Remove this Banner Ad

Mark Williams

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crow54
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Crow54

Crow54

25 year veteran.
Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2000
Posts
6,687
Reaction score
6,974
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Has anyone mentioned this? On 5AA this morning, Mark Aiston re-played what Mark Williams said when announcing the West End Medalist to his players:


"Hate to tell you who won the West End Medal, guys - but they gotta be kidding! John(ock! Whadaya think of that? Whadaya think of that?"
Click to expand...

Now, I know we all think a Power player should've won it, but I'm so glad we don't have a creep like Williams coaching the Crows. It's a pity he didn't choke on his chewy. :mad:
 
Whats the problem? I guarantee every single Port supporter said the same thing. 'Johnc*ck?? what the hell??'.

Hes passionate and thought that a Port player should win considering we led from start to finish and had about 4-5 better players on the field than Stiffy (even Bode and Edwards played better than him in my opinion). So whats your bloody problem then??

Talk about bloody nit-picking. Did he abuse Stiffy? No. He said it was a poor decision. Big bloody deal! Id rather Williams as a coach who calls it as it is and isnt afraid to say whats on his mind rather than the walking Cliche-book Gary Ayres.

Was probably something that shouldnt have been caught on radio. You reckon no Adelaide players/coaches have said similar things before in the changerooms?
 
Re: Re: Re: Mark Williams

Originally posted by sapaul
What a surprise...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If Adelaide had won, and one of the Port players had got the medal, no doubt the Adelaide supporters would be in a ***** about it.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Re: Re: Re: Re: Mark Williams

Originally posted by brent33brett33
If Adelaide had won, and one of the Port players had got the meal, no doubt the Adelaide supporters would be in a **** about it.
Click to expand...

If it was curried goose I'd be upset for Macca and Ronnie Burns... they go nuts for it apparently! ;)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mark Williams

Originally posted by dyertribe
If it was curried goose I'd be upset for Macca and Ronnie Burns... they go nuts for it apparently! ;)
Click to expand...
oh wow, i forgot the 'd' ... big deal
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mark Williams

Originally posted by brent33brett33
oh wow, i forgot the 'd' ... big deal
Click to expand...

Ever heard of a bit of light-hearted banter?

You ickhea. :rolleyes:
 
Chad Cornes said the judges must have been on drugs to give it to Johnco(k. But you can't blame Johnco(k, it wasn't his fault, but it was one massive balls up on the medias behalf. We know who the people are to blame aswell, the likes of KG, Michelangelo Rucci, etc.

Kym Dillon and Mark Aiston were the 2 of the 7 panellists who did not vote for Johnco(k, atleast they can hold their heads high knowing that they didn't compromise themselves just to be Crow friendly.
 
Originally posted by Zombie
Chad Cornes said the judges must have been on drugs to give it to Johnco(k. But you can't blame Johnco(k, it wasn't his fault, but it was one massive balls up on the medias behalf. We know who the people are to blame aswell, the likes of KG, Michelangelo Rucci, etc.

Kym Dillon and Mark Aiston were the 2 of the 7 panellists who did not vote for Johnco(k, atleast they can hold their heads high knowing that they didn't compromise themselves just to be Crow friendly.
Click to expand...

The power vote was split.

No other Crow polled a vote

That's why he won.

Even your own supporters can't agree who the Powers best player was.

I think your accustaions of compromisation in the judges are biased and petty.

As if Rucci isn't a Port lover anyway.
 
Originally posted by Jars458
The power vote was split.

No other Crow polled a vote

That's why he won.

Even your own supporters can't agree who the Powers best player was.

I think your accustaions of compromisation in the judges are biased and petty.

As if Rucci isn't a Port lover anyway.
Click to expand...



But why does a Crow have to get a vote.

If 2 port players played better games than John****, why shouldn't they get the 3 and 2 votes.

I think at least 2 port players played better games than John****.
 
I saw them counting the votes up in the media centre. The reason Johnc*ck won was because of their being about 5-6 Port players who all took votes off each other. James, Cornes 1, Cornes 2, Burgoyne, Wanganeen and Wakelin each polled quite a few, but not enough to win it. No Port player really stood out. John**** played well and didn't have anyone else to pinch his votes.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Originally posted by PrideOf
I saw them counting the votes up in the media centre. The reason Johnc*ck won was because of their being about 5-6 Port players who all took votes off each other. James, Cornes 1, Cornes 2, Burgoyne, Wanganeen and Wakelin each polled quite a few, but not enough to win it. No Port player really stood out. John**** played well and didn't have anyone else to pinch his votes.
Click to expand...



But James, Cornes 1, Cornes 2, Burgoyne etc were all pinching votes for him.


The reason he got the nod in the end was that too many of the selectors decided that a Crow had to figure in the votes, and he was the only one worth considering.

This is a mistake.

If 3 port players played better than the best crow player then no crow player should get a vote.
 
Originally posted by PrideOf
John**** played well and didn't have anyone else to pinch his votes.
Click to expand...

He had exactly the same amount of players to pinch his votes as anyone else did. 43 to be precise.
 
You're joking aren't you? IMHO, John****, Wanganeen and Wakelin were the only 4-quarter players out there. James played a blinder first term then faded, Cornes 1 played a good last half, Cornes 2 was great IMO but taggers don't win medals (that's a rule of footy).

I agree with you that if there were 3 Port players who were better than everyone else, they should get votes. But John**** did enough to feature in the votes.

No, there is no conspiracy against Port. Never has been. But if it makes you feel better to think the world is against you, go for your life.
 
The voters obviously felt they needed to put a Crow player in the 3-2-1. Johnc*ck in there view was the only choice. I dont agree with this. Even if Johnc*ck was better than every other Crow player, there were still 4 Port players better than him.

But who cares. Whats done is done. Johnc*ck won the Francou Medal and nothing can be done about it now.
 
Originally posted by PrideOf
You're joking aren't you? IMHO, John****, Wanganeen and Wakelin were the only 4-quarter players out there. James played a blinder first term then faded, Cornes 1 played a good last half, Cornes 2 was great IMO but taggers don't win medals (that's a rule of footy).

I agree with you that if there were 3 Port players who were better than everyone else, they should get votes. But John**** did enough to feature in the votes.

No, there is no conspiracy against Port. Never has been. But if it makes you feel better to think the world is against you, go for your life.
Click to expand...


So are you telling me John**** was BOG ?

Fact is - he got a whole heap of two votes because he was the crows best, not because he was 2nd best on ground. Hence the system is flawed.
 
Originally posted by Malibu#27
But James, Cornes 1, Cornes 2, Burgoyne etc were all pinching votes for him.


The reason he got the nod in the end was that too many of the selectors decided that a Crow had to figure in the votes, and he was the only one worth considering.

This is a mistake.

If 3 port players played better than the best crow player then no crow player should get a vote.
Click to expand...

I agree

But its arguable whether could say he was in the best three players

he did some very good things.

My votes would be

3 Wanganeen
2 Wakelin
1 Cornes

Other people's would be different.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Originally posted by Zombie
Chad Cornes said the judges must have been on drugs to give it to Johnco(k. But you can't blame Johnco(k, it wasn't his fault, but it was one massive balls up on the medias behalf. We know who the people are to blame aswell, the likes of KG, Michelangelo Rucci, etc.

Kym Dillon and Mark Aiston were the 2 of the 7 panellists who did not vote for Johnco(k, atleast they can hold their heads high knowing that they didn't compromise themselves just to be Crow friendly.
Click to expand...

I reckon John**** deserved the medal. He was the best player over four quarters IMHO.

KG voted for Wakelin (5AA tonite)!

The pity of it is, Stiffys medal was devalued by Williams comments but what else would you expect.

Good on ya Graham, you got my vote.
 
Originally posted by PrideOf
I saw them counting the votes up in the media centre. The reason Johnc*ck won was because of their being about 5-6 Port players who all took votes off each other. James, Cornes 1, Cornes 2, Burgoyne, Wanganeen and Wakelin each polled quite a few, but not enough to win it. No Port player really stood out. John**** played well and didn't have anyone else to pinch his votes.
Click to expand...

Sorry that doesn't make logical sense, John**** had both Cornes boys, James, Gav, Burgoyne and Wakelin to take votes off him as well. It's not like three Power players got votes (3-2-1) and three cows also got votes from the same people, if that was the case then your statement would indeed make sense, but unfortunately thats not the case.
 
Originally posted by topjars
The pity of it is, Stiffys medal was devalued by Williams comments but what else would you expect.
Click to expand...

How is it devalued? Choco's thoughts are the same as just about every other single decent footy judge, just because he is the coach of the winning side doesn't make his comments worth anymore than any other good judge.

Perhaps the fact that a win didn't go with the medal devalues it much more than anything anyone could say.
 
Originally posted by Leigh
I'll dispute that - we're used to that happening!
Click to expand...

Actually Leigh, a Port player has never won the West End medal on a losing team. Port has won 5 of the 7 West End medals awarded but then they have won 6 of the last 7 showdowns.
 
Originally posted by Eago77
How is it devalued? Choco's thoughts are the same as just about every other single decent footy judge, just because he is the coach of the winning side doesn't make his comments worth anymore than any other good judge.
Click to expand...


Every other single decent footy judge didnt have thousands of listeners
 
Originally posted by Eago77
Sorry that doesn't make logical sense, John**** had both Cornes boys, James, Gav, Burgoyne and Wakelin to take votes off him as well. It's not like three Power players got votes (3-2-1) and three cows also got votes from the same people, if that was the case then your statement would indeed make sense, but unfortunately thats not the case.
Click to expand...

For pete's sake can't you Papsies leave the kid alone & get on with it, young Johnc*ck played a pretty good game & done some inspirational things to try & lift his team so in my opinion he is a worthy winner of the medal regardless if there was 3 or 4 better players on the the night from Port, & for Williams to try & belittle the efforts of Graham Johnc*ck in being named the West End medalist only reaffirms my low opinion of the man who coaches the Port Power,
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom