Round 4 Rising Star

[ThePiesHaveEyesForPrize]

Options??

Barham 28 touches on debut

Beams - only had 13, but could be rewarded for past 3 weeks now

Ziebell (nth) - had 22 and has played all 4 matches

Picken (wb) - did some nice things in the west, but his team were beaten.

Nahas and Collins (rich) - surely not!

Daniher (ess) - ?? possible, but backmen hardly get rewarded

Otten and Dangerfield (ade) - they've played all games too so far.

Krakouer (port) - if he's eligible i reckon he'll get it

Hartlett (port) - good first up game

anyone else to compete with these guys?

Hopefully we get it this week, maybe "Laser" Beams will get it.

 

[The Dawes]

From what I saw - it would have to be one of Ziebell, Hartlett or Barham.

Barham on pure stats should get the nod - but Hartlett looked very classy on Satdee.

 

[Trojan Pies]

Agree with the Dawes however would be very surprised if it wasn't Ziebell. Very polished game from him.

 

[Coin_Toss]

It's out of Barham or Ziebell.

 

[pendles]

Barham's 9 tackles is ultra impressive. Should get The Nod.

Probably won't though.

 

[DWil6]

Potentially Barhams 9 clangers might hurt otherwise he should be a show.

 

[Old Spice]

Hey, how about a t-shirt for Barham.

"Colly want a cracker...

BARham"

Something similar? Awesome.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Krakouer ineligible as he's played too many games; he's a gun though, I love watching him play.

I would think Ziebell would be the obvious choice, Beams and Otten also have a show. Barham will probably have to repeat the dose next week and even the week after to get a look in.

Regarding the 9 clangers for Barham, not all of them were from errant kicks. A clanger can be merely giving a free kick away when your team is in possession, which happened a couple of times to him such as when he and Power were in a marking contest. He also had the OOF when tackled as he kicked, it could have happened to anyone.

Actually when reviewing the tape, I felt fairly bullish about Barham's potential to tighten up his kicking. I think mostly there was a bit of "kick and hope" caused by the flooding which wouldn't be so prevalent in VFL. Once he gets used to it and tries to maintain possession a bit more, he'll be an average kick.

 

[Old Spice]

"Cracka!

BARham for El Prez."

Someone with computer nous has to help with some t-shirt graphics here. Maybe a Che-Geuvara beret...no, no been done.

Maybe Barham witha cigar in mouth, footy in one hand and pez dispenser in the other.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Actually when reviewing the tape, I felt fairly bullish about Barham's potential to tighten up his kicking. I think mostly there was a bit of "kick and hope" caused by the flooding which wouldn't be so prevalent in VFL. Once he gets used to it and tries to maintain possession a bit more, he'll be an average kick.

Tend to agree. Barham plays the game at a frenetic pace at the best of times, but being in the seniors for his debut he was probably operating at an even faster tempo than usual. Some of his stray kicks were more a case of him lacking a bit of composure and blazing away, rather than him flat-out miskicking the ball. With a bit more experience, and time to adjust, I think he should gain a bit more composure and eliminate some of the more blatant errors.

That said, I've seen a bit of him at VFL level, and I don't think kicking is ever gonna be a strength of his -- though he can be quite a clever short kick.

 

[Chase the Ace]

Can a player be nominated more than once in a season?

 

[Soups]

I also like the look of McKenzie from the Eagles. Played a very good game out of the backline.

 

[mongrel_punt]

Would have to be Ziebell.

Beams just needs one more decend game and he'll get the nod.

 

[DoubleO7]

Can a player be nominated more than once in a season?

Nope, but nominees must have played no more than 10 AFL games at the start of the season, and must be under 21 years of age as at 1 January of that year. As long as the player complies to those rules than they are eligible to be nominated each season for the NAB AFL RISING STAR AWARD.

 

[Dogs_Playing_Poker]

Barham would have to be close to getting the nod. FFS 28 disposals is good enough but 9 f'n tackles! Thats Gold!

 

[Dave The Man]

Barham would have to be close to getting the nod. FFS 28 disposals is good enough but 9 f'n tackles! Thats Gold!

Plus the Voters for the RS Nomination love Stats and Dream Team Points

 

[well left]

I reckon Ziebell. Barham and Hartlett were very good but I reckon they might need to back it up again this week.

 

[Alkaline]

Barham will be with a show you would think. Played a fantastic game for his debut. a few clangers but 28 possies and 9 tackles in his first game of professional football, will go pretty bloody close.

 

[Chase the Ace]

Nope, but nominees must have played no more than 10 AFL games at the start of the season, and must be under 21 years of age as at 1 January of that year. As long as the player complies to those rules than they are eligible to be nominated each season for the NAB AFL RISING STAR AWARD.

Yep, I understand

So the list in the OP has got players in that have already been nominated, right?

 

[DoubleO7]

Barham will be with a show you would think. Played a fantastic game for his debut. a few clangers but 28 possies and 9 tackles in his first game of professional football, will go pretty bloody close.

Nine clangers to be precise which constitutes to 31% of his possession count.

Not a fact anyone should be jolly about...

Yep, I understand

So the list in the OP has got players in that have already been nominated, right?

Yes, a couple of players have been nominated in bygone seasons.

 

[ThePiesHaveEyesForPrize]

Yep, I understand

So the list in the OP has got players in that have already been nominated, right?

i apologise for adding dangerfield, he only got it last round didn't he.

so far this season it's been:
round 1 - daniel rich
round 2 - david zaharakis
round 3 - patrick dangerfield
round 4 - general consensus so far it looks like Ziebell, Beams or Barham.

 

[Chase the Ace]

Nine clangers to be precise which constitutes to 31% of his possession count.

Not a fact anyone should be jolly about...

Yes and that is Nathan Krakouer who received his nomination in round 7, 2007 (?)

Dangerfield?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Nine clangers to be precise which constitutes to 31% of his possession count.

Not a fact anyone should be jolly about...

Again, that's an overly simplified analysis; you don't have to be in possession to record a "clanger", so it doesn't correlate to 31% of his possession.

When the ball was kicked by a Collingwood player over Barham and Power's head, and Barham went up for it, giving away a free kick; clanger. It gave the ball directly to the opposition when the team was in possession.

 

[Darpy]

i apologise for adding dangerfield, he only got it last round didn't he.

so far this season it's been:
round 1 - daniel rich
round 2 - david zaharakis
round 3 - patrick dangerfield
round 4 - general consensus so far it looks like Ziebell, Beams or Barham.

barham would be in with a shout as Zaharakis only played one game and got the nod, and i reckon Barham's game was better than his.

As for the question of getting 2 nominations in a season, thats not how it works. A nomination is merely a recognition that this player should be considered for the award, not brownlow style where they score each game. then at the end of the season votes are allocated.

I think its a good format because it rewards players that are consistently strong without necessarily being stellar in a particular week. eg. NBrown last year.

 

[DoubleO7]

Again, that's an overly simplified analysis; you don't have to be in possession to record a "clanger", so it doesn't correlate to 31% of his possession.

When the ball was kicked by a Collingwood player over Barham and Power's head, and Barham went up for it, giving away a free kick; clanger. It gave the ball directly to the opposition when the team was in possession.

If you watched the game you would realise that his kicking was sub standard (nerves?). I think he rushes himself which in turn brings about the unintended result.

Anyway, 9 clangers is 9 clangers (take away the frees and it's still high).