Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Enrico_Misso wrote:Anyone who was at THE 1989 Carlton game will tell you it not only has to be in there, but needs to be in the number 1 spot.
I'd have to agree, Enrico. Just watched the last quarter again on YouTube.
I'm still astonished all these years later that Lockett didn't get the three Brownlow votes. They went to little Brett Bowey who played a handy game, but hardly spectacular or match-winning.
I mean 10.7 on the fullback of the century, including the match-winner with 40 seconds to go. What were the umpires thinking?
It was the definitive best afield FFS. You can't get more best on ground than that. Extraordinary stuff.
Bob Pratt didn't even win his clubs best and fairest when he kicked 150 goals in a year. Also I'm unsure the umpires knew Silvagni was FB of the century back then. Maybe the umpires thought he missed to many to get BOG.
Maybe the umpires were just plain stupid. I was there, I'll go with stupid. And that's being generous.
Enrico_Misso wrote:Anyone who was at THE 1989 Carlton game will tell you it not only has to be in there, but needs to be in the number 1 spot.
I'd have to agree, Enrico. Just watched the last quarter again on YouTube.
I'm still astonished all these years later that Lockett didn't get the three Brownlow votes. They went to little Brett Bowey who played a handy game, but hardly spectacular or match-winning.
I mean 10.7 on the fullback of the century, including the match-winner with 40 seconds to go. What were the umpires thinking?
It was the definitive best afield FFS. You can't get more best on ground than that. Extraordinary stuff.
Bob Pratt didn't even win his clubs best and fairest when he kicked 150 goals in a year. Also I'm unsure the umpires knew Silvagni was FB of the century back then. Maybe the umpires thought he missed to many to get BOG.
Maybe the umpires were just plain stupid. I was there, I'll go with stupid. And that's being generous.
Funny that when awards are given by the media that there are many different winners. maybe we let the public vote. I'm sure the umps get a few wrong but so does everyone else because its opinion. Obviously this game the opinion looks wrong. I don't think Saints supporters should complain about Plugger brownlow voting. He won a brownlow with less goals than many other forwards kicked.
don't think Saints supporters should complain about Plugger brownlow voting. He won a brownlow with less goals than any other forwards kicked.
I saw every game in Plugger's Brownlow year and would have to say it was thoroughly deserved. He probably won six games off his own boot and dominated games like no other full forward has, before or since. That Is why he remains the only full forward to win the Brownlow. For once, the umpires got something right
don't think Saints supporters should complain about Plugger brownlow voting. He won a brownlow with less goals than any other forwards kicked.
I saw every game in Plugger's Brownlow year and would have to say it was thoroughly deserved. He probably won six games off his own boot and dominated games like no other full forward has, before or since. That Is why he remains the only full forward to win the Brownlow. For once, the umpires got something right
Did you see Hudsons year when he got 150 or Dunstall when he got about 145? I'm guessing they had many games they won off their own boot. My point stands. It isn't only umpires who have different views of best players in games otherwise every media award would have the same winners.
Obviously no point in having the SS weekly BOG because we should all have the same votes.
mcadam05 wrote:Wow no one has mentioned this game yet!
I did, but only as a game we won after the siren. That game was a beauty. Could not see that win coming - classic case of one side stopping while the other team kept chugging along. Very talented side. Hall's goal went over my head at the Ponsford Stand end. Wonky old kick it was too - thought we were cooked just before the siren when Milney's shot hit the post. It may have been the last thing Hall did for us, but it was aces.
Remember in the pub after the game Bruce Eva led a rendition of "I Do Want To Be Beside The Seaside" - 'for all the old-time Saint Kilda supporters among us'.
I saw every game in Plugger's Brownlow year and would have to say it was thoroughly deserved. He probably won six games off his own boot and dominated games like no other full forward has, before or since. That Is why he remains the only full forward to win the Brownlow. For once, the umpires got something right[/quote]
Without entering into any debate about the difficulty and subjectivity of voting - which is one of the charms of our game - and as to whether other full forwards deserved Brownlows- I agree with Big Carl that Plugger had an amazing year in 1987. He did not have the luxury of being spoon fed by a dominating midfield. His 12 goals out of 14 in a loss to Melbourne early in the season remains one of the truly extraordinary performances of all time. He had to battle scragging defenders - yet received only 11 frees for the year and 65 against ( which did tend to frustrate the big man from time to time ). In that team, 117 goals was a wonderful effort. Mind you, his first nine games of 1989( 9,10,8, 5, 5, 6, 6, 9, 12) before he swatted Guy McKenna in front of the Huggins Stand , got 4 weeks then did a groin playing for Vics) was even better. I still wonder what might have been had he played the full season.
don't think Saints supporters should complain about Plugger brownlow voting. He won a brownlow with less goals than any other forwards kicked.
I saw every game in Plugger's Brownlow year and would have to say it was thoroughly deserved. He probably won six games off his own boot and dominated games like no other full forward has, before or since. That Is why he remains the only full forward to win the Brownlow. For once, the umpires got something right
Did you see Hudsons year when he got 150 or Dunstall when he got about 145? I'm guessing they had many games they won off their own boot. My point stands. It isn't only umpires who have different views of best players in games otherwise every media award would have the same winners.
Obviously no point in having the SS weekly BOG because we should all have the same votes.
I think this is because the ball has to get down to them, and the ball has to be delivered to them so that they have a chance of marking it. Obviously the supply must be very good for them to be able to kick that many goals and the midfielders who get the ball down to them having to not only win the ball and make space for themselves , but be able to dispose of the ball by hand or foot skilfully. For forwards to get that much purchase on the footy relies on midfielders having at least a very reasonable day themselves, making it possible for them to rack up some seriously impressive Brownlow votes in the process.
While Dunstall was certainly a good full forward he also had good quality supply, and also quantity.
With Plugga he mainly had very poor supply (Winmar a notable exception) and quantity was also less.
Also with Plugga he was in a poor team at the Saints and opposition coaches could and did play 2, 3 and even 4 (Sheedy in a Dons game) opponents on him which is a measure on how opposition coaches rated him. Dunstall did not have to worry about such odds. Even at the Swans Lockett had multiple opponents.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
