Do it for Bucks

[Lonie_from_50]

Cept he froze up in a granny

35 touches in a Granny = Froze up...wonder what heated up is?

 

[doppleganger]

I knew you were an idiot but this just ices the cake. Voss is not a big game player?

They changed the Norm Smith voting rules in 2002 because most people were off the opinion that Voss had a larger influence (particularly in that last quarter). Unfortunately the votes were submitted before he turned it on and won the game.

Btw, how many Brisbane games have you seen? I'm tipping you haven't seen many. Voss was our greatest finals player since 1995.

Yes most people think that because brisbane won that Voss got them over the line. That is crap.

Buckley was the best player for the entire game.

So if aker misses his snap on goal, and taz kicks truly suddenly Buckley is more influential???

 

[doppleganger]

He actually thought they changed the rule so players of losing sides couldn't win it.

He knows his stuff.....

Never said that at all.

 

[doppleganger]

How was Michael Voss in the last few minutes of the game?
Make a rather significant impact or not, after the time the award was already decided?

And have you forgotten Chris Judd won a Norm Smith?

Could u inform me of how many times Voss touched the ball after the norm smith medal votes were already decided.

Also if you could provide a comparison with Buckley it would be most enlightening.

Yes Judd won a norm smith as he was the best player all day, just like Buckley was.

 

[doppleganger]

Your last statement is 100% true.

Bolded part needs some work. From memory he won only 1 norm smith?

Bolded part is correct

Buckley has been BOG in 2 of 3 GF's he has played in.

 

[Lonie_from_50]

Could u inform me of how many times Voss touched the ball after the norm smith medal votes were already decided.

Also if you could provide a comparison with Buckley it would be most enlightening.

Yes Judd won a norm smith as he was the best player all day, just like Buckley was.

I already have done that, and I can go find them if you like.

 

[doppleganger]

I already have done that, and I can go find them if you like.

I know u already posted quarter by quarter comparisons in another thread.

But Longy knows the breakdown after the votes were cast.

Not sure if you have this info but put em forward if you do.

 

[Lonie_from_50]

I have only got the last quarter statistics, reviewed and collected by myself from video.

[B][U]MICHAEL VOSS - 2002 GRAND FINAL - LAST QUARTER[/U]
Kicks	Eff%	Long%	H/Bs	Eff%	Disp[/B]
7	85.7	57.1	1	100	[B]8[/B]

[B]H/B Rec	LB Get	HB Get	Clear	CP	UP[/B]
5	0	1	0	2	6

[B]Mark	Cont	Spoil	1%er	Bnce	Tackle[/B]
2	1	0	0	1	1

[B]Goal	Beh	GA	SA	I50	R50[/B]
0	0	0	0	3	0

[B]Champion Data RP
48[/B]

[B][U]NATHAN BUCKLEY - 2002 GRAND FINAL - LAST QUARTER[/U]
Kicks	Eff%	Long%	H/Bs	Eff%	Disp[/B]
7	85.7	71.4	1	100	[B]8[/B]

[B]H/B Rec	LB Get	HB Get	Clear	CP	UP[/B]
2	1	6	1	4	4

[B]Mark	Cont	Spoil	1%er	Bnce	Tackle[/B]
1	0	1	1	1	0

[B]Goal	Beh	GA	SA	I50	R50[/B]
0	0	0	0	1	0

[B]Champion Data RP
57[/B]

This was in a thread similar to this, where the discussion lead to a comparison between the three greats. My observations are always the same, that Voss and Buckley are as good as each other, so don't think of any bias.

I quote myself on what I said in that thread, about Voss' last quarter;

Just got back from getting Last Quarter stats. Now, this is to show that Voss didn't win the game for Brisbane Lions off his own boot. I did Buckley and Voss, but will only put Voss's up, because that is the discussion. I can tell you though, Buckley's stats are very very under-rated, and Voss's, well, his last quarter wasn't all that massive, well, it didn't win them the game.

 

[Longy413]

Never said that at all.

You didn't?

Well what the hell were you saying with this little beauty?

as it is a sour moment having the winner coming from the losing team, as evidenced by the disrespect buckley showed when he couldn't care less about the medal, as he just missed out on achieving the ultimate.

Buckley was the best player on the ground, was the best player the following season, yet his team wasn't good enough to win the ultimate team prize.

I know u already posted quarter by quarter comparisons in another thread.

But Longy knows the breakdown after the votes were cast.

Not sure if you have this info but put em forward if you do.

I wasn't aware statistics were the only variable in deciding who was the better player.

I thought influencing the end result of the match may have been a consideration.

Pardon me.

 

[the-shamus-the]

Why isn't Harvey ever mentioned with the great 3?

He has won 2 brownlows, a few b&fs, many AA awards, best on ground for Victoria, he has played for both Australia and Victoria. Played more games than any of the other 3. The reason why he's not up there with the greats is because he's never won a premiership and up until recently St.Kilda have been the laughin stock of the AFL.

Switch Harvey with any of the other 3 and their teams success would be no different maybe even better. He is still a quality midfielder even though he is the oldest player in the league go back and watch the firstt final against Adelaide in 05 to see that he is still a great great player. He has more brownlow votes then the other 3. I'm not entirely sure but I would think he got more votes than the other 3 with 12 this year aswell which is quite an effort considering he has to compete with the like of Riewoldt and Dal Santo.

It is an absolute disgrace that Robert Harvey is not considered mongst the top 2 or 3 players of his era and my opionion can't even be considered bias because i don't like him because he's a St.Kilda player i like St.Kilda because he has Harvey, that man individually turned me from soccer to footy. If he does not win a premiership this year I think he should be awarded some sort of lfetime achievment award.

 

[doppleganger]

You didn't?

No

Well what the hell were you saying with this little beauty?

People didn't like Buckley's reaction. All about image, and plenty of people change their votes based on who wins, that is just how they work. Voting before the final result is known takes away the give it to him because his side won thinking.

I wasn't aware statistics were the only variable in deciding who was the better player.

I thought influencing the end result of the match may have been a consideration.

Pardon me.

How many of Voss' 8 touches were after the decision was made??
How many of Buckley's 4 hard ball gets were after the decision was made??

Yes Voss was good, but not as good as Buckley. Voss had blokes like aker kicking match winning goals, whilst Buckley had blokes like Taz missing sitters.

Something you do in the first quarter influences a match, just isn't highlighted the same way as if it occurs in the last minute.

Buckley was better all day, and had just as good a last quarter.

 

[loki04]

You didn't?

Well what the hell were you saying with this little beauty?






I wasn't aware statistics were the only variable in deciding who was the better player.

I thought influencing the end result of the match may have been a consideration.

Pardon me.

Then lynch should of been BOG instead of both of them as he kicked the winner!

Actually the umps should of been BOG as with 5 mins to go we were 3 points up the ball goes down to Tarrant who was being r*ped 30 out directly infront , the ump says play-on the ball spills quickly rebounds then Lynch gets a soft free from a contest nails it. Brisbane up by 3 points instead of us being up by 9 , there was only 1 more goal scored after that so really we should of won by 3 points.

 

[Longy413]

People didn't like Buckley's reaction. All about image, and plenty of people change their votes based on who wins, that is just how they work. Voting before the final result is known takes away the give it to him because his side won thinking.

Are you sure you follow what is happening here?

The only reason people were voting before the final siren was so it could be presented quicker. It was a time thing, no beat up reason to minimise the influence of people's thinking.

It was changed, because there was reasonable doubt as to who the best player was. We had two players on the day who were fantastic, but a decision was made before the voters had the opportunity to see the game in its complete form.

Yes Voss was good, but not as good as Buckley. Voss had blokes like aker kicking match winning goals, whilst Buckley had blokes like Taz missing sitters.

It doesn't matter and nor should it.

The end result was rules were changed on the voting on the Norm Smith Medal because the AFL deemed that judging the award prior to the final siren does not allow the award to be given to the most worthy player in all cases.

That's not to say Buckley didn't deserve it anyway, but what that game did highlight was that there are occassions that there can be reasonable doubt.

Your original point was about Buckley standing up when it counted more so than Voss did and you used his Norm Smith Medal to prove it. It proves nothing, and the AFL changing the voting rules further emphasises it because there was enough doubt as to who the winner should have been.

Fact remains, Voss played in two GF's where he was extremely close and could have easily won two Norm Smith Medals. He was the most influencial player from the winning side, he had the biggest impact in his team winning two Premierships.

You're hiding behind Buckley's Norm Smith and it's crap. Yep Bucks is a big game player, yep Bucks had a great GF. But don't discount Voss just because they voted on an award before Voss played some of his best footy for the day.

 

[Longy413]

Then lynch should of been BOG instead of both of them as he kicked the winner!

Have another crack turbo, that was terrible.

 

[doppleganger]

You're hiding behind Buckley's Norm Smith and it's crap. Yep Bucks is a big game player, yep Bucks had a great GF. But don't discount Voss just because they voted on an award before Voss played some of his best footy for the day.

Hiding behind his norm smith???

what passages of play did voss have that were after the voting??

what minute of the last quarter did they actually vote??

Buckley played 3 finals against the Voss, in all 3 games he was better. yet because voss was surrounded by great team mates, Brisbane won 2 games.

 

[Longy413]

Hiding behind his norm smith???

You originally stated that Voss had never been B.O.G in a GF.
You are using the fact that he hasn't won a Norm Smith to defend that claim, IE hiding behind the award.

It isn't that clear cut.

what passages of play did voss have that were after the voting??

what minute of the last quarter did they actually vote??

None of it matters. The AFL decided that there was enough reason to believe the system needed to be changed after the 2002 GF because there was a danger of the award going to a player who perhaps wasn't the best and/or most influencial player on the ground.

Would it have made a difference to who won the award?
Maybe not, but it isn't hard to draw the conclusion that Voss's performance after the votes were cast and the influence he had on the end result was enough to draw reasonable doubt, that it saw the AFL change the system.

Don't use the Norm Smith as a guide to saying Voss isn't a big game player or that he was never B.O.G in a GF. There is little doubt in my mind he was the best player in 2001.

Buckley played 3 finals against the Voss, in all 3 games he was better. yet because voss was surrounded by great team mates, Brisbane won 2 games.

Or perhaps Voss makes his teammates better players that what they would be otherwise?

That's another form of leadership and it's all subjective.

 

[doppleganger]

You originally stated that Voss had never been B.O.G in a GF.
You are using the fact that he hasn't won a Norm Smith to defend that claim, IE hiding behind the award.

It isn't that clear cut.

Voss aint been BOG in a GF, it is clear cut!

Norm Smith is awarded to the BOG, doesn't really matter what anybody else thinks.

None of it matters. The AFL decided that there was enough reason to believe the system needed to be changed after the 2002 GF because there was a danger of the award going to a player who perhaps wasn't the best and/or most influencial player on the ground.

Why doesn't it matter, u seem to be suggesting that Voss was awesome after the medal was already decided. If so can u provide the time in the last quarter when the votes were cast, and hence what voss actually did in comparison to Bucks that wasn't considered.

Don't use the Norm Smith as a guide to saying Voss isn't a big game player or that he was never B.O.G in a GF. There is little doubt in my mind he was the best player in 2001.

Well the people voting for the norm smith didn't agree with you, they certainly had doubts.

Or perhaps Voss makes his teammates better players that what they would be otherwise?

That's another form of leadership and it's all subjective.

Yes that is leadership, difference between being a good leader and being a good player. Voss better leader, but that is no disgrace to Bucks.

 

[Longy413]

Voss aint been BOG in a GF, it is clear cut!

The AFL seem to disagree that it is clear cut. They seem to think there is enough grey area to change the rules in order to eliminate the grey.

Norm Smith is awarded to the BOG, doesn't really matter what anybody else thinks.

Of course it matters what other people think, people are entitled to their opinion.

Why are the opinions of Mike Shehan, Robert Walls, Gerard Healy any different to any other people that watch the GF?
Even within the Norm Smith voting different people believe different players were the best player on the ground. Not all the voters thought Embley was the best this year, you can have all the voters nominate a player as the second best on ground and he can still win the Norm Smith.

Does that make him B.O.G if none of the voters thought he was best on ground? Or does that make him the one with the most votes?

It's a subjective award.

Why doesn't it matter, u seem to be suggesting that Voss was awesome after the medal was already decided. If so can u provide the time in the last quarter when the votes were cast, and hence what voss actually did in comparison to Bucks that wasn't considered.

I'm not suggesting anything. I haven't even suggested Voss was better than Buckley. I said the AFL must have decided it was pretty close in order for them to change the rules and it all came about because you said Voss wasn't a big game player.

The only thing I have stated is that Voss was the best player and the most influencial player in the 2001 GF.

Take Voss out they don't win, take Hart out, Brisbane still win.

Yes that is leadership, difference between being a good leader and being a good player. Voss better leader, but that is no disgrace to Bucks.

Leadership is one variable to what makes a good player.

 

[doppleganger]

The AFL seem to disagree that it is clear cut. They seem to think there is enough grey area to change the rules in order to eliminate the grey.



Of course it matters what other people think, people are entitled to their opinion.

Why are the opinions of Mike Shehan, Robert Walls, Gerard Healy any different to any other people that watch the GF?
Even within the Norm Smith voting different people believe different players were the best player on the ground. Not all the voters thought Embley was the best this year, you can have all the voters nominate a player as the second best on ground and he can still win the Norm Smith.

Does that make him B.O.G if none of the voters thought he was best on ground? Or does that make him the one with the most votes?

It's a subjective award.



I'm not suggesting anything. I haven't even suggested Voss was better than Buckley. I said the AFL must have decided it was pretty close in order for them to change the rules and it all came about because you said Voss wasn't a big game player.

The only thing I have stated is that Voss was the best player and the most influencial player in the 2001 GF.

Take Voss out they don't win, take Hart out, Brisbane still win.



Leadership is one variable to what makes a good player.

everything is opinion based

but there are opinions that count.

just like u say take hart out of brisbane in 01 and they would still win, bet some brisbane people would disagree with you.

in terms of my voss aint a big game player, was simply stating that he hasn't always been his teams best

Buckley has.

 

[Longy413]

in terms of my voss aint a big game player, was simply stating that he hasn't always been his teams best

Buckley has.

Buckley has been Collingwood's best in every single big game?

Every final?

Please...

 

[anth22]

Coolingwood supporters in this thread have much better arguements, essendon supporters just talk ******** , no statistics to back anything they say up.

Essendon supporter = bandwagon supporter

 

[Longy413]

Coolingwood supporters in this thread have much better arguements, essendon supporters just talk ******** , no statistics to back anything they say up.

Essendon supporter = bandwagon supporter

And exactly what have you provided turbo?

It's not an Essendon v Collingwood discussion.

 

[incubi]

collingwoods forward line......2007.......Fraser,rocca,rusling,travis cloke,Medhurst,leon davis,Didak(when he gets back),Buckley(who'll play forward most of next year.................................................
add in a few prospects from this years draft...and who said we can't goals.
Most non collingwood supporters,don't realise that we missed 4th possie by one lousy game without our forward line functioning...I rest my case.the proof in the pudding will be 2007/2008 ..lets just see what transpires

why didnt it function? no excuses for it not functioning.

 

[lionsrules]

yes do it for buckley lose another GF in true collingwood style, u can even give him a game over joffa sign to remember

 

[Cyclops]

...They seem to think there is enough grey area to change the rules in order to eliminate the grey...

The grey is hardly eliminated. That said its a change that had to be made.

The situation with Norm Smith voting was silly: a player could conceivably do enough to win it in the bit of the game after voting closed. Voss having a good patch at the end highlighted this, but I'm certain he was nowhere near BOG. Bucks was better by far and his nearest rival was Rocca. Does anyone still have the link to the votes? I think I saw it on here once and it reflected this clearly.

If we're talking about single actions that won the game then Aker's superb snap goal stands out. At the end Lynchs endless hard leading bore fruit when the ump finally saw the scragging (we got away with a bit on Lynch that day). Keating was colossal, in many ways the difference between the sides.

Like all the awards the NS ain't perfect, especially as Mike Sheahan is invovled. I recall before on GF he was asked who he thought might wij the NS and he nominated Archer. The interveiwer pointed out he was one of the judges so he should know. Sure enough Archer won it, deservedly of course, but you can see how just having Mike the hack involved denigrates the thing.