Mitchell & Cotchin Brownlow Medals

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
FootyGeek said:
2012 Brownlow Medal is completely and utterly void. There is not possible way that a true winner of the best and fairest could be judged with a full team of juiced up dopers running around the competition for a full year.

This is not a one off race where one person wins by cheating and another comes second be not cheating. This is 20 odd round of competition with teams where one whole team is juiced up. It is completely different. The Brownlow is judged over a season, not one event. If the season is void the Brownlow is void.

The teams that lost to the Melbourne Storm cheats did not get premierships and rightly so.

The whole season was effed up by team wide cheating.

If the AFL was fair dinkum, the 1993 Essendon premiership year would also be void due to team wide cheating.
Click to expand...


following that rational the 2012 premiership should be voided too. essendon influenced the make up and order of the finals, whose to say what impact that made.

thing is you can't completely unscramble the egg, an acceptable compromise is the best that can be hoped for, simplest compromise is to award it to the runner up.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ancient Tiger said:
Essendon+Bombers+Training+Session+uoAkFebqhusx.jpg
Jobe Watson in Sepember 2009. This Makes him 24 going onto 25. This is what he looked like even after 6 or 7 preseasons.

A few more preseasons with assistance and he looks like this:

watson-tri-620.jpg


Nothing to see here IMHO……..
Click to expand...

I think we are past trying to convince people if Jobe doped or not. This post would have been awesome two years ago.
 
Ancient Tiger said:
As I said before, it's never a one horse race. There a several heats and semi finals in athletics and swimming. The gold medalist who cheated most probably knocked out the real winner in one of the heats, especially if only the winners went through the heats or the semis. However, they still give the medal to the person who came second in the final. Your example is also unfair when talking about the Storm. They are a team. We are talking about an individual who has won the award here. Not an entire team. It's never even in our competition so not awarding it because one team was juiced up makes no sense. How about the years when some sides played the GWS twice when they started and others didn't. Your team was sure to get 3,2,1 votes on two occasions whilst others that only played them once only had one chance. Should we say that players from those teams that played the poorer sides twice should not have players eligible for the Brownlow because they had an unfair advantage? No we don't. So people are making this too complex. Just like a suspended player is ineligible so too should a juiced up player. The award goes to the next best.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Give Cotchin and Mitchell the Brownlow and give Carlton the 1993 Premiership! :D



But seriously, just take the Brownlow off Watson, give it to Cotchin and Mitchell, and move the **** on.
 
Jobe Watson flipping the AFl the bird

209182_db739839334592ef525dd2e3022978ba.png


Wonder what he could have been doing in that one year where he polled superwell????

Sam Mitchell over the same time period
209186_742faf74739598f078d67c99ddf509f9.png


#helpfindtrent over the same time (he debuted in 2008)
209188_b370c27890b10c36647dfe708734312b.png
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Nice graphs.

Can you do the same on votes per game basis? Be much more accurate.
Click to expand...

Here is the games per year for him

upload_2016-1-27_14-22-31.png

So in 2010 he played 1 less game for 14 less votes.
In 2013 he played 3 less games for 13 less votes.
 
Only Forwards said:
Here is the games per year for him

View attachment 209743

So in 2010 he played 1 less game for 14 less votes.
In 2013 he played 3 less games for 13 less votes.
Click to expand...
Only Forwards said:
Here is the games per year for him

View attachment 209743

So in 2010 he played 1 less game for 14 less votes.
In 2013 he played 3 less games for 13 less votes.
Click to expand...

I note you left out 2011, which is interesting. His votes per game were

2009 0.48
2010 0.76
2011 0.94
2012 1.36

It was a career best year of course, but it’s was hardly a freak year out of the box – he improved year on year, as would be expected.

Swan won the Brownlow immediately before, his numbers are

2008 0.55
2009 0.55
2010 1.09
2011 1.62

Another story of yearly improvement.

In fact Swan had a significantly greater jump, he must have been pumping some really good stuff.

It’s a stupid argument – the POV that Jobe should his Brownlow is valid, but suggesting he won it because of substance use is ridiculous. There’s nothing usual about his performance in 2012.

Newsflash all: Brownlow winners have career-best years when they win it.


PS - I’ve ignored the fact that the numbers used in the graphs you showed are incorrect anyway. Which I guess will happen when Bay 13 is your information source.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
PS - I’ve ignored the fact that the numbers used in the graphs you showed are incorrect anyway. Which I guess will happen when Bay 13 is your information source.
Click to expand...

Sourced from Footywire.


209182_db739839334592ef525dd2e3022978ba.png


upload_2016-1-27_15-54-37.png

Do the Browlow votes match?

Yep

209186_742faf74739598f078d67c99ddf509f9.png

upload_2016-1-27_15-56-31.png
Do the brownlow votes match?
Yep

209188_b370c27890b10c36647dfe708734312b.png

upload_2016-1-27_15-57-27.png
Do the brownlow votes match?
yep

So if they're not correct best I email them to tell them.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
n fact Swan had a significantly greater jump, he must have been pumping some really good stuff.
Click to expand...

LOL because no.

Swan went from 3rd the year previous and had a block of 4 years where he polled 20+
upload_2016-1-27_16-46-34.png
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bunk Moreland said:
It’s a stupid argument – the POV that Jobe should his Brownlow is valid, but suggesting he won it because of substance use is ridiculous. There’s nothing usual about his performance in 2012.
Click to expand...

Actually it's not ridiculous at all.

-He started doping in the 2012 off-season
-He had a career best year in 2012
-His votes started dropping off roughly one month after the injections stopped

That alone makes it a very reasonable suggestion. Throw in his ridiculous change in physique and his inability to back it up since and I'd say it's far fetched to suggest he didn't benefit from doping.

I really hoped Bomber supporters would start facing some hard truths when you were inevitably found guilty. I expected too much.
 
FootyGeek said:
2012 Brownlow Medal is completely and utterly void. There is not possible way that a true winner of the best and fairest could be judged with a full team of juiced up dopers running around the competition for a full year.

This is not a one off race where one person wins by cheating and another comes second be not cheating. This is 20 odd round of competition with teams where one whole team is juiced up. It is completely different. The Brownlow is judged over a season, not one event. If the season is void the Brownlow is void.

The teams that lost to the Melbourne Storm cheats did not get premierships and rightly so.

The whole season was effed up by team wide cheating.

If the AFL was fair dinkum, the 1993 Essendon premiership year would also be void due to team wide cheating.
Click to expand...

2012 Premiership also void by that logic.
 
Someone in that HS today brought up the thought that what would happen if votes from 2012 were re-counted with those players banned not allocated votes thus those given 2 behind Jabba were upgraded to 3. And others in the same way, guess without a 4th place player vote it would probably not be possible but be interesting to see if those elevated came close to Mitchell and Cotchin or if indeed either of those two could have won outright.
 
NathanMX said:
Someone in that HS today brought up the thought that what would happen if votes from 2012 were re-counted with those players banned not allocated votes thus those given 2 behind Jabba were upgraded to 3. And others in the same way, guess without a 4th place player vote it would probably not be possible but be interesting to see if those elevated came close to Mitchell and Cotchin or if indeed either of those two could have won outright.
Click to expand...
If the votes we're recounted/fixed, the only player who could win outright would be Cotchin - Broken down here:
Barry_Badrinath said:
There were only 6 players in contention:

Cotchin (26)
Mitchell (26)
Thompson (25)
Swan (25)
Ablett (24)
Dangerfield (23)

Swan polled 6/6 vs Essendon
Ablett polled 3/3
Dangerfield 2/3 (with Watson polling 3 in that game)

Remove the Bombers and their tallies remain the same, with Dangerfield rising to 24.

Mitchell polled 2/3 possible votes, with the 3 votes going to another Hawk, so he wasn't robbed of any votes.

Thompson didn't poll any, with Watson polling the 3 and two crows polling the 1 and 2. So he could've potentially picked up 1 more vote and tied things up.

Cotchin polled 3/6. 3 votes late in the season and 29 disposals and 3 goals for 0 votes in round 9. Deledio polled 3 with Stanton and Watson polling 1 and 2. So he should've polled another 2.

So the most likely change with the Bombers removed is Cotchin winning outright on 28.


As for point 2, it was 34/40 listed players that were doping. Nearly all of them every player that came up against the Bombers were up against cheats so the votes were still earned.
Click to expand...
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Votes per game. Remove variables and concentrate of the core issue. Pretty basic analysis.
Click to expand...

There is a still a 4 year block where Swan polls more than a vote a game and comparatively Jabs still only has that one year.

Swan
1.09
1.6 +.51
1.39 -.21
1.18 -.21

Jabs
0.94
1.36 +42
0.89 -.47
0.57 -.32

I could chart it but it would still look fairly similar to the votes per year graphs that I have already produced.

Swan makes a jump and then slides consistently over teh next couple of years.

Watson only has that one year and then slides drastically.
 
Last edited:
Copied from elsewhere...

In the first 13 weeks of 2012 Jobe polled Brownlow votes in 12 games. To repeat. He polled votes in 12 out of 13 games during the period of the injection regime.

In the previous 13 games he polled 4 times. In the subsequent 13 games he polled 5 times.

During the injection regime he polled 26 votes in 13 games, an average of 2 votes per game.

The rest of his career he polled 87 votes in 187 games, an average of approx 0.45 votes per game.
 
Abasi said:
Copied from elsewhere...

In the first 13 weeks of 2012 Jobe polled Brownlow votes in 12 games. To repeat. He polled votes in 12 out of 13 games during the period of the injection regime.

In the previous 13 games he polled 4 times. In the subsequent 13 games he polled 5 times.

During the injection regime he polled 26 votes in 13 games, an average of 2 votes per game.

The rest of his career he polled 87 votes in 187 games, an average of approx 0.45 votes per game.
Click to expand...
Jesus ****! It's been in front of us all the time. Dirty campaigner. And his dad can argue a case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top