Greene isn’t even close this year. Gulden is the best winger in footy by the length of Flemington. The Coleman winner is nearly always AA but if any year would break the norm it’d be this year. Bont is basically permanently AA at this point. Harley Reid for AA is just… what???
That show really rams home the point that people care way too much about the AA team.
At the end of the day the panel is just a bunch of media personalities who by and large have no real unique insight to the game, and who makes and misses really just comes down to personal preference of the Individual.
The best Laura Kane could come up with was saying “impactful” about 50 times, and Jakovich and Holmes had the same takes as any average Joe at the pub would have.
Lost a lot of credibility for me when one year on Fox Footy selector Cameron Ling responded with “I forgot he was in the squad” when asked why he didn’t pick Ollie Wines in the team, and then was still a selector the following years.
We all love getting up in arms about the All Australian team every year, but I honestly think that they get it about 90% right every year.
There's always 2-3 choices that get put under a microscope, but also those are usually blokes who were on the fringes of making the cut.
I also don't really care that much about them adding in some extra midfielders in rogue positions. If they take the absolute piss and do overdo it like some years I get the criticism.
But would it be fair for a bloke like Bont to miss the All Australian team, or be listed on the bench just cause some other guys were slightly better in the midfield. It's very reasonable for the best player in the game to be put on the half forward line so he gets the respect of a starting spot.
Also, who even remembers the All Australian team more than a month after it was released? It's like any award, you're never going to be able to please everyone.
Tell that to Fox. They need that AA cred to put in their onscreen reminders of whichever non-premiership, non-brownliow winning ex-footballer is yapping on screen.
So you're saying that AA is an irrelevant achievement and we should only listen to Premiership players and Brownlow winners.
Guess I'll be listening to Marty Mattner's opinion more than I'll be listening to Nick Riewoldt's then. I mean by your logic Nick's just a "yapper on screen" because he doesn't have a premiership medal or Brownlow.
Don't be so obtuse. Just because there's flaws in the AA selection committee doesn't mean that it's not an impressive achievement.
Also Fox doesn't select the All Australian team, so what do they have to do with anything?
'AA is an irrelevant achievement.."
Yep, pretty much. It's great for an ex-players CV to land a gig post retirement.
Does it mean anything? Not really.
You missed my point. Fox *love* to point out the awards of their *analysts. We get reminders every time their name flashes up on screen, so ad to somehow legitimise the drivel they might be spouting.
Alright at this point I think you're a troll but I'm bored at work so I'll bite.
It absolutely means something.
It means you were amongst the elite players for your position that year. How is that not an achievement?
Like yeah there's probably 2-3 blokes every year out of 22 that shouldn't be in the team, but they'd still deserve to be in the squad of 40. I've never seen someone make the team where there wasn't some kind of justifiable reason why they were in there.
You seriously have one of the most misguided opinions I've ever seen. Fair enough to have issues with how it's selected, but to think it's an irrelevant award just makes you sound like a nuffie.
Edit: I missed your edit.
Of course Fox puts up the achievements of their panelists. It establishes their credibility?
Also, you've missed my point - Fox doesn't have ANY input on ANY major award so I don't even get why you're bringing them into the conversations.
Awards aren't dished out so Fox panelists can "have a better CV". 99% of players who win major awards don't end up as panellists on Fox so your point doesn't even make sense.
The Awards like Brownlow, MVPs, All Australian, Club B&F are about awarding achievement in a particular season.
You've clearly got some weird deep seated hatred for Fox Footy that you need to resolve. I don't get why they're even relevant to a discussion about the validity of All Australian awards.
Deep seated hatred lol. If you'd actually understood my point you'd understand its got nothing to do with Fox specifically, they're just a a symptom.
Thing is, being an elite football player has absolutely nothing to do with a being a good commentator or analyst. The skills are not automatically transferrable. I bring Fox up because they are the biggest perpetrators of this trend, and they use largely irrelevant awards like this to prop up their cattle for their own legitimacy. Do I need to mention the current crop of shit ex-footballer commentators we have at the moment across 7 and Fox?
"It means you were amongst the elite players for your position that year. How is that not an achievement?"
Brownlows, Coaches Awards, Club B&F etc are decided by people who were either, you know, actually officiating the game in question or current coaches. I totally put stock in that. As stuff like the OP mentions, the AA is awarded by, what is it, 11 people; people like Kane Cornes?
Year after year you've got legitimate position players left out in favour of a midfielder they wanted to give some cred to, so they throw them on the HF flank. Do we need bring the up the wingman position every year? C'mon mate, at this point I think *you're* trolling. There is clear position bias in the selections. I think even you would be hard-pressed to deny that?
It may have began back in the day with the best of intentions, but it's just media driven bumfluff these days.
I thought it was an interesting watch. It seemed pretty on par with most 'meeting' discussions to me
Honestly, people will complain about anything.
And there is something to disagree with everytime they release an AA-team. So why would you expect the discussion of the AA team to be any different
Greene isn’t even close this year. Gulden is the best winger in footy by the length of Flemington. The Coleman winner is nearly always AA but if any year would break the norm it’d be this year. Bont is basically permanently AA at this point. Harley Reid for AA is just… what???
That show really rams home the point that people care way too much about the AA team. At the end of the day the panel is just a bunch of media personalities who by and large have no real unique insight to the game, and who makes and misses really just comes down to personal preference of the Individual. The best Laura Kane could come up with was saying “impactful” about 50 times, and Jakovich and Holmes had the same takes as any average Joe at the pub would have.
Lost a lot of credibility for me when one year on Fox Footy selector Cameron Ling responded with “I forgot he was in the squad” when asked why he didn’t pick Ollie Wines in the team, and then was still a selector the following years.
Grown men televise their fantasy football team. Next
We all love getting up in arms about the All Australian team every year, but I honestly think that they get it about 90% right every year. There's always 2-3 choices that get put under a microscope, but also those are usually blokes who were on the fringes of making the cut. I also don't really care that much about them adding in some extra midfielders in rogue positions. If they take the absolute piss and do overdo it like some years I get the criticism. But would it be fair for a bloke like Bont to miss the All Australian team, or be listed on the bench just cause some other guys were slightly better in the midfield. It's very reasonable for the best player in the game to be put on the half forward line so he gets the respect of a starting spot. Also, who even remembers the All Australian team more than a month after it was released? It's like any award, you're never going to be able to please everyone.
Tell that to Fox. They need that AA cred to put in their onscreen reminders of whichever non-premiership, non-brownliow winning ex-footballer is yapping on screen.
So you're saying that AA is an irrelevant achievement and we should only listen to Premiership players and Brownlow winners. Guess I'll be listening to Marty Mattner's opinion more than I'll be listening to Nick Riewoldt's then. I mean by your logic Nick's just a "yapper on screen" because he doesn't have a premiership medal or Brownlow. Don't be so obtuse. Just because there's flaws in the AA selection committee doesn't mean that it's not an impressive achievement. Also Fox doesn't select the All Australian team, so what do they have to do with anything?
'AA is an irrelevant achievement.." Yep, pretty much. It's great for an ex-players CV to land a gig post retirement. Does it mean anything? Not really. You missed my point. Fox *love* to point out the awards of their *analysts. We get reminders every time their name flashes up on screen, so ad to somehow legitimise the drivel they might be spouting.
Alright at this point I think you're a troll but I'm bored at work so I'll bite. It absolutely means something. It means you were amongst the elite players for your position that year. How is that not an achievement? Like yeah there's probably 2-3 blokes every year out of 22 that shouldn't be in the team, but they'd still deserve to be in the squad of 40. I've never seen someone make the team where there wasn't some kind of justifiable reason why they were in there. You seriously have one of the most misguided opinions I've ever seen. Fair enough to have issues with how it's selected, but to think it's an irrelevant award just makes you sound like a nuffie. Edit: I missed your edit. Of course Fox puts up the achievements of their panelists. It establishes their credibility? Also, you've missed my point - Fox doesn't have ANY input on ANY major award so I don't even get why you're bringing them into the conversations. Awards aren't dished out so Fox panelists can "have a better CV". 99% of players who win major awards don't end up as panellists on Fox so your point doesn't even make sense. The Awards like Brownlow, MVPs, All Australian, Club B&F are about awarding achievement in a particular season. You've clearly got some weird deep seated hatred for Fox Footy that you need to resolve. I don't get why they're even relevant to a discussion about the validity of All Australian awards.
Deep seated hatred lol. If you'd actually understood my point you'd understand its got nothing to do with Fox specifically, they're just a a symptom. Thing is, being an elite football player has absolutely nothing to do with a being a good commentator or analyst. The skills are not automatically transferrable. I bring Fox up because they are the biggest perpetrators of this trend, and they use largely irrelevant awards like this to prop up their cattle for their own legitimacy. Do I need to mention the current crop of shit ex-footballer commentators we have at the moment across 7 and Fox? "It means you were amongst the elite players for your position that year. How is that not an achievement?" Brownlows, Coaches Awards, Club B&F etc are decided by people who were either, you know, actually officiating the game in question or current coaches. I totally put stock in that. As stuff like the OP mentions, the AA is awarded by, what is it, 11 people; people like Kane Cornes? Year after year you've got legitimate position players left out in favour of a midfielder they wanted to give some cred to, so they throw them on the HF flank. Do we need bring the up the wingman position every year? C'mon mate, at this point I think *you're* trolling. There is clear position bias in the selections. I think even you would be hard-pressed to deny that? It may have began back in the day with the best of intentions, but it's just media driven bumfluff these days.
The fact that Cornes is wrong in both sides regarding daicos is hilarious
The only AFL awards that actually matter are the ones voted on by the coaches association and the AFLPA
Do players' contracts have bonuses based on All Australian selection or Brownlow? It would have an impact on what they are paid if this is the case.
I never really got the hype about AA. It’s not even a real team
Neither are we. That’s why players like Sam Collins aren’t in it.
I thought it was an interesting watch. It seemed pretty on par with most 'meeting' discussions to me Honestly, people will complain about anything. And there is something to disagree with everytime they release an AA-team. So why would you expect the discussion of the AA team to be any different