Coventry Coleman Medal

[Father Jack]

I reckon that naming the medal after Coleman is a fitting tribute to a somewhat tragic figure and a champion player who perhaps was prevented from living up to his true potential. Nevertheless he still left a lasting legacy to the game. Having said that, they could also have named it after Coventry, but they didn't. Nothing wrong with their choice at the end of the day.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Coleman was named at full forward in the AFL Team of the Century. End of debate.

Pffffttt...

The fact he was picked in a meaningless, ceremonial side is the "end of debate"?

That's ridiculous.

 

[Mervyn Beasley]

Was Charles Brownlow the Best and Fairest ever before the Brownlow started??
No.

 

[Mattlowry]

Um Bigcat I don't think the cricket analogy thing really works buddy, as a test match lasts 5 days and a footy match 2 hours, also Bradman had his career interupted by a War and the fact that it took a month on a boat to go and actually play matches. But anyway what the hell. If we compare the number of games lets us say that Bradman played his 52 with his 99 average and then there was another player who had played 150 games and had a 90 average? (There isn't I Know, but for some reason everyone is using Bradman as some sort of statistical example for footy). Is the latter player a worse player because his average is driven down over time? I would say no, he is better because he has still played at an extremely high standard for 3 times as long as the player with the slightly higher average. However keep in mind that I don't buy this argument as other factors such as the nature of the games etc should be included. The whole average thing was brought up as some sort of point to show how good Coleman was. Ironically he hasn't even got the highest average so this is really going nowhere as an example of why Coleman should be considered the greatest.

That analogy doesn't quite work here either. You said before Coventry was 1 behind (on per game average) to Coleman. I'm not having a go here, i'm merely stating that Coventry averaged 4.245 per game Coleman averaged 5.48 so thats over 20% higher.

So in your analogy above for this case it would be comparing Bradman at 99 to someone who had 80. Just doesn't seem to cut it does it?

You keep trying to bring down the general argument that "by all reports he is the best ever" by discrediting it claiming anyone can say it. But its such a generally held view by those who saw him play i don't see how you can.

And now you question why I questioned what you said about lockett and ablett but funnily enough left out that you said both Lloyd and Dunstall. I mean i know your once again trying to 'weasle' out of it, but thats just a ridiculous comment.

 

[pazza]

In answer to the discussion re: Crichton Medal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.S._Crichton_Medal

Former club administrator for many years.

 

[Slattery_20]

"Scott Cummings medal" has a nice ring to it
so does "Fridge Taylor commemorative award"

 

[skipper kelly]

Where the argument falls down about who is 'the best' FF is that most old timers have seen Coleman play but there aint many left that as adults saw Coventry play.