Norm smith medal going to a player from the losing side...

[sabre_ac]

What is the purpose of that.
One look at Buckleys face shows the hollow feeling he must have after getting best on ground in a losing grand final.
My opinion is should have gone to Leptich who was quite simply aweseome down back.
Yes Buckley played well but in all honesty it looked like he didnt want it.

 

[Raelene]

I was wondering about that too, but I notice he took it off straight away after he went down the stairs.

 

[ramjet]

why would he want it? its the wrong medal but the award is for bog - buckley deserved it.

 

[Bomber Spirit]

Buckley was outstanding. I thought he played an excellent game and did so much to keep Collingwood in it for so long. And much as he'd rather have a premiership medal than a Norm Smith, he was best on ground.
For 3-2-1 votes I'd have given 3 to Buckley, 2 to Clark Keating and 1 to Jason Akermanis. Aker was great as well, but he'd probably be kicking himself for not having that soccer off the ground 20 seconds into the game.

There are precedents. Gary Ablett won it in 1989 when he kicked 9 goals in that sensational grand final, and Maurice Rioli won it in 1982.

 

[snakebite01]

Of course Buckley should have won it. He was the best player on the ground and that is who it is awarded to, NOT the best player on the ground from the winning team.

 

[The Hitman]

Buckley was a deserving winner, but Leppitsch would have come very close, as would have Voss.

The Hitman

 

[MagpieJoel]

BS, Rocca thrashed all comers. Well done Bucks.

 

[Lethal]

Buckley deserved to get the Norm Smith. Would have been closely followed by both Rocca and Voss though.

Who done the Norm Smith voting this year just out of curiousity?

 

[Nic]

Robert Walls was one of the judges.

 

[Z_K]

Voss was the most important player on the ground today IMO.

He got constantly bashed around the ears, won the tough footy, and threw himslef into contests like a crazy man.

Buckley was a worthy winner though.

 

[funky_monk]

Originally posted by NorthBhoy
Voss was the most important player on the ground today IMO.

He got constantly bashed around the ears, won the tough footy, and threw himslef into contests like a crazy man.

Buckley was a worthy winner though.

Absolutely agree on Voss. If I was starting an AFL team and could pick just one players to start with it would be Voss.

 

[you_idiot]

Of course Buckley deserved it. He was the most effective player on the ground when the ball was in his hands-- and at least as dangerous when it wasn't. He played the game of his life today, and that's saying something.

The Pies came up short, but it was through no fault of their captain. Tremendous example of leadership, IMO.

My votes (if I had them):

3-Nathan Buckley
2-Jason Akermanis
1-Michael Voss

Cheers,
William

 

[Savatage]

Originally posted by you_idiot
Of course Buckley deserved it. He was the most effective player on the ground when the ball was in his hands-- and at least as dangerous when it wasn't. He played the game of his life today, and that's saying something.

Don't say "of course". There is no "of course" here.

Buckley had a lot of kicks.

Voss won them the game

I'd take Voss anyday of the week.

 

[Catman]

Originally posted by Savatage
I'd take Voss anyday of the week.

Yep, he is an awesome captain. His 2nd, 3rd and 4th efforts are fantastic.

Great player.

 

[ramjet]

the footy record lists judges as
Robert Walls
Patrick Smith
Graham Cornes
Geoff Slattery(from the afl Record)
Mark Duffield(from the West Australian newspaper)

 

[Frodo]

IMO it was a huge mistake.

Firstly I thought Voss was the BOG. Why, because he was injured in the first quarter and still was magificent despite playing with the injury. And the quality of his possessions were better than Buckleys.

Secondly, who wants to say to their kids and grandkids"here is the medal I got when we lost the grand final"?

The medal should go to the best payer uiin the winning team.

 

[you_idiot]

Originally posted by Savatage


Don't say "of course". There is no "of course" here.

Buckley had a lot of kicks.

Voss won them the game

I'd take Voss anyday of the week.

I'm not sure Voss won them the game all by his lonesome. I'm sure there 21 other players in Lions jumpers that would beg to differ. Great team effort by Brisbane today-- and Collingwood put forth a great team effort as well. It's just that the Lions were just a little bit better, and Voss' leadership paced them across the line first in the final analysis.

But from an individual standpoint, I think Buckley played a better game than Voss. Just wasn't enough for his side, that's all-- but it was enough to have BOG accolades put upon him.

However, having said that, I'd probably take Voss in my side any day of the week, or year, as well. He's now a Premiership-winning captain twice over, and not too many players can put that on their CV's.

Cheers,
William

 

[mellowyellow]

Originally posted by you_idiot


My votes (if I had them):

3-Nathan Buckley
2-Jason Akermanis
1-Michael Voss

Cheers,
William

How could you give 2 votes to Aker over Voss if your not convinced by the stats review the game again and look at how hard at the ball voss was in comparison to Aker .Infact i could think of half a dozen other players on both sides who were more influental on the game than Aker despite the fact that he kicked the sealer.

 

[ok.crows]

I thought Buckley was probably the best player, and as such should have got the Norm Smith.

Lions were the best team however. Pies had a home GF without earning it ... I know that is the rules but still it favoured Pies without Pies deserving to get that advantage.

So in the end both the Norm Smith and the cup went to those who deserved it IMO, so not a bad result.

 

[you_idiot]

Originally posted by mellowyellow


How could you give 2 votes to Aker over Voss if your not convinced by the stats review the game again and look at how hard at the ball voss was in comparison to Aker .Infact i could think of half a dozen other players on both sides who were more influental on the game than Aker despite the fact that he kicked the sealer.

In fairness, I haven't seen the game stats. I will browse them later, undoubtedly...

However, IMO, I felt that the two players played evenly, and I rated Akermanis just a smidge higher BECAUSE he kicked the clinching goal-- he came through with the game on the line, which is what he's paid to do. That's just my opinion, that's all.

Cheers,
William

 

[fabulousphil]

Originally posted by Frodo
IMO it was a huge mistake.

Firstly I thought Voss was the BOG. Why, because he was injured in the first quarter and still was magificent despite playing with the injury. And the quality of his possessions were better than Buckleys.

The medal should go to the best payer in the winning team.

My thoughts exactly

 

[ozzult]

The Norm Smith is for the player who is the best out of the 44 players on the field, that is why Nathan Buckley recieved it.

My opinion on why he took it off is, one, he didn't want to wear it in front of his team mates, and second, it was a hollow medal, he might have thought he didn't deserve to wear it because he wasn't holding up the cup.

 

[Crow54]

I don't believe Buckley should've been awarded the medal. It meant nothing to him.

The medal should have gone to Voss - an outstanding player and Captain on the day.

Trouble is, the votes have to be taken before the end of the game, and at that stage it could have gone either way. Unless a losing team player is absolutely outstanding and head and shoulders better than any other person on the ground, it should be awarded to a player from the victorious team. There's a flaw in the voting system.

 

[SydneyBomber]

Originally posted by you_idiot


In fairness, I haven't seen the game stats. I will browse them later, undoubtedly...

However, IMO, I felt that the two players played evenly, and I rated Akermanis just a smidge higher BECAUSE he kicked the clinching goal-- he came through with the game on the line, which is what he's paid to do. That's just my opinion, that's all.

Cheers,
William

Akermanis did pretty much jack sh 1t for the rest of the game though (compared to Voss especially).

Whether it was because of injury, poor form or pie pressure is no real excuse.
Voss had it all over Aker today.

 

[mellowyellow]

Originally posted by SydneyBomber




Whether it was because of injury, poor form or pie pressure is no real excuse.
Voss had it all over Aker today.

I think i heard in a post match intreview that aker had injured his grion in the 1 qrt which might explain why we didnt see his typical running type influence on the game. i dont think he spent a great deal of time in the middle and as result loyted in and around the forward line.