

To get a winner you almost need someone like Thursfield who has had 2 seasons but not had the 10 games yet. In year 3 he comes out and outperforms all the genuine 1st year players (as he should).

You almost hope that Casserely plays 8 games this season, and then is till elligable next year.

Guys like Matt White who are good enough to play 11 games in their first season - but not good enough to win the award in season 1 - are basically ripped off.

The contest is often between a 2nd year player (like Pearce) and 3rd year player (like Raines) - two guys who weren't good enough to get more than 10 games under thier belt in their first seasons.

 

[davey_23]

No he dosent

 

[rota69]

Yeah, it is actually a bit of an iffy award in some respects.

To get a winner you almost need someone like Thursfield who has had 2 seasons but not had the 10 games yet. In year 3 he comes out and outperforms all the genuine 1st year players (as he should).

You almost hope that Casserely plays 8 games this season, and then is till elligable next year.

Guys like Matt White who are good enough to play 11 games in their first season - but not good enough to win the award in season 1 - are basically ripped off.

The contest is often between a 2nd year player (like Pearce) and 3rd year player (like Raines) - two guys who weren't good enough to get more than 10 games under thier belt in their first seasons.

Thats why Deledio was a star he defeated all the 2nd and 3rd yr players.

 

[LVAK]

Thats why Deledio was a star he defeated all the 2nd and 3rd yr players.

And that's where it gets tricky too. McLean and maybe even others probably had a better year than Deledio in 2005 but the judges have to be able to look into the future and say who is going to be the biggest star.

If Deledio had lost he would not have had another chance to win it. So the judges I think tend to play safe sometimes and say he's a no.1 pick and he is at least going to be alright so give him the nod.
Put it this way, If Murphy had played 20 games last year I think he would have won

 

[davey_23]

I think if McLean had of played more games in 05 he would have won it, as it was he didnt play enough and a first year player in Deledio had played more so he got the vote.

 

[LVAK]

I think if McLean had of played more games in 05 he would have won it, as it was he didnt play enough and a first year player in Deledio had played more so he got the vote.

No, I still think they would have gone Deledio looking to the future , even though McLean may have been slightly better value for his team on match day in 2005.
Nice try though