Mike Sheahans End Of Season Top 50 Players

[kelvin_sheedy]

lol at Thomas and Pendlebury at 9 and 11. There's about 20 mids in the comp that you'd take before them two. Good players who should be 30+.

lol at Sandilands at no 12. A giant and colossus who dominates games and his opponent like no other. Should be top 5.

Didak at 14. hahahhahhhahahahahahaha. Oh dear

Leigh Montanga at 17.

Brad Green and Kelly in the top 20?

Luke Ball at 47? I reckon it'd be more like 147 but hey. Geez.

Oh well, at least he's stirred the pot again. We can also plot a time line to his mental footy decline due to age. These 50's are getting dumber by the year.

Bahhhh, I just say Kade Simpson in the 40's. hahahahahahahahahahahha. Kade Simpson. Good for a laugh this morning Mike.

 

[WakeUpPies]

lol at Thomas and Pendlebury at 9 and 11. There's about 20 mids in the comp that you'd take before them two. Good players who should be 30+.

lol at Sandilands at no 12. A giant and colossus who dominates games and his opponent like no other. Should be top 5.

Didak at 14. hahahhahhhahahahahahaha. Oh dear

Leigh Montanga at 17.

Brad Green and Kelly in the top 20?

Luke Ball at 47? I reckon it'd be more like 147 but hey. Geez.

Oh well, at least he's stirred the pot again. We can also plot a time line to his mental footy decline due to age. These 50's are getting dumber by the year.

Bahhhh, I just say Kade Simpson in the 40's. hahahahahahahahahahahha. Kade Simpson. Good for a laugh this morning Mike.

 

[Lazyboy]

Yes I watched them, so you're wrong on the first front (the age old 'clearly you weren't watching x or y game' is always an indication of just how lacking in real material the belittler is).

I'll admit as much as Thomas playing the best he's played his whole career, and his skills came to the fore under pressure in tight spaces, but the majority of his possession was still easy ball, and the majority of his season remains at a very good, but not elite, standard.

lol your funny, when was the last time a dogs player smashed it in 2 consecutive GF?

He is easily elite, and a dominant big game player.

 

[AG]

I'm never too fussed about the order of players because they are close enough to where they should be but not having Bartel, Cooney, Cross or Watson in the top 50 is a bit weird. They had better years than half of the list.

 

[Kings Army]

Not too bad, people will whinge regardless e.g. the guy complaining that Lake isn't 3 spots higher.

Selwood's a bit too high, as is Thomas and Kelly could easily have been Cooney, but apart from that his top 20 isn't too bad. Watson should clearly have featured somewhere in the top 50 though, that is his major blemish.

I'd personally have Sandilands a bit higher and Riewoldt lower, but it's essentially just nitpicking. I would have liked some sort of justification on each position though, it's obvious he was influenced fairly strongly by the finals campaign.

Why is Watson a blemish? His kicking skills is not close to AFL level. I actually could not count on one hand players with worse kicking skills than him.

 

[Syphoncom]

 

[Jock]

Thomas top 10 is embarrassing for Mike - Should be late 20's.

 

[FRUMPY]

Thomas at 9 was the biggest shock. Had his best season by far and two ripper GF's but still would be 20-30 in my top 50. There a at least that many players who had better years than him.

I think some players are overated/underated because mike judge's them on previous years. Daisy had his best season, gets number 9, bartell has a quieter season yet probably as good as daisy and doesnt make top 50.

As for Carlton players, Judd is about right, good to see simpson get recgnised for a consistent season. The only player i thought could have been unlucky would be Jordan Russell. Was very consistent as a rebounding HBF and could have snuck into the top 50.

 

[Igloo]

If Daisy is at number 9, why is Griffen at 39? The stats that are listed there for both of them are pretty much identical, but Thomas takes 3 more marks a game, but Griffen kicked 15 more goals...

I know Thomas had a good 2 grand finals, but the 3 finals Griffen played this year he played great. Probably 2nd best on against Collingwood (behind Swan), when we got smashed by like 60 points. Was our best in all of them.

 

[Belnakor]

How on earth is Sandilands no.12

 

[Thommo 42]

Against Collingwood, Griffen turned it over something like 11 of his first 14 disposals. He may have got alot of footy, but he wasn't very good that night.

Having said that, 39 is WAY too low for Griffen.

Mike seems to have declared this is based on 2010 form only, but made allowances for a few players who weren't all that good in 2010.

Thomas shouldn't be higher than Pendles, Selwood is way too high at 4. Jack is a touch high at 10, Dal Santo way too high at 21, Enright too high at 16 etc etc

 

[cannons]

Thomas at 9? Selwood at 4?

Farcical effort.

 

[thekelvin]

Good to see the Frenchman slip in at number 31

Good to see, but he's been underrated. Should be top 20.

 

[AG]

LeCras would be overrated in the top 20. A lot of his season is ranked off the Essendon game so he was good without being dominant in the other 21 games. I'd have him 40ish.

This happens every year with 'player from my team should be higher' but overall the list isn't that bad. The order of players is pretty hard to do, so the only real mistake imo is not having Bartel, Cooney, Cross and Watson on the list.

 

[Igloo]

Against Collingwood, Griffen turned it over something like 11 of his first 14 disposals. He may have got alot of footy, but he wasn't very good that night.

Having said that, 39 is WAY too low for Griffen.

Mike seems to have declared this is based on 2010 form only, but made allowances for a few players who weren't all that good in 2010.

Against Collingwood, our team was getting mauled. As im sure you recall . Griffen was the only one for us going in to get the ball, and then he just had to clear the ball by kicking it, and try to get some forward momentum. The kicks that he actually tried to kick to someone were not turnovers. He was very good that night.

And I agree with you, he has seemed to give a few allowances based on last years performances.

 

[Thommo 42]

Example:

Matty Scarlett at #33 based on 2010. Who is Mike kidding?

He omits N.Reiwolt because he only played 15 games. Yet Scarlett only played 18 and none of them were anywhere near as good as about 5 or 6 of the games N.Reiwolt produced.

Scarlett is in there for past deeds, nothing surer. Mike is not consistent with his methodology if Scarlett can make it and N.Reiwolt can't, Scarlett was below average this year.

 

[Willo #6]

I'm never too fussed about the order of players because they are close enough to where they should be but not having Bartel, Cooney, Cross or Watson in the top 50 is a bit weird. They had better years than half of the list.

This.

 

[Igloo]

Example:

Matty Scarlett at #33 based on 2010. Who is Mike kidding?

He omits N.Reiwolt because he only played 15 games. Yet Scarlett only played 18 and none of them were anywhere near as good as about 5 or 6 of the games N.Reiwolt produced.

Scarlett is in there for past deeds, nothing surer. Mike is not consistent with his methodology if Scarlett can make it and N.Reiwolt can't, Scarlett was below average this year.

Spot on

 

[Zeke]

Mike was bound to throw a surprise Pie up high.

Guaranteed to get people talking.

 

[Invigoration]

Why is Watson a blemish? His kicking skills is not close to AFL level. I actually could not count on one hand players with worse kicking skills than him.

Because he was easily one of the top 50 players in the league, I thought that would be pretty self-explanatory to be honest...

Hope you've got room for Brady Rawlings on that one hand.

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

No Cooney, no Bartel

 

[MightyMark]

Bemused at the fact that Cross and watson couldnt make the 50 as well as the fact that Dale Thomas was top 10, good year, his best yet but top 10? are you kidding? Sandi should be top 10, Pendles should be top 10 not Daisy.
And why is Boyd at 36 easily had a better year than the likes of Mundy, Goodes, Brown, Scarlett (who shouldn't be in the top 50, I mean c'mon, 18 games and not nearly at his best).
And why isn't Reiwoldt in there, still dominated in 12 of his 15 games, more than most of the others on the list.
I honestly reckon that when Mike sheahan puts these lists toghether he wants to create controversy.

 

[Higs]

Daisy was not better than Sandilands

 

[AG]

I'd say no doubt he wants to create controversy because yesterday the heading for the article was 'Watson misses out on top 50'. If it was a legit list you'd think it would just say 'Mike Sheahan's top 50'.

 

[MightyMark]

Its a shame he has to omit high achieving players and deserving players just to sell a few papers, kinda feel for Watson, what more does he have to do?

Also I honestly feel like i'm one of a select few that thought Cross had an awesome season, he never seems to get any praise. Am I wrong to think this was one of his better seasons?