Chris Grant

[McCartney5]

Macca 19

The only reason Grant doesn't all-australian games is because he was always second behind Wayne Carey.. Tredrea will find this out in the next few years when Whitnall starts to get picked ahead of him

Where are they going to pick Grant if he's position is taken??

Mick Martyn never made all australian cos of Silvagni.. does that make him crap?? does it make Silvagni a lot better than him??

 

[Bulldog1954]

Originally posted by phatandphreaky
The other five years were as good as ANYONE.


i remember in 1995 (i think) at Whitten Oval where Footscray scored 2 points more than Gazza, i also remember the 9 goals from him in the two finals in 1992 that we won by 60+ points both times.
Cheers

You obviously weren't at the same finals as me, Get your facts right. It was Billy Brownless, not Ablett that kicked 9 in both of the finals. In those two finals Danny Del're kicked more then Ablett did

 

[Olmy]

Originally posted by McCartney5
that was to Macca19.. not all this post revolves around what you say.. but this does

Round 20
Adelaide vs Kangaroos
A McLeod
27 kicks
8 handballs
3 marks
1 goal

Did he get a vote?? No!! 35 possies!!

Theres 3 or 2 or even 1 vote he should have got

Round 22 Adelaide vs Fremantle
A McLeod
29 kicks
8 Handballs
3 marks
1 goal

Did he get a vote?? No!! 37 possies

Theres 3 or 2 or even 1 vote he should have got..

if he had got the 2 1's.. there would have been his Brownlow.. the umpires made a WRONG DECISION!! Akermanis did NOT deserve to win it!!

I never said McLeod wasn't unlucky not to get votes in those particular games.

However, you have overlooked the fact that he was lucky in games earlier in the season, where he received votes and possibly shouldn't have.

Akermanis was in the same boat anyway.

Besides, McLeod's inability to poll as well as Akermanis, is not a valid reason for Akermanis "not being worthy".

Anyway, at the end of the day, it's the umpires decision that counts in this. Not ours. You could argue for years about players that should, or shouldn't have polled votes. It doesn't necessarily make one player more or less worthy of winning the medal at any rate.

Akermanis was a worthy winner. McLeod was also worthy, as were a number of other players. Who says it has to be merely one player, who is worthy? After all, we can have more than one winner.

Akermanis DID deserve to win the Brownlow, as he had a fantastic season. What anyone else did is not relevant.

 

[dogboy23]

Having a quick browse through of all the players metioned to be better than Grant during the nineties I will not argue with any of them because the fact is that alkl the players have certain qualities and some dont.The only player I will argue with is Paul Kelly being inspirational sometimes does not make up for the fact that he does not get any where near the amount of ball as other elite midfielders and his skills are not as good as the elite midfielders(Voss,Mcleoud,Bradley,Hocking and Buckley.)Sriously though anyone bagging Chris Grant just sit and watch him and only him for a game and you will see things that you will never have seen before in a big man.

P.S- If you can get a hold of the doggies and richmond game from round 17 have a look at grants chasing,tackling,skills and leadership and you will see one of the greatest champions of the modern game in full flight.

 

[McCartney5]

So if the umpires come out next year and give David Bourke the Brownlow when he has been average at best then thats fine.. cos it's the umpires that know best??

I would not care if he won it if he was in the top 5 for the year in the league but he would be lucky to be in the top 10..

where is your proof of McLeod being lucky at the start/??

Why did Akermanis deserve it?? three other players IN HIS OWN TEAM had more possesions than he did

 

[Olmy]

Originally posted by McCartney5
So if the umpires come out next year and give David Bourke the Brownlow when he has been average at best then thats fine.. cos it's the umpires that know best??

I would not care if he won it if he was in the top 5 for the year in the league but he would be lucky to be in the top 10..

where is your proof of McLeod being lucky at the start/??

Why did Akermanis deserve it?? three other players IN HIS OWN TEAM had more possesions than he did

The use of your D.Bourke example just shows that you are unable to address the topic with any meaningful intent. The points are hardly relevant. If D.Bourke does play well enough to win the Brownlow, the so be it! If he doesn't, then he won't win! Simple!

Since when did AMOUNT of possession have anything to do with winning the Brownlow? You obviously don't understand the system. Perhaps you need to ask someone for assistance.

I don't have to have "proof" regarding McLeod being lucky. IMO, he was lucky to get votes against Geelong, as well as in other matches this season.

It's not something you can "prove", it's an opinion.

You seem to think your opinions are backed up with "proof". You are entirely wrong. "Facts", are subject to interpretation.

Akermanis deserved to win the Brownlow, because he was one of the premier performers this season. There were a lot of players whose performances would have justified a Brownlow Medal victory this season. Akermanis was ONE of these players. Just because none of the others who were ALSO worthy received the award, does not diminish Akermanis's right to the title.

Akermanis's efforts in turning games, in a top side were more notable than that of his peers. Although he might not have been as consistent as the likes of Voss or Black, he definitely had more best on ground performances. There is a clear difference in the two.

Akermanis was a deserved Brownlow Medal winner. To say he wasn't, based on "who didn't win the medal", shows a lack of understanding of the concept.

I fail to see why you bother arguing a point you cannot defend. At any rate, the result is not going to change.

 

[Bulldog1954]

There is now way Akermanis should have won the Brownlow. McLeod gets more of the ball and has better disposal. Akermanis isn't even Brisbanes best player as shown by the fact he finished fourth in the best and fairest. There would have been many many more worthy Brownlow medalists then Akermanis. And as for Woewodin the year before....... the brownlow has no credibility at all

 

[jod23]

Originally posted by McCartney5
name ten better than him then

Umm i will name ten better players during the 90's but did everyone forget in there lists to name Peter Matera?? Hello??? LOL


Peter Matera
Dean Kemp
Nathan Buckley
James Hird
Wayne Carey
Garry Hocking
Jason Dunstall
Gary Ablett
Tony Lockett
Darren Jarman
Glen Jackovich
Stephen Kernahan
Robert Harvey
Greg Williams
Craig Bradley
Steven Silvagni
Guy Mckenna
ect ect ect ect

The list goes on and on.

 

[Westy_Boy]

You forgot to include Steve Malaxos and Jaxon Crabb, Jod.

Originally posted by bulldogs1
longevity would have to be a factor, in my opinion, as his influence over a ten year period was enormous.

....BINGO!

Taking into account injuries, influence, form, longetivity and probably most importantly of all, hindsight.....

If EVERY one of these players being mentioned was to be available at the beginning of the 1990 season, who would people choose?

Would Rehn have been of more value than Grant? Given what they've both achieved and their impact on games, would Carlton have selected Bradley over Grant?

At their best, I would rate Hird a better player than Grant, but would Hird's output, influence and importance during the 90's have been greater than Grant's given Hird's shocking luck with injuries? What about Jacovich? Would Dunstall's and Ablett's retirements close to the middle of the decade have a bearing?

I mean, 1990 -- 1999 inclusive, Grant has missed what, 10 games?


My list:

Carey -- undoubtedly number 1


Next group:

Dunstall
Lockett
Ablett
Grant
Buckley
Hird
Silvagni


Next Group:

A whole bunch of others who could lay claim to being in the top ten for the 1990's.




MACCA19,

Back to you.

Ratten: 189 games, 59 goals, 2 BnFs

Hocking: 201 games, 190 goals, 4 BnFs, 4 All Australian teams

Lyon:151 games, 311 goals, 4 all australians, 2 leading goalkickers, 2 BnFs

Buckley: 142 games, 144 goals, 4 BnFs, 4 all australians, a magarey medal, rising star award, 96 brownlow votes

Libba: "little legend of the game" , 228 games, 89 goals,
Brownlow Medal 1990; best and fairest 1991; 2nd best and fairest 1992, 1993, 1995; 3rd best and fairest 1994, 1997, 1999 (equal); Gardiner Medal in a time when the stats aren't applicable just like Buckley's Magarey; Ditto the Morrish Medal in a comp which most of the other players didn't even play in. Brownlow Medal career votes: 95.


According to your "thinking", because Libba got more games, achievements and a Brownlow, he was better than Buckley, Lyon, Hocking and Ratten.... grouse! Thanks mate!

 

[Fall Out Boy]

westy boy,
well said mate. I think this discusssion is now dead

Cheers

 

[Olmy]

Originally posted by Bulldog1954
There is now way Akermanis should have won the Brownlow. McLeod gets more of the ball and has better disposal.

That's merely a debatable point. Akermanis is an excellent user of the ball, and won many games off his own boot, in a premiership season.

McLeod would have also been a worthy winner, but that doesn't diminish Akermanis's claim to the title.

There were a LOT of good players this year, who all could have put a claim to being a worthy winner. Akermanis was one of these players. You can't say he "didn't" deserve to win because of what someone else did, as he had a fantastic season on his own accord.

Arguing over the fact now, as to who was better, when you are comparing two players who were BOTH worthy, is pointless. It comes down to a matter of opinion. However, the opinions that matter in this particular case, have already given their vote.

Originally posted by Bulldog1954

Akermanis isn't even Brisbanes best player as shown by the fact he finished fourth in the best and fairest.

You obviously don't understand the difference between the two systems then. The two awards are voted for in an entirely different manner, which allows players to score votes, even if they weren't in the top 3 (as opposed to the Brownlow). Therefore, while Akermanis may have had more BoG's, he might not have been as consistent every other week, as say, Voss, Black, and Lappin were.

In any regard, there were some players, who I believed, did not receive the votes they deserved in our B&F. C.Johnson, C.Scott, and A.Lynch, being the main ones who come to mind.

In any regard, Akermanis was only 8 votes from being an equal winner. Considering he missed a couple of games, you could speculate that had he not sat some games out on the bench, and had he not missed games (both due to injury), that he could have in fact, won, or been an equal winner.

Incidentally, G.Wanganeen also didn't win the B&F in 1993, when he won the Brownlow.

Originally posted by Bulldog1954

There would have been many many more worthy Brownlow medalists then Akermanis.

Actually, there would have been a number of other equally worthy medalists alongside Akermanis.

 

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by Bulldog1954


You obviously weren't at the same finals as me, Get your facts right. It was Billy Brownless, not Ablett that kicked 9 in both of the finals. In those two finals Danny Del're kicked more then Ablett did

And According to some of the logic used in this debate (which is quite excellent by the way) that makes Danny Delre a superior player to Gary Ablett!

 

[jod23]

Re: You forgot to include Steve Malaxos and Jaxon Crabb, Jod.

Originally posted by Westy_Boy


....BINGO!

Taking into account injuries, influence, form, longetivity and probably most importantly of all, hindsight.....

If EVERY one of these players being mentioned was to be available at the beginning of the 1990 season, who would people choose?

Would Rehn have been of more value than Grant? Given what they've both achieved and their impact on games, would Carlton have selected Bradley over Grant?

At their best, I would rate Hird a better player than Grant, but would Hird's output, influence and importance during the 90's have been greater than Grant's given Hird's shocking luck with injuries? What about Jacovich? Would Dunstall's and Ablett's retirements close to the middle of the decade have a bearing?

I mean, 1990 -- 1999 inclusive, Grant has missed what, 10 games?


My list:

Carey -- undoubtedly number 1


Next group:

Dunstall
Lockett
Ablett
Grant
Buckley
Hird
Silvagni


Next Group:

A whole bunch of others who could lay claim to being in the top ten for the 1990's.

Westy.....are you saying that Peter Matera was not in the top top top bracket of players in the 90's. If thats what your saying then your misguided!

 

[bulldogs1]

Histrorical revisionism, LOL.

The legend grows.......

Originally posted by Bulldog1954


You obviously weren't at the same finals as me, Get your facts right. It was Billy Brownless, not Ablett that kicked 9 in both of the finals. In those two finals Danny Del're kicked more then Ablett did

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Originally posted by Bulldog1954


You obviously weren't at the same finals as me, Get your facts right. It was Billy Brownless, not Ablett that kicked 9 in both of the finals. In those two finals Danny Del're kicked more then Ablett did

I said "i also remember the 9 goals from him in the two finals in 1992"

Notice how i said 2 games you fool,
Gary kicked 4 goals in one game and kicked 5 in the other (both from the midfield by the way).

Ahh i love Footscray supporters.

 

[PC28]

Originally posted by phatandphreaky


I said "i also remember the 9 goals from him in the two finals in 1992"

Notice how i said 2 games you fool,
Gary kicked 4 goals in one game and kicked 5 in the other (both from the midfield by the way).

Ahh i love Footscray supporters.

Ahem

We are Western Bulldog supporters

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

Re: Re: You forgot to include Steve Malaxos and Jaxon Crabb, Jod.

Originally posted by jod23


Westy.....are you saying that Peter Matera was not in the top top top bracket of players in the 90's. If thats what your saying then your misguided!

So Peter Matera is in the top bracket of players from the 90's, but Grant's not. HAHAHAHAHAHA

Matera is weak. Somebody touches him he gets out the tissues. Hes has moments of brilliance, but nothing compared to Grant


And you say Carey's washed up. Materas going so well, his brothers better than him. Hes ruining his reputation by continuing to play. Nowdays, hes a disgrace, just like the West Coast Eagles as a whole

 

[jod23]

Re: Re: Re: You forgot to include Steve Malaxos and Jaxon Crabb, Jod.

Originally posted by The_Flying_Egg


So Peter Matera is in the top bracket of players from the 90's, but Grant's not. HAHAHAHAHAHA

Matera is weak. Somebody touches him he gets out the tissues. Hes has moments of brilliance, but nothing compared to Grant


And you say Carey's washed up. Materas going so well, his brothers better than him. Hes ruining his reputation by continuing to play. Nowdays, hes a disgrace, just like the West Coast Eagles as a whole

Matera played in two premiership sides, finsihed runner up in the brownlow twice i think and has a norm smith medal. Is on eof the best wingers of all time.

The Flying Egg has egg on his face one suspects....

 

[lioness]

Originally posted by The_Flying_Egg
Chris Grant is the most under-rated player in the AFL.

He is the second best CHF of the last decade. He was in the top 10 players of the 90s. Out of all players currently in the AFL, his career would rank in the top 10.


Hes most likely gonna finish as the Bulldogs all time games and goals leader yet he gets nowhere near the recognition of a Buckley, Voss, Hird or even "%^!ng Paul Kelly. Its a joke

People that don't think of him as anything but a Champion are sadly misinformed. He was brilliant again in 2001

OK the Lioness's view........

Chris Grant is like HEAPS tall. And he is really nice and lol nice car. LOL Bumped into him (literally) while shopping in Williamstown a few years ago, top bloke. And not such a bad player, I mean he IS a Bulldog..............

 

[True_Roo]

Originally posted by The_Flying_Egg
Chris Grant is the most under-rated player in the AFL.

He is the second best CHF of the last decade. He was in the top 10 players of the 90s. Out of all players currently in the AFL, his career would rank in the top 10.


Hes most likely gonna finish as the Bulldogs all time games and goals leader yet he gets nowhere near the recognition of a Buckley, Voss, Hird or even "%^!ng Paul Kelly. Its a joke

People that don't think of him as anything but a Champion are sadly misinformed. He was brilliant again in 2001

Agreed.
I went to every Bulldogs home game this season, Grant is awesome. End of story.
I also feel that my opinion is unbiased , I'm a Roos supporter

 

[Bulldog1954]

Re: Re: Re: Re: You forgot to include Steve Malaxos and Jaxon Crabb, Jod.

Originally posted by jod23


Matera played in two premiership sides, finsihed runner up in the brownlow twice i think and has a norm smith medal. Is on eof the best wingers of all time.

The Flying Egg has egg on his face one suspects....

Granst Brownlow performances have been far better then Matera. He is also still good, and not a soft**** dud like Matera. Matera is washed up, and please remember Shane Ellen also has 2 premierships.

Who was better this year?????????????

P.S. Andrew Gaze is far better then Longley u goose

One suspects Jod is engaging in homosexual activity

 

[PC28]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You forgot to include Steve Malaxos and Jaxon Crabb, Jod.

This is the thread that never ends
It just goes on and on my friend...

 

[dogboy23]

Re: Re: Chris Grant

Originally posted by True_Roo


Agreed.
I went to every Bulldogs home game this season, Grant is awesome. End of story.
I also feel that my opinion is unbiased , I'm a Roos supporter

Well said And jod23 surely Andrew Gaze is better than Luke Longley...LOL I know we have had this argument before.

 

[McCartney5]

I am also impartial and believe Grant is much better than Matera

I think Matera was a great player but not in the same league

 

[jod23]

Well i think they all play to win Premeirships and Matera got 2 and Grant sadly hahahahah got none.

Matera 2
Grant 0

























One more time

Matera 2
Grant 0






Poor Grant, oh and Bulldog 1954 ... im surprised you held out for as long as you did before resulting to petty insults ala the gay insult..which also suggests you have a very closed mind.