Judd -wtf?

[ata33cro]

Thats what we need more exposure.....lol

It worked, she appeared on the cover of the Herald Sun with the Brownlow. Plus, Myer gets some exposure as she was wearing a dress from them.

 

[folester41]

the award is about who has the most best on ground performances, not who is consistently the best throughout the season.

plus you dont have to be in a winning team to get best on ground, just look at ablett on friday night.

swan is a great player but he is completely outside and spends alot of time near hff, those players dont poll as well as inside mids.

 

[cardtrader]

wtf indeed. It should be renamed The Umpires Choice Award. For accuracy.

That's quite a valid post given they have Players Choice and Media awards

 

[_RT_]

Agree. Sylvia destroyed us.

But anyone calling it a joke/farce/corrupt is not looking at reality. I also wonder how many games those calling Swan's 'the most dominant season I've ever seen' actually watched. Judd dominates, Swan accumulates. And when Collingwood wins Pendlebury, Didak, Thomas, Jolly, and a host of others besides Swan, play well. When Carlton wins, Judd is almost always their best player. The Brownlow is not a vote on 'who was the best player of the year?', it's a series of votes on 'who were the best three players in this game?'.

When Judd plays well he dominates. He wins the hard ball and explodes from packs. Anyone complaining that 'Judd only got 24 touches and Swan got 37' needs to get their head out of the stat sheet and actually watch a game. I'll take 24 of Judd's possessions ahead of 37 of Swan's handball receives off half-back, 20m chip kick, run past for the handball again, handball to a teammate and get it back again.

Was Judd the best player of the year? No. But if you think that's what the Brownlow's meant to reveal/reward, you fail to understand how it works.

(Personally, I'm happy considering I got on Judd early in the season at $20, although could have had $21 on him yesterday. Also backed him for top 5 yesterday @ $2.54, Ablett for top 3 @ $1.71, Sandilands top Freo @ $1.61 and a monster of a club leader multi of Thompson/Brown/Swan/Watson/Sandi/Harvey/Jack/Hayes/Goodes/Boyd, paying $96. What a great night! )

Agree with this. While Swan was statistically better he just doesn't impact games like Judd does.

 

[_RT_]

Also funny you say Swan gets his possesions from handball receives off half-back inferring he gets cheapies, etc. 2nd in the AFL for contested possesions behind Ablett, 5th for clearances. Went forward, kicked many more goals than Judd. I'd want 2009/2010 Swan in my team over Judd. Any day of the week. Over the course of their careers Judd has him covered but this is not what we're talking about.

Judd averaged 15.3 contested possessions per game, Swan 12.4. Judd averaged 7.4 clearances, Swan 6.4. Judd averaged 7.8 first possessions, Swan 6.4. Both averaged 2.8 centre bounce clearances. Swan averaged 20.4 uncontested possessions, Judd averaged 15.8.

 

[JRD_312]

wtf indeed. It should be renamed The Umpires Choice Award. For accuracy.

I agree. The umpires and 3AW were the only groups to give Judd best player awards. On footy classified, others like Triple M, coaches' player of the year, and players' association MVP gave it to Swan.

 

[CQTiger]

Judd averaged 15.3 contested possessions per game, Swan 12.4. Judd averaged 7.4 clearances, Swan 6.4. Judd averaged 7.8 first possessions, Swan 6.4. Both averaged 2.8 centre bounce clearances. Swan averaged 20.4 uncontested possessions, Judd averaged 15.8.

Umpires aren't privy to the stats when awarding the votes and dont get any input from other boundary and field umpires - basically the midfielders are in their face all day and usually get the votes

 

[HFF]

Umpires aren't privy to the stats when awarding the votes and dont get any input from other boundary and field umpires - basically the midfielders are in their face all day and usually get the votes

I was under the impression the umpires are now given the stats sheet after games to make their decisions. They were talking about this last night on that new show (can't remember the name) with Dunstall, Lynch and B.Scott and Scott didn't like the idea of the umpires being given the stats sheet after games to award votes.

 

[tugga]

I was under the impression the umpires are now given the stats sheet after games to make their decisions. They were talking about this last night on that new show (can't remember the name) with Dunstall, Lynch and B.Scott and Scott didn't like the idea of the umpires being given the stats sheet after games to award votes.

They are given the stats sheet.
I think the length of time the umpires need to submit their votes should be extended until perhaps the Monday or Tuesday. This gives them time to absorb what has happened. Also it gives them the opportunity to dissect which defenders did their job etc.
Just a thought.

 

[Parquet Court]

have to disagree there tugga, if the umps get to monday or tuesday then it also gives them a chance to absorb media votes, public opinion, other umpires opinions etc etc

i think the beauty of this award is that it is not predictable unlike the club champion award where almost always the best player gets it.

there are so many intricacies and controversies, players have to compete with other palyers in their teams, whether they played in losing or winning sides and 44 players are playing for 3,2,1 votes.

and there are plenty of dardy tarts at the ceremony

 

[Mr Magic]

Brownlow is now a farce.

Simply has no credibility anymore.

Apart from Judd compared to Ablett and Swan what about J Selwood. Didn't chapman only poll 8.

Please, no-one can tell me J Selwood was that close to Ablett and that far ahead of Chapman this year let alone them going crazy on J-Pod.

I think we should trade for M Murphy - tell him he might get some exposure away fromJudd at Tigerland. We can pay him 400K. Carlton won't be able to pay him this much since Judd have to be on 4million a year now.

I didn't think the umpires thought J Selwood was their lovechild

 

[SHIGHT BLOKE]

They are given the stats sheet.
I think the length of time the umpires need to submit their votes should be extended until perhaps the Monday or Tuesday. This gives them time to absorb what has happened. Also it gives them the opportunity to dissect which defenders did their job etc.
Just a thought.

A potential negative to this would be that the umpires opinion could be swayed due to journalistic impression - if they read the newspapers.

I believe that the reason that they do it so soon after the game is that there are no outside influences to affect their decision making.

 

[Mario Speedwagon]

Judd averaged 15.3 contested possessions per game, Swan 12.4. Judd averaged 7.4 clearances, Swan 6.4. Judd averaged 7.8 first possessions, Swan 6.4. Both averaged 2.8 centre bounce clearances. Swan averaged 20.4 uncontested possessions, Judd averaged 15.8.

Again....none of that explains how he got a combined 5 votes in the Collingwood & Freo games....5 pretty handy votes when you consider he won by 4....

 

[_RT_]

Again....none of that explains how he got a combined 5 votes in the Collingwood & Freo games....5 pretty handy votes when you consider he won by 4....

In the Pies game Judd had 38 touches, 11 clearances, 10 I50s & 22 contested possessions. Swan had 32 touches, 9 clearances, 6 I50s & 10 contested possessions.

In the Freo game despite McPhees attention he still got 30 with 18 contested possessions, 8 clearances, 4 I50's & 5 rebounds from D50.

If as stated the umpires are given the stats to help them make their decision then based on these figures Judd had a pretty big impact on both games despite the Blues losing.

 

[Mario Speedwagon]

In the Pies game Judd had 38 touches, 11 clearances, 10 I50s & 22 contested possessions. Swan had 32 touches, 9 clearances, 6 I50s & 10 contested possessions.

In the Freo game despite McPhees attention he still got 30 with 18 contested possessions, 8 clearances, 4 I50's & 5 rebounds from D50.

If as stated the umpires are given the stats to help them make their decision then based on these figures Judd had a pretty big impact on both games despite the Blues losing.

So do you seriously reckon that proves he was BOG in a 9 goal loss-that would've been about a 12- 15 goal loss if not for a bunch of junk time goals- and that he wasn't taken to the cleaners by McPhee? Because that's not what virtually everyone besides the clowns in council vests saw. In the words of Elton John - big impact my arse.

All you've managed to do there is once again underline what a meaningless load of deceptive bollocks stats generally are...

 

[Gak Attack]

A potential negative to this would be that the umpires opinion could be swayed due to journalistic impression - if they read the newspapers.

Is that a bad thing? They tend to get it right.

 

[_RT_]

So do you seriously reckon that proves he was BOG in a 9 goal loss-that would've been about a 12- 15 goal loss if not for a bunch of junk time goals- and that he wasn't taken to the cleaners by McPhee? Because that's not what virtually everyone besides the clowns in council vests saw. In the words of Elton John - big impact my arse.

All you've managed to do there is once again underline what a meaningless load of deceptive bollocks stats generally are...

So I guess you don't agree with Jack being given a vote for his 7 goal haul against the Saints in round 21 or the vote he got for the 6.3 he kicked against the Saints in round 11. We lost both games(round 11 by 6+ goals) and yet Jack got 1 vote in both despite players on the Saints side having arguably better games.

 

[turtle27]

So I guess you don't agree with Jack being given a vote for his 7 goal haul against the Saints in round 21 or the vote he got for the 6.3 he kicked against the Saints in round 11. We lost both games(round 11 by 6+ goals) and yet Jack got 1 vote in both despite players on the Saints side having arguably better games.

Mario's argument is that Judd didn't deserve the 3 votes, much like Jack didn't, and rightly didn't get.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

How the **** do you get BOG when your team loses by 9 goals? How the **** do you still get votes when a hack like McPhee towels you up? Whatever little credibility this stupid & pointless award had left was well and truly erased once and for all tonight. Disgraceful.

The only thing good about the result was the look on Eddie's face...and the hope that it's an omen for raging favourites from Collingwood....

...totally agree that the brownlow is a pointless award, for years now its become a mid fielders trophy...my complaint is that a key position player or ruckman these days has a tough ask winning it...the game has changed so much these days i really dont know what the alternative could be, cos the mid fielders are so pre dominant and game influential...maybe two brownlows?!?...one for the mids and the other for key position...
...no disputing that the judster is a great player...really learnt his trade at the weagles......but three votes in a losing 9 goal side??!...really??!
...i think the umpires should be held accountable for votes given...and explain their reasoning to the public...the day after the voting in the media...

 

[astro_toby]

goes to show the umps love someone who wins his own ball and can run with it and take players on.

Swan was amazing this year, no doubt - but perhaps all those rest breaks on the bench meant the ump's saw him fading in and out of games - no other player was "benched" more than swanny this year - and perhaps that affected their ability to put votes on him

 

[Grin]

On the other hand, seeing Ed's disappointed and round face was golden.

Does anyone have a link?

 

[mcuzzy]

Glad that bloody seagull didn't win it

Wanted Ablett to win it to be honest

 

[Mario Speedwagon]

So I guess you don't agree with Jack being given a vote for his 7 goal haul against the Saints in round 21 or the vote he got for the 6.3 he kicked against the Saints in round 11. We lost both games(round 11 by 6+ goals) and yet Jack got 1 vote in both despite players on the Saints side having arguably better games.

Yeah one vote each he got in games he kicked 6 out of 9 & 7 in a 15 point loss...in a bottom 4 team v a Top 4 team....compared to Judd getting maximum votes in a flattering 9 goal loss featuring two Top 8 teams...yeah righteo RT, great point...strip of him the Ian Stewart Medal while we're at it...I mean if he didn't even kick another 3 we needed to win...

Geez if we're going to be spurious....then I'll say that as McPhee's job on Judd was a major factor in Freo's win, Judd should not have not received two votes for being beaten by his direct opponent and effectively costing Carlton the game...

 

[brett15]

In the Pies game Judd had 38 touches, 11 clearances, 10 I50s & 22 contested possessions. Swan had 32 touches, 9 clearances, 6 I50s & 10 contested possessions.

In the Freo game despite McPhees attention he still got 30 with 18 contested possessions, 8 clearances, 4 I50's & 5 rebounds from D50.

If as stated the umpires are given the stats to help them make their decision then based on these figures Judd had a pretty big impact on both games despite the Blues losing.

Your underrating Swan's uncontested possessions by not factoring in he smashes his tag (and usually multiple tags) every week to get loose so he can take those possessions uncontested, where Judd by comparison can't achieve the same when tagged at the same level.

If you want to go by stats then I'd suggest checking their supercoach scores for the year which I'd rate as being pretty accurate as a measure for midfielders.

Ranked in order of highest Average:

1. Goddard, Ave 130.24, Total 2,735
2. Ablett, Ave 129.86 Total 2,727
3. Swan, Ave 126.86, Total 2,791 *highest total overall
4. Judd, Ave 118.53, Total 2,252
5. Selwood, Ave 117.81, Total 2,474

 

[_RT_]

Yeah one vote each he got in games he kicked 6 out of 9 & 7 in a 15 point loss...in a bottom 4 team v a Top 4 team....compared to Judd getting maximum votes in a flattering 9 goal loss featuring two Top 8 teams...yeah righteo RT, great point...strip of him the Ian Stewart Medal while we're at it...I mean if he didn't even kick another 3 we needed to win...

Geez if we're going to be spurious....then I'll say that as McPhee's job on Judd was a major factor in Freo's win, Judd should not have not received two votes for being beaten by his direct opponent and effectively costing Carlton the game...

So now you're saying its ok to give a guy votes in a game where his team loses if that performance is special enough as long as its not the 3 votes.

As for McPhees job on Judd, he still got 30 touches to be the Blues leading possession winner in fact he was equal leader for the match alongside Barlow. Gee what I would give to have a tagger who can keep Judd to 30 touches every time we play him.