Luke Shuey for the Eagles is tackled by Alwyn Davey. AAP Image/Tony McDonough
Later today, a young AFL player, most likely Essendon’s Dyson Heppell or West Coast’s Luke Shuey, will be crowned the Rising Star for 2011. However, in recent years, it’s become clear the award has an unjust flaw. And until this fault is addressed and changed, the prestigious accolade will continue to be marred.
Don’t be mistaken – the concept of the award is a necessity for the AFL.
The Rising Star has become one of the most respected prizes in the league. A number of accomplished players, such as Nathan Buckley, Ben Cousins, Nick Riewoldt, Adam Goodes, Sam Mitchell and Joel Selwood, have all won it in the past.
For the past 20 years, the league has rewarded, encouraged and celebrated its elite youth. And it must continue to do that.
But the award’s terms and conditions need to be attended to. How Heppell – a 19-year-old in his first season – and Shuey – a 21-year-old in his third season – can be put in the same category is perplexing.
The criteria is puzzling and, in turn, unfair. For those who aren’t aware of how the system works, here’s a brief summary of how young players are nominated each week:
– At the conclusion of every round during the AFL home-and-away season, a standout young player is nominated for the Rising Star award.
– To be eligible to receive a nomination, a player must: be under the age of 21 on January 1 of that year, have played 10 or fewer senior games before Round 1 and not have been suspended during the season.
– At the end of the season, nine AFL personalities vote for five of the 22 nominees, with their top selections earning five votes. The player who receives the most votes is the winner.
Under those conditions, first-year players are immediately disadvantaged. A player who has been on a list for two or three years has an equal chance of winning as a player in their debut season.
Shuey’s currently in his third AFL season, meaning he’d already had two full pre-seasons with the Eagles before the first round.
Unlike Heppell, Shuey was prepared for both the physical and mental demands of AFL footy this season. He’d already been training with and learning off the likes of Daniel Kerr, Matt Priddis and Adam Selwood. As AFL pundit Gerard Healy put it on the Fox Sports website recently, Shuey had already learned ‘the set-ups, structures and expectations of the game at the highest level’.
It seems silly when a player of Shuey’s age and maturity is grouped with Heppell – or any first-year player.
Before 2011, Heppell, and all other first-year players, hadn’t been exposed to the nuances of AFL footy. Unlike Shuey, they hadn’t been training with and learning off AFL players in previous years. Instead they had trained with and played against kids the same age as them. They were fresh, raw and unsure of what to expect.
Yes it’s all well and good to be more inclusive to late starters. But the real young ones are up against it. And that’s not fair.
So what’s the solution? How do we equalise the prize?
Turn the ‘Rising Star’ into an award that exclusively recognises the best first-year player under 21.
Yes the talent pool will be narrowed. Yes young players in their second or third years, who might have suffered injuries or played just one game in their first year on an AFL list, will miss out on recognition.
Tough luck.
Balancing the award should take higher precedence than players in their second or third year who failed to make an impact first up.
And it’s not like the judges would have no talent to choose from.
If you applied the new system to this season’s class of young first-year players, the panel would have an array of impressive talent to choose from.
Heppell would be the obvious standout. But there would be solid competition from other Rising Star nominees in Zac Smith, David Swallow, Trent McKenzie, Jack Darling, Andrew Gaff, Alex Fasolo, Luke Dahlhaus and Jake Batchelor. And if you were to remove the older weekly nominees from this season, the likes of Tom Liberatore, Patrick Karnezis, Jack Gunston and Alex Johnson would only add more talent to the group.
This is far from a campaign against Shuey. He’s a class player and, under the current criteria and process, fully deserves to win the award today. He’s influenced more games and accumulated more goals, kicks, contested possessions, clearances, tackles, goal assists and inside 50’s than Heppell this season.
But due to age and maturity, there’s no doubt Shuey will have a distinct and inequitable advantage over Heppell when the judges vote later today. And that can’t continue.
Redb
Roar Guru
Congrats to Dyson Heppell of Essendon. :)
amazonfan
Roar Guru
The one thing that I would change is the suspension clause. I like that the Brownlow has 'fairest' criteria, and I wouldn't change that for all the riches in the world, but I don't see any reason why other awards need to have the same criteria.
will
Guest
The criteria is fair and had Shuey been playing for a Melbourne based club this "issue" would not even have been raised.
Tom Dimanis
Roar Pro
Heppell is a deserving winner of the award for 2011, however, I think Shuey was slightly ahead in terms of the influence he had in games. Another disadvatage for some players based outside of Victoria is that the panel which votes on the award is largely made up Victorians, so there may be a slight bias towards Victorian-based clubs. I'm sure this comment is sure to upset some people but it can't be dismissed!
kick to kick
Guest
Ill thought-through article in that any eligibility criteria will throw up anomolies. Based on the writer's proposed criteria, last year's winner Dan Hanneberry would have been ineligible. He was only 18 on the eligibility date of Jan 1 2010 - but he had played half a dozen games in 09 while still at school -commuting to Sydney for a few days at the end of the week. Had he been ruled out as too experienced there would have rightly been cries of foul - with greater justification than this year's suggestion that Shuey has an unfair advantage over Heppel.
Redb
Roar Guru
One of the problems with restricting the award to just first year players is often the kids only play a handful of games in their first year depending on the team. Too difficult to judge on a few games.
Matt F
Guest
I don't know if it's an Essendon bias but you're on the right path. The award has been won plenty of times by players in their 2nd or even 3rd season. The difference is that this season we have 2 players that are almost neck and neck whereas most rising star awards are pretty much walkovers e.g. Hannebery got a perfect score last year and a fair few others have also done that. You won't get that this year.
RC
Guest
Kick-ins actually don't count as a disposal unless you kick the ball to yourself, play-on and then dispose legally. Interesting that this issue has been brought up in the mainstream media this year when an Essendon player in Heppell is in contention and nothing was heard last year when Hanneberry, second year player in 2010, won against Melbourne first year players in Scully and Trengove.
John
Guest
Not sure why this is all of a sudden an issue this year? The Rising Star award is littered with winners who weren't in their first years of AFL. Nick Holland (1995) won in it his third season Nick Riewoldt (2002) won in his second year. Byron Pickett (1998) in his second year. Adam Goodes (1999) won in his debut year but had two pre-seasons under his belt. Sam Mitchell (2003) in his second year Danyle Pearce (2006) won Port's best first year player award in 2005, yet went on to win the 2006 Rising Star award due to his eligibility. And as mentioned, it was Dan Hannebery's (2010) second year of footy last season. Is it all of a sudden an issue now because the race is so close??
The Cattery
Roar Guru
When looked in isolation, the criteria seem fair enough to me. There might be an argument for lowering the elibility age from 21 to 20, i.e. must be under 20 on Jan 1 of each year, but otherwise, it works reasonably, and has a pretty good history of picking the rising stars. One anomaly that I see is that young Libba didn't even get a nomination this year, despite some excellent games in his debut season, and now that he has already played 10 games, he now becomes ineligible in the future, but it seems to me that in a system where there is one nomination per round, that sort of anomaly will occur from time to time.
Jack
Guest
This article sounds war too much like sour grapes to be taken seriously. Three injury plagued seasons does not sound like three full preseasons to me. Both these players are good enough to win and neither should have their award tarnished by this drivel. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Redb
Roar Guru
I haven't seen enough of Shuey to comment but no doubt West Coast fans rate him. I think the Rising Star is more than a possession count so kick ins or not it shouldn't matter.
Matt F
Guest
I'm guessing its because kick-ins are basically free possessions for whoever takes them and aren't quite as hard to earn as those from general play. Though as you said the fact that he doesn't take that many of them negates the original comment anyway. I'm tipping that Heppell will win though personally I think Schuey has been slightly better.
Matt F
Guest
I'm happy with it being the way it is. It seems harsh if a player gets a serious injury during pre-season and misses his whole first year and then can't be nominated. I also disagree about Schueys's perceived advantage in the award. It's very difficult to split their performances over the season and I suspect that if a judge has any doubts over who he thinks it better he will pick Hepple because he is a first year player. Also it realistically rules out any chance a KPP has of winning the award (which is slim to none anyway) as generally those positions require more physical strength etc and players in these positions take longer to debut because of it. Look at Hannebery who won it last season. He was a second year player who lived in Melbourne during his first season so he could finish school and only spent time at the Swans on weekends and during school holidays. I think it would have been very harsh to declare him ineligible, particularly given he was basically the same age as most first year players last season anyway.
Redb
Roar Guru
You cant watch many Essendon games, a host of players take the kick in. How this is in anyway relevant to Heppell's chances in the rishing star is beyond me. the kids a gem - but yes I'm probably too biased to judge. :)
Nathan of Perth
Guest
Well said
Redb
Roar Guru
Dyson Heppell for the Rising Star. Kid has played every week and has been outstanding off back for the Bombers, cool under pressure, finds the ball, good decision maker.
Dee
Guest
@grace Kelly Heppell dosnt take kick ins at all , and he does earn possesions if you watched him you'd no , but I do think shuey deserves to win.
Stuart Fazakerley
Roar Rookie
I disagree. The AFL already have an award for the best first-year player through the AFLPA. The Rising Star is, and should be, different. The Rising Star should recognise a breakout year for a young player, the year that player becomes elite. If anything, I'd tweak the eligibility rules to make them a bit more open, especially given the prevalence of mature-age rookies in modern footy. To restrict eligibility to a player's first year is doing a lot of young kids, those who don't play in their first year, or get injured, or who are only played once a team is out of contention, a massive disservice. Luke Shuey is a deserving nominee, and will be a deserving winner.
Grace Kelly
Guest
So by your reckoning if a kid is picked in the draft, and never plays that year at AFL level, for whatever reason he is deemed ineligible? What about what position a player is played in? Heppel takes most of the kick ins for Essendon, Shuey has to fight for possession? I think that it looks ok, the current system sounds fair, under 21 at the start of the season, less than 10 games. The kids from Gold Coast have been a bit disadvantaged this year, The suns might have lots of nominations because of the sheer numbers they had in the draft, but the team hasn't had the on field experience to enable their players to shine out for selection. Both Heppell and Sheuy are deserving candidates, will be happy to see either win, but to say that Shuey has an advantage because its his 3rd yr, when he played hardly any footy because of injury etc is not right.