Its a pretty ordinary reflection on the Rising Star Award when nominees start to be players who are arguably "deserving of a nomination on consistency" rather than nominated for the week's performance.

RJ would have been close to Brownlow votes on the weekend and was arguably Carlton's best player in a 10 point loss. 23 odd possies and a whitewash of Robert Harvey is surely more deserving of a nomination than 25 Nathan Jones possies in a 89 point thumping.

Jones is a good player and is deservedly in the mix for the overall award, but I thought the point was to nominate the best eligible player each week?

nah, they've always given the nod to a player who's shown decent form over a period of weeks. Jones deserves it.

If Jacko can string a couple more together, he'll get a nomination from a game that probably won't be as impressive as this weeks.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure he's eligible next year. So he can win whole thing then.

Jones managed 25 possessions on the weekend so Jones played a pretty good game, and while Jackson probably had a better individual game I don't mind them rewarding the player who's put some quality games together rather than just the one out of the box.

How can Nathan Jones be nominated again this year as he was nominated last year in round 20. I thought once you were nominated in a given year you were not eligible the year after

2006...2007...different awards....If you are still eligible, then I guess that is why you can be nominated again.

No disrespect to Jacko, but Nathan is certainly worthy.


Lets see how Jacko goes this week.

Jones deserved it and if Jacko can put another few good games together, he will get the award.

Jackson was great.But Jones has been a top contributor in every game he has played.A more than worthy reciprient is Jones.Great little player.

_________________
All my dangerous friends

Umm..disregarding some great players from other clubs, what about our own Bryce Gibbs?

I could be wrong mrs c, but I think blueblues meant 'nomination' instead of award.

semantics - they're killers...

Damn you JohnM....damn you!!!!

Apparently you are - provided you've not played more than 10 games at the beginning of that next season.

i'll be the first to ask: is he eligible?

_________________
Last edited by true_blue3 on Mon Sep 26, 1981 5:07 pm; edited 92 times in total

What about Carrazzo? 38 touches, got be in with a chance.

i just checked and he still is eligible for next year's award. if he plays every game for the rest of the year he ends up with 8 and you have to have played 10 or less, and you have to be under 21 on jan 1 of the start of the year and jacko turns 21 in april. finally we have a player who is still eligible in his 3rd season, something i've hated watching other teams' players do.

_________________
Last edited by true_blue3 on Mon Sep 26, 1981 5:07 pm; edited 92 times in total

I don't think he's old enough or played enough games to be eligible.

he has been continually robbed poor carraz.

_________________
dane's trolling again

I love watching Nathan Jones play. I wanted him in 2005 but we missed out. He is a good player and I am sure deserved the nomination.
Jacko will get his chance if he is good enough. He still has time. And players who play all year have more chance of winning the overall gig so if he were to get a nomination now, I don't reckon he would be in the hunt.
Next year.

_________________
Let slip the Blues of war (with apologies to William Shakespeare) (and Sir Francis Bacon, just in case)

My point for the thread was not that Jones is not a worthy nominee (he is), but that the criteria seems to change as the season wears on. Early in the season it is the best eligible player on any particular week. On that criteria, Jackson deserved the nod. Later in the season, it appears to change to nominate "consistent" players, rather than players of the week.

The whole system is flawed and should be overhauled. It should be restricted to first year players only. On that basis, Joel Selwood would be an unbackable favourite (probably is anyway).

It was a joke that Murphy was competing with Heath Shaw last year, who was playing his 3rd season. Essentially, the system is prepared to reward 2 years of mediocrity!

not a big fan of this award anyway. you can be on the list for 4 years and still win it. they should change it to best first year player or rookie of the year like the NBA. murphy should have won it last year but didnt. he won AFLPA best first year player which IMO is a better award to win.

_________________
i am what i am. somebody has to be.