During his morning program on SEN, a talkback caller asked Kevin Bartlett what he thought about players from an AFL premiership winning team receiving a medallion even if they didn’t play on the day.
The caller made a somewhat valid point. Throughout a season there is usually half a dozen or so players keep the team winning while key players may be missing through injury or suspension. These players have contributed to the team success and should be rewarded.
There are other sports that reward the entire team, not just those who partake in the finals.
I remember watching the Perth Wildcats win their last NBL championship and Paul Rogers collecting a championship ring even though he missed the majority of the season through injury and didn’t play at all during the finals. Development players who were on the Wildcats bench – dressed to play – didn’t receive a ring.
While on basketball, the NBA recognise every player who was a member of a title winning squad as an NBA champion regardless of how many minutes they played (or didn’t) throughout the season, playoffs and finals.
Australia’s own Andrew Gaze is considered an NBA champion with the 1998-99 San Antonio Spurs. Gaze wasn’t on the playoff roster due to injury, but still has a ring and is recognised as a champion. This isn’t a knock on Gaze – to make it to the NBA is an achievement in itself and no one can deny what Gaze has done throughout his entire career.
Should it be the same with AFL? What about injured players who miss out on a premiership team but have been strong contributors throughout the season, like Tony Modra with Adelaide in 1997?
Then there are players who play the majority of the season and finals but don’t make the final 22 of the decider – think Derek Kickett at Essendon in 1993.
In his response, Bartlett said he didn’t know how much value a player would put on a medallion if he wasn’t playing on the day and used former Magpie Leon Davis as an example.
Davis received a 2010 premiership medal for Collingwood after playing in the drawn Grand Final but missed out on the replay a week later due to form. For the history books he is considered a premiership player even though he didn’t play on the day the Magpies won the flag.
Personally, I think the AFL has it right. Only the 22 players who take part on the day should be considered premiership players.
Again, like basketball, the AFL should look at awarding the immediate assistant coaches a premiership medallion. Their contribution on Grand Final day is significant enough to warrant such recognition.
Fierce competition for spots, injuries and form are all factors of sport and as for players, only those who make up the best 22 on the day should be rewarded.
LuJaMe
Guest
Same thing happened to me. Played every game for the year including finals and was dropped half an hour before the grand final, due to an injured player (who had been out with a knee injury for the majority of the year) declaring he was fit to play. I wasn't the greatest player but I was there every week putting in my all. They went on to win the game with so called injured player spending 95% on the bench. I never strapped on a pair of boots again. Now you tell me, who deserved that medal more? The bloke who spent the entire season busting his gut to get a win for his team or the obviously still injured player who walked away a part of history? In my opinion, if you're out on that traing track each week, giving it your all and pushing your team mates to achieve more, you deserve a medal. This 22 on the day is something of the past.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
"Should a sub, who doesn’t play get a medal? Fanciful scenario, i know. " Not a sub, they didn't exist, but Mooney never took to the field for North in the 1999 GF but got a medal.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I'm fine with that, however I fear that could lead to a lessening in prestige of making the GF, and the premiership itself. I don't want a situation where becoming champions is more prestigious than making (but losing) the GF.
FootyWiffaJ
Guest
Yep I do actually agree now I think about it. The naming can be reversed. The season could be called the championship. The team that finished on top gets called the champions. The finals get called the premiership and the winner of the grand final are the premiers.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I fully agree with that. Just as players no longer want runner-up medals, I doubt the Matthew Egans and Tony Modras of the world want a premiership medal. It would simply remind them that they actually missed the premiership.
Matt F
Roar Guru
I think that's fair enough. It might be harsh on some players but it does make it very simple. If we extend it further than the 22 GF players then how far do we extend it?
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I completely agree with you, until you talked about renaming the Premiers. The Premiers are the team which wins the premiership, and IMO, that must never change.
Glenn
Guest
Thing is, it isn't black and white. Players who just missed out but had a big part to play during the season deserve one if their team wouldn't have been as strong without them. Obviously they were good enough to win the GF, but that's a one off game and everyone would have lifted. During the Olympics, John Casey said something about the NBA title to Andrew Gaze. Gaze laughed it off, and said something along the lines of "Well, yeah, I've got one", as if to say, 'I didn't really win it'. I'm sure Gaze would rate playing in the NBA as a highlight of his career, but all of his achievements in Australia would easily outweigh his 'championship ring'. And that's what it would be like for a lot of AFL players. Some clubs play around 30-35 players in a season and those bottom 5-10 who only played a handful of games in the middle of the season would more than likely view a grand final win as a win for their mates who played in the game and for the club. How many of the better players have said over the years that their GF medal is in a drawer at home or in the cupboard at their parents house?
Kevin
Guest
^ +1 We need to value the extreme effort of playing well for 20 odd rounds......playing injured, playing tired etc etc, not resting players cause your happy to finish top 4 etc
FootyWiffaJ
Guest
I think the whole end of season should be re-jigged. The Brownlow should move to Monday night after the home and away season. At the Brownlow, the McClelland trophy should be presented to the team that finishes on top and medals should be given to any player that played for that team throughout the year. All presented on the same night. Season highlights shown etc. We should make an effort to celebrate the winner of the home and away season - they should be called the Premiers. The Coleman medal can be presented, the rising star and any other award that is presented for the home and away season. I like the idea of separating the home and away season from the finals like this too. As for grand final medals I think that only the players on the day should receive a medal. Its a grand final medal, but something like a champion trophy, medallion or ring should be awarded to every player that had a part in the finals series. They can present the players medals and trophies at the start, then after that the rest of the finals participants can be presented with just trophies. The winner of the grand final should be called the Champions therefore defining a difference between Premiers and Champions and home and away vs finals.
Pillock
Roar Rookie
You have to stick with the 22 on game day. It's harsh and admittedly some bad luck stories but where does it end, a player with 10 games during the regular season, or is it 12? Do you think a player who plays all year then misses the GF would feel any better with a medal? It would be a token.
Richo
Guest
There are a couple of heart breaking stories. Tony Modra as you state is the prime example. Another one is Mathew Egan from Geelong-All Australian CHB in 2007 broke his foot in the final round in a dead rubber game and never played again. Derek Kickett in 1993 is another that springs to mind. Giving every play on the list a medal is unfair and absurd in my view. Giving it to players who have made a "significant" contribution is perhaps a better approach but you would need clear guidlines on what that meant. Perhaps a minimum games played quota, like the one that exists at suburban level would be the answer.
Max
Guest
Very true dingo. Their whole footballing life culminates into that one moment and the journey there should at least be recognised in the way of a premiership medal if his/(her) team goes on to win the big one. I'm not sure if rewarding the whole list is the option as Mr. Pick no 129 who made a cameo in round 7 due to injuries to fill the spot and touched the pill twice and kicked a behind shouldn't be included but mind you, if that same person was put in the finals, all of a sudden those contributions become a hell of a lot more valuable and hence deserve a medal. Great idea, not sure if the AFL is keen on it though, they seem to laugh at anything that contradicts history.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
It's an interesting one. Very personal. A bloke I know ( no really ) played ever game in the season for his club and got dropped for the GF. He left training that night never to return. They won comfortably. Of course you can do that at minor club level on the big stage it's a bit different. I remember Sarah Ryan cradling her gold medal disconsolately after she'd unexpectedly been dropped for Petria Thomas for the 4 x 100 free , when the by jingo Aussie media interview all six heat and final swimmers in 2004. At the same games Brooke Hansen bravely beamed when she was overlooked for grumpy Liesel for 4 x 100 medley, even though Brooke had beaten Liesel in the Individual 100m breast.
The Cattery
Guest
I'm in favour of that - that seems a good compromise - if you were part of any team of 22 playing finals, you deserve a medal as well.
ChrisCantatore
Roar Rookie
That would be the case in the Tony Modra situation. In 1997 he was an All Australian and the Coleman Medalist- only to do an ACL in the preliminary final and miss the big one (and the majoirty of 1998). He isn't considered a premiership player but a valid argument could be made that the Crows may not have been there in the first place if it wasn't for him.
Dingo
Guest
At the very least any players who have contributed during the finals should be awarded a premiership medal. We hear AFL players talk about how winning a premiership is the most important thing for them during their career. So for a player to make a big contribution throughout the season only to be injured, say in a preliminary final would be a cruel blow in itself, then if his side won the G.F and his major contribution throughout the season to go unrecognised by way of a medallion is salt in the wound.
Mark Roth
Guest
I find anything less than the Olympic relay system to be unfair. The only way that the players who were on the field made it to the Grand Final in the first place was because of the efforts of everyone who played for the team throughout the entire year: star players injured in a preliminary final, subs who didn't play at all but where there ready to go if needed, that one guy who played in one game because of six other players being out, etc. Unless a team uses the same group of 22 players every minute of every game from start to finish, a lot more than the 22 man list on Grand Final day helped the team win the premiership.
josh
Guest
Should a sub, who doesn't play get a medal? Fanciful scenario, i know. I wouldn't begrudge players who play a minimum number of games getting a medal; its like the Olympics all the participants in a relay get a medal regardless if they actually competed in the final.