Mike Sheahan's Top 50

[soupman]

Re: Mike Sheahan's Top 50

I haven't taken an interest in these tihngs for 3-4 years now but isn't Mike's Top 50 not based on last year but who he thinks will be the top 50 at the end of the 2009 season?

Yep. Thats exactly right. So thats why players like Dale Thomas are ranked higher than a Robert Murphy, and also why Ryan Griffen makes it.

The list at the moment is really quite meaningless, but at the end of the year when the players can be ranked more accurately it serves as a good comparism, kind of like a phantom draft and the real thing.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Mike Sheahan's Top 50

Yep. Thats exactly right. So thats why players like Dale Thomas are ranked higher than a Robert Murphy, and also why Ryan Griffen makes it.

The list at the moment is really quite meaningless, but at the end of the year when the players can be ranked more accurately it serves as a good comparism, kind of like a phantom draft and the real thing.

Still meaningless if Dale Thomas is rated to have a better year than Robert Murphy!

And if what you say is true, then Darren Glass being on the list is completely meaningless. He will be a non-factor by the end of this year. If we were going on potential, Hargrave and Lake are poised to have far better years than a West Coast veteran.

The reality is Sheahan works directly off reputation than any serious analysis.

[always right]

Re: Mike Sheahan's Top 50

Looks like a stuff-up by someone at the Herald Sun. Dale thomas doesn't appear on the list in the print product and isn't on the on-line version either. I can only assume he appeared on an earlier version of the on-line list.

I also note that he has Enright at 33 in the newspaper but Ottens appears in that spot on-line.

It's difficult to put the list together when you think that the average number of players each team should have is 3 (in theory), Hard to make a case however for Birchall to be in ahead of Gilbee and not be able to squeeze Murph in ahead of about half a dozen others.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Mike Sheahan's Top 50

10. Scarlett

Way too high.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Mike Sheahan's Top 50

Cooney 13th? Brownlow Medalist, best of 2008 doesnt make top 10?

Im a Sheehan fan and without being biased Cooney deserves a spot over someone like Pavlich or Brown..

[always right]

Re: Mike Sheahan's Top 50

Cooney 13th? Brownlow Medalist, best of 2008 doesnt make top 10?

Im a Sheehan fan and without being biased Cooney deserves a spot over someone like Pavlich or Brown..

nah...I think Cooney is about right. Morris is a little suprising but cetainly deserves to be in the top 50. Griffen is a speculative one but personally I'd have Murph ahead of him even if Griff has enourmous potential.

[The Underdog]

Re: Mike Sheahan's Top 50

Cooney 13th? Brownlow Medalist, best of 2008 doesnt make top 10?

Im a Sheehan fan and without being biased Cooney deserves a spot over someone like Pavlich or Brown..

Sorry you're being biased. Pavlich and Brown deserve to be ahead of him. I couldn't argue with where he's placed in the 50. He was only the top player of 2008 according to the umpires and I'm not about to start respecting their opinions now.

This thing is done to sell papers and cause debate. I'm sure Mike would be disappointed if he didn't at least get a couple of thousand complaints. There is absoloutely no need to take it seriously. It doesn't mean or change anything.

[Scraggers]

Re: Mike Sheahan's Top 50

Thanks Scraggers - I was just testing to see if anyone picked that up.

No problems ... I thought with the economic cut backs Mike Sheahan could only afford a top 48 this year

[Rocket Science]

Re: Mike Sheahan's Top 50

??? Why?
Cos he plays for Collingwood?

Yeah...in keeping with my demonstrated partiality to the Pies.

If McVeigh deserves a gig then a comparable argument can be made for Davis also, along with a group of others who were omitted but who likewise had a strong 2008, but wouldn't otherwise warrant serious consideration prior to their elevated play last season.

That's the major flaw in the list...is it blokes who've consistently put runs on the board over the past few seasons but might have plateaued?...is it blokes who suddenly broke out last year?...or is it blokes who project to break out this season?...It looks like a hackneyed mish mash of all three.

While I'm at it, those rankled by the inclusion of Thomas (which is justified) should be similarly rankled about Griff getting a gig...both tantalizing talents but haven't achieved much, to date.

[Mantis]

Re: Mike Sheahan's Top 50

While I'm at it, those rankled by the inclusion of Thomas (which is justified) should be similarly rankled about Griff getting a gig...both tantalizing talents but haven't achieved much, to date.

To be fair to Griffen he was a standout for us in the finals, but agree his selection in this list is based on his potential rather than his achievements thus far.

I would be hoping come the end of the 09 that Griffen would be placed firmly inside Mike's top 20.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Re: Mike Sheahan's Top 50

McVeigh is a very good player - didn;t he kick 6 against us in Canberra

Thompson is a major ommission

The logic behind Sheahans list isn't clear - does he rate them on potential or where they are at now, it seems he does a bit of both, which makes the logic hard to follow

[hujsh]

Re: Mike Sheahan's Top 50

Neither Griffin nor Thomas are in the top 50 players in the comp. Maybe someday they will be but they are certainly not now.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Re: Mike Sheahan's Top 50

Didn't Mike put a few posts in on WOOF a while ago?
Mike?
Are you out there?
MIIIIIIIKKKKEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

[lemmon]

Re: Mike Sheahan's Top 50

Daniel Cross, Scott Thompson and David Hille are the big ommisions for me. 2 BnF winners and a very good midfielder.

[KT31]

Re: Mike Sheahan's Top 50

Sorry you're being biased. Pavlich and Brown deserve to be ahead of him. I couldn't argue with where he's placed in the 50. He was only the top player of 2008 according to the umpires and I'm not about to start respecting their opinions now.

This thing is done to sell papers and cause debate. I'm sure Mike would be disappointed if he didn't at least get a couple of thousand complaints. There is absoloutely no need to take it seriously. It doesn't mean or change anything.

Agree on Brown, but Pavlich ,although has heaps of ability, only performs when his team is in front.
And for this reason should be lower or not on the listya at all.
Cross,Lake and Gilbee stiff on missing a spot.