Swan vs Judd 2011

[Monkey King]

You aint explained why?

Yes I have. Don't confuse your not having accepted my why, with my not having provided one.

Again, all I was saying is that disposals dont equal possessions....even for CD this is the case.

And yet when you abandon this premise and simply look at those statistics you see that, for all intents and purposes, this is indeed the case. UP + CP + Kicks off the Ground = Disposals. This has been proven beyond any doubt. Not sure why you're still arguing with it tbh.

As I said, Judd is the best of this style of player.

In terms of impact and hurt on a game, he aint like an M.Murphy, Ablett, Swan, Griffen, Chapman...he relies on other blokes to finish off his grunt work.

Already dealt with these stats in the other post. I'm guessing Ablett's style is like Ball & Cassisi's now too? Certainly the flawed criteria of assessment you've just rolled out would suggest it to be the case.

Relies on other blokes to finish off his grunt work - you've probably just given the worst description of Judd's game I've ever heard. I keep having to check we're not on Bay 13. And now you claim Ryan Griffin has more impact on games than Judd. It's fast turning into a comedy routine.

 

[doppleganger]

Hmmm ... if I make a statement according to CD's contested possession statistics and then you come in and claim I don't understand those stats and they don't mean what I claim them to, I suggest you don't use prostats as the evidence. If you can't see how this makes no sense, then we have nothing to discuss.

What are you on about?

ODN originally tried to use contested possessions as a percentage of disposals (which he called total possessions)...I pointed out this is wrong.

I then used the pro-stats numbers which I could access publically at the time, to highlight the differences.

You agree as CD have different numbers for disposals and total possessions.

I mentioned that the incorrect interchangeability between a disposal and a possession is a common practice, and that people quoting contested possession stats usually dont know what they actual mean.

You storm in and just say that anything pro-stats is to be ignored, without saying why and just getting on your high horse.

And? You've just listed a heap of Luke Ball stats below. Not sure if you're ease of losing context is on purpose, or if it's a genuine affliction.

Indeed...the entire point of my argument is that Swan is an outside player who hurts teams more than Judd.

At Collingwood Ball plays Judd's role...just like Priddis, Cassisi, J.Selwood, Sewell do at their respective clubs.

You say Judd has no impact outside of the contest. This statement has nothing to do with Swan - so put you dick back in your pants, the pissing contests btw Swan and Judd, in this sense, is all in your mind. Regularly coming top 4 in metres gained is but one objective indication that Judd's impact outside the contest is pretty reasonable.

You are yet to provide any evidence of your metres gained claim, yet keep repeating it as if it is gospel.

Swan, is consistently at the top of this measure, as I showed, which highlights my point that Swan hurts teams more than a player like Judd.

This is true. I only have one old newspaper lying around, unlike the pre-web days when I would keep them until the next season. I'm simply relating my observations to you, much like what one may see onfield and not be able to replicate in an internet forum. You can chose not to believe me and I can understand why, considering you've hardly been genuine in this discussion.

What do you think Im doing?

I point out what I see to be the differences between Judd's playing style and Swan...Swan is a better offensive player and hurts the opposition more IMO.

Judd has lost this part of his game, but has compensated by becoming the best inside contested player going around...as I have stated repeatedly.

If your point was that Judd's game style is more similar to Ball's than Swan's, I might not disagree; in it's present format however, you're talking bullshit ... and I suspect even you know it.

My point is that Judd's outside game isnt as damaging as Swan's...he relies on his teammates to finish his hardwork, where it is the Swan's of the world who actually hurt the opposition.

 

[doppleganger]

Yes I have. Don't confuse your not having accepted my why, with my not having provided one.

You aint.

And yet when you abandon this premise and simply look at those statistics you see that, for all intents and purposes, this is indeed the case. UP + CP + Kicks off the Ground = Disposals. This has been proven beyond any doubt. Not sure why you're still arguing with it tbh.

I was the one who said that?!

Already dealt with these stats in the other post. I'm guessing Ablett's style is like Ball & Cassisi's now too? Certainly the flawed criteria of assessment you've just rolled out would suggest it to be the case.

Indeed, Ablett is 2011 is down on his normal outside game.....playing with the kids has meant he has had to change his role.

Ablett 2011 is not hurting teams in the same way he did in 2010, as he is playing a more inside role.

Relies on other blokes to finish off his grunt work - you've probably just given the worst description of Judd's game I've ever heard. I keep having to check we're not on Bay 13. And now you claim Ryan Griffin has more impact on games than Judd. It's fast turning into a comedy routine.

When Griffen plays at his best he is a line breaking, goal kicking midfielder with sublime foot skills.....the same as M.Murphy.

 

[Monkey King]

I was the one who said that?!

You stated the obvious about kicks off the ground, but basically disputed everything else, so umm wtf? Am I to take it that you now agree that CD Disposal counts are for all intents and purposes total possession counts, just minus a few kicks off the ground?

Indeed, Ablett is 2011 is down on his normal outside game.....playing with the kids has meant he has had to change his role.

Ablett 2011 is not hurting teams in the same way he did in 2010, as he is playing a more inside role.

So Ball and Ablett do have similar styles then right? I think enough has been put up to show that this pigeon-holing exercise has been pretty futile.

What you're talking about with Ablett is playing in a side with less support; a major difference between Swan and Judd as well. The question remains for Swan though, with him having never been elite in anything other than a top side.

When Griffen plays at his best he is a line breaking, goal kicking midfielder with sublime foot skills.....the same as M.Murphy.

Forgo the double talk. Does Griffin hurt teams more than Judd? Does Griffin have more impact on games than Judd? This was your claim and IMO it's probably one of your funnier ones.

 

[Hodgepodge]

By one according to you. And suddenly Judd doesn't compare favourably.

Swan has a game in hand and is one GA ahead against good sides, so he's been better against them in that stat than Judd has.

I do appreciate how you've changed your claim to against good teams rather than the original top 8 teams; it makes the statistic far more malleable.

It's to keep the discussion on track. Essendon remained technically a Top 8 side due to their earlier season form, but were a poor side regardless, and a bottom 8 side after the game. The numbers still show that Judd has inflated his GA stat against poor sides.

St Kilda for example weren't poor when we played them

Yes they were, they began their revival after their Round 15 game against North Melbourne. Ladder position against Carlton was 13th and Carlton's was 3rd.

 

[Monkey King]

What are you on about?

ODN originally tried to use contested possessions as a percentage of disposals (which he called total possessions)...I pointed out this is wrong.

I then used the pro-stats numbers which I could access publically at the time, to highlight the differences.

Not going on about this any further than right here. The bold is where your mistake was. If someone was talking about CD CP's, no point leaping in and telling them they're wrong because prostats record that stat differently. You must be on some wicked meds to think otherwise.

As has already been shown, referring to disposals in the way ODN did was for all intents and purposes accurate enough and infinitely more accurate than what you were proposing.

You are yet to provide any evidence of your metres gained claim, yet keep repeating it as if it is gospel.

Swan, is consistently at the top of this measure, as I showed, which highlights my point that Swan hurts teams more than a player like Judd.

Geez you make some ridiculous leaps in logic. How does Swan being ahead in that stat show how he hurts teams more than Judd? All it shows is he gains more distance outside the packs than Judd.

It's like your outside automatically equals more hurt claim. Outside, sure. More hurt. Nope! You seem to think these two things go hand in hand, but it's far from being the case. --- Also, Ball doesn't play Judd's role; he couldn't ... he just doesn't have the outside attributes of Judd to play his role.

And yes. I can't provide evidence. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist though and doesn't mean your claims aren't contradicted my them. If you want to dismiss them, I understand completely. Hope you're as understanding when I don't.

I point out what I see to be the differences between Judd's playing style and Swan...Swan is a better offensive player and hurts the opposition more IMO.

Judd has lost this part of his game, but has compensated by becoming the best inside contested player going around...as I have stated repeatedly.

Seems to me like you've simply subscribed to a common misnomer. Judd doesn't have the outside play he once had at WCE, but to claim he's lost it would be pretty wide of the mark. No problems with you saying Swan plays outside more, but we disagree on who influences/impacts games and hurts the opposition more.

 

[Monkey King]

Swan has a game in hand and is one GA ahead against good sides, so he's been better against them in that stat than Judd has.

Firstly, that stat doesn't actually exist in the way you've proposed, as I'll go into later. The flip side to your contrived stat though, would naturally be that Swan plays worse against the "poorer" teams.

But I'm still scratching my head as to how you've twisted this to mean Judd doesn't compare favourably to Swan in Goal Assists. I know you keep repeating that Swan is one ahead in your contrived measure, but that's almost the very definition of comparing favourably, so it's hardly an argument that supports your claim.

And what's with the one game in hand comment? You do understand you can't now convert this stat back to total games played right? The sample you've reduced this down to, minus Essendon and pre-R15 St Kilda, leave both at 7 games.

Again I repeat, this is why some people just shouldn't play with stats.

It's to keep the discussion on track. Essendon remained technically a Top 8 side due to their earlier season form, but were a poor side regardless, and a bottom 8 side after the game. The numbers still show that Judd has inflated his GA stat against poor sides.

The numbers show that Swan had the same (minus one game) opportunity to "inflate" this stat against the same sides. That he couldn't do so doesn't reflect poorly on Judd; quite the opposite in fact, it reflects poorly on Swan. That you keep arriving at false conclusions gives an indication of how badly this line of fractional line of thinking has twisted your ability to form solid conclusions.

Yes they were, they began their revival after their Round 15 game against North Melbourne. Ladder position against Carlton was 13th and Carlton's was 3rd.

This is the problem with making a series of subjective assumptions to manipulate objective data. You've linked in form with ladder positions and revivals and the like. You've concluded St Kilda were a poor team on the night we played them, when their form was much closer to what they're presently displaying than earlier in the season.

That's fine if you want to account for such variables and inaccuracies in your research, but you've taken a statistic that's been manipulated according to a series of flawed & subjective premises and then projected it as though it remains an objective measure. The only one that's obviously fooled is you.

 

[doppleganger]

Not going on about this any further than right here. The bold is where your mistake was. If someone was talking about CD CP's, no point leaping in and telling them they're wrong because prostats record that stat differently. You must be on some wicked meds to think otherwise.

As has already been shown, referring to disposals in the way ODN did was for all intents and purposes accurate enough and infinitely more accurate than what you were proposing.

Its not.

They are not the same.

Geez you make some ridiculous leaps in logic. How does Swan being ahead in that stat show how he hurts teams more than Judd? All it shows is he gains more distance outside the packs than Judd.

It's like your outside automatically equals more hurt claim. Outside, sure. More hurt. Nope! You seem to think these two things go hand in hand, but it's far from being the case. --- Also, Ball doesn't play Judd's role; he couldn't ... he just doesn't have the outside attributes of Judd to play his role.

Swan has more kicks, more goals, more metres gained, more inside 50s, more rebound 50s, more clearances, a better disposal retention rate....the only thing Judd has over him is more 1st possessions and tackles.

Swan hurts teams more than Judd.

No problems with you saying Swan plays outside more, but we disagree on who influences/impacts games and hurts the opposition more.

Indeed, I think it is the bloke who:

has more disposals (particularly kicks)
who impacts the scoreboard more
who pumps the ball inside 50 more
who helps set up attacks from the back ie rebounds the ball from 50 more
who carries the ball forward more, ie metres gained
who uses the ball better, ie a better disposal efficiency rate
who clears the ball from stoppages more

You think it is Judd.

 

[Monkey King]

Its not.

They are not the same.

Didn't say they were the same. I said for all intents and purposes they could be used in that way accurately enough and that it was more accurate than how you suggested ODN use those stats.

I've already clearly demonstrated this is the case, so simply retorting with "it's not" is dumb.

Swan has more kicks, more goals, more metres gained, more inside 50s, more rebound 50s, more clearances, a better disposal retention rate....the only thing Judd has over him is more 1st possessions and tackles.

Swan hurts teams more than Judd.

But this has already been shown not to be the case, so why lie? Judd also has more clearances (not sure why you've claimed otherwise), more goal assists, more 1%ers (by significant margin) more contested ball (by significant margin) and his tackles are almost double Swan's. The way you post, it's like you think being 1 in front in a measure is the same as being 100 in front and that the actual figure means nothing beyond a in front/behind categorization. You've made this blue a few times now, so no wonder you're struggling to use these indicators as accurate measures.

Some of your interpretations of stats are bizarre, like a negligible 0.2 R50 p/game becoming - helps set up more attacks from the back - with the help of some sweet sounding narrative. And then you PRETEND like that's a statistical conclusion. Same with the I50 and other negligible differences (ie 1 disposal difference by DE%). Seems to be an overtly aggrandised approach.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

The Herald-Sun publish the top 4 Metres Gained for every individual game in their newspaper. It's rare not to see Judd among them and he's often at the top.

I understand you're not basing anything on metres gained. I mean, why would you? It shows well enough that his outside game is pretty damn good and that your understanding is a limited one.

So metres gained is important then I guess.

This stat was only brought up to counter your claim that Judd has no impact outside the packs (to go with your zilch impact 10 times out of 15 inside the pack - just in case you fail to see how ridiculous your claims are becoming). I didn't say Judd ran the ball more than any other player in the league. Also seems little point in comparing totals with guys playing on different grounds in different games. St Kilda at Etihad for example plays more congested and tends to have less metres gained than say the Bulldogs at the MCG.

In this case, I keep only to my original claim that Judd is rarely out of the top 4 players in metres gained in the games he plays; a pretty fair indication, along with other measures, that he impacts outside the packs.

So metres gained is not important?? Oh wait, it's important again. I know im a Collingwood supporter but you are confusing me


Back on topic (I will stop the troll). Both excellent players in the elite category, earlier in the year I would say Judd by a lot, but at the moment I would have them at almost level pegging. Maybe Judd in front by a whisker. I agree with you Monkeyking, that Judd is an excellent outside player (as well and inside). Although at Carlton, he has had to play a more inside role IMO (similar to Ablett this year).

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

copied previous message

 

[Monkey King]

So metres gained is important then I guess.

So metres gained is not important?? Oh wait, it's important again. I know im a Collingwood supporter but you are confusing me

Context does seem to be a massive issue for Collingwood posters.

You see the first paragraph was about Judd's ranking within the games he's played. It wasn't a comparison with anyone and only noted because it runs contrary to the repeated claim that Judd has no impact outside packs.

The second paragraph re-explains this context to dop, which he's completely lost by this point, saying I've claimed things with the statistic I clearly never did. I go on to state some pretty reasonable concerns (don't you think?) about using total metres gained as a net comparison, especially when the differences are again being measured in ranking position alone. For all we know the difference between 5th and 20th is 200m over a season. Essentially, in terms of assessing the outside impact of a player, such a small difference would be almost meaningless and potentially explainable entirely by the variables at play.

Back on topic (I will stop the troll). Both excellent players in the elite category, earlier in the year I would say Judd by a lot, but at the moment I would have them at almost level pegging. Maybe Judd in front by a whisker. I agree with you Monkeyking, that Judd is an excellent outside player (as well and inside). Although at Carlton, he has had to play a more inside role IMO (similar to Ablett this year).

Don't disagree greatly with much of what you've got to say.

 

[Tazwegian]

I know that I am tagged as a Carlton supporter, but I don't have much allegiance to any team, so I can unbiasedly say that Judd is better. Stats don't say everything. Often Judd goes in, gets the footy, and bursts through the pack just to give off one telling handball that ends up creating a goal. All the stats will say is C. Judd HB +1 for that play, but the reality of what he just did was so much greater. Judd has a huge impact on a game, and is easily the best player in the competition. Swan is great too, no doubt, but history will remember Judd, and there is a bloody good reason for that.

 

[Hodgepodge]

The flip side to your contrived stat though, would naturally be that Swan plays worse against the "poorer" teams.

No doubt Swan hasn't seemed to perform much different against the poorer sides. His form in this respect is a lot more consistent, whereas Judd's in at least one aspect is due to going to town against teams like Richmond, for example.

But I'm still scratching my head as to how you've twisted this to mean Judd doesn't compare favourably to Swan in Goal Assists.

Better against decent opposition.

And what's with the one game in hand comment? You do understand you can't now convert this stat back to total games played right? The sample you've reduced this down to, minus Essendon and pre-R15 St Kilda, leave both at 7 games.

Well they're both at 8 games actually, 8 games against decent teams each.

The numbers show that Swan had the same (minus one game) opportunity to "inflate" this stat against the same sides. That he couldn't do so doesn't reflect poorly on Judd; quite the opposite in fact, it reflects poorly on Swan.

Nothing to say that he couldn't have gone to town against a poor team in a thrashing. All we know is that he hasn't.

This is the problem with making a series of subjective assumptions to manipulate objective data. You've linked in form with ladder positions and revivals and the like. You've concluded St Kilda were a poor team on the night we played them, when their form was much closer to what they're presently displaying than earlier in the season.

There aren't any assumptions made, the facts remain that Judd's goal assist tally is inflated against poor teams, and that's what I've reported.

Both players are subject to the same method, and as with the Essendon example, I have considered any glaring contrasts between actual form of the side and ladder positions, and this is for both players.

As for your argument over StKilda, If I was to add the goal assist against them I'd have to subtract the 3 goal assists against Sydney in Rd 13, and so on, which I don't want to do. Essendon were a special circumstance because they were 9th at the end of the round and in a big form slump and missing their 6 most crucial players, and had played one more game than 7th and 8th spot, so their ladder position was inflated.

5/32 against Top 8 sides.

 

[Fasta_123]

lol monkey king going on about other people being emotional when hes been on this thread defending his love child the last week. get a life mate

 

[Monkey King]

lol monkey king going on about other people being emotional when hes been on this thread defending his love child the last week. get a life mate

Umm. This is a Judd thread. This is a football forum. This is the Polls Board. I'm expressing my opinion in exactly the right place. I've not gone on about other people being emotional; just you, because you are. Sorry if I hurt your feelings by not agreeing with you, but there are more appropriate places to express your offended. Move on son.

 

[Monkey King]

Nothing to say that he couldn't have gone to town against a poor team in a thrashing. All we know is that he hasn't.

Nothing to say Judd couldn't have gone to town against a decent team in a ladder leading side. All we know is that he hasn't

As for your argument over StKilda, If I was to add the goal assist against them I'd have to subtract the 3 goal assists against Sydney in Rd 13, and so on. Essendon were a special circumstance because they were 9th at the end of the round and in a big form slump and missing their 6 most crucial players.

Exactly. Your method of establishing decent teams and poor teams is simplistic and flawed beyond belief. I have no problem if you can't see that; your struggle with statistical variations, percentages and so on, is legendary on BF.

But tell me again how Judd doesn't compare favourably to Swan, because he has one less goal against your designed list of good teams (yet more against top 8 teams) and a stack more against your designed list of poor team (well Swan could kick them if he wanted to right).

Really? LMFAO!

 

[Hodgepodge]

Nothing to say Judd couldn't have gone to town against a decent team in a ladder leading side. All we know is that he hasn't

Nothing in the stats tells us why Judd hasn't had many goal assists against good sides, and I don't need to speculate. Just showing that it's the case is enough.

Exactly. Your method of establishing decent teams and poor teams is simplistic and flawed beyond belief.

No, it's the opposite, listing Essendon as a Top 8 side in Round 18 would be simplistic (although Essendon would've actually been an official bottom 9 side for a lot of that match).

But tell me again how Judd doesn't compare favourably to Swan, because he has one less goal against your designed list of good teams (yet more against top 8 teams) and a stack more against your designed list of poor team (well Swan could kick them if he wanted to right).

Really? LMFAO!

No, I'm just not offering an opinion as to why he hasn't. Judd's spread of goal assists is also unexplained.

The stats show that Judd has had almost all his goal assists against poor sides and I'm not speculating as to why. They also show that Judd averages more goal assists than Swan against poor sides and again I'm not offering a reason. Judd's goal assists clearly inflated though, and I have shown that.

 

[Monkey King]

Nothing in the stats tells us why Judd hasn't had many goal assists against my definition of good sides, and I don't need to speculate. Just showing that it's the case is enough.

Just a little EFA required. But I'm still left to ask how you could have such a stunningly inaccurate conclusion from your own manipulated data set. "Not many goal assists". WTF? He's had only one less than Swan, with a game still in hand. Your use of statistics is like erecting a fence; it starts off a few millimeters out and by the time you get to the end, it's a clear foot off the mark.

I'm not going to keep going over it with you. I've basically said all I have to say. Judd has had no opportunities different to any other player in the league. He has similar totals against the "good" teams and better totals against "poor" teams. That other players haven't done as well against "poor" teams reflects poorly on them, not on Judd. That you've tied yourself up thinking otherwise is just strange.

No, it's the opposite, listing Essendon as a Top 8 side in Round 18 would be simplistic

Oh dear, can you not recognize how flawed your ideas are? I mean ... seriously? That's embarrassing podge. For a start, at least create some kind of tier scale for the teams. Good teams versus poor teams; it's all just a bit ridiculously simple isn't it. At the very least you should create a middle tier for "average" teams to properly assess. No point sticking everyone you don't deem "good" on GC/Port's level. Next you should establish an objective criteria by which good/poor/average teams are assessed and distinguished. And if you want to apply this to single rounds, then do it round-by-round, for all players; not just for the round/team where Judd happened to snag seven - selecting criteria in reverse like this immediately undermines research in any field.

If you want to make claims about "what the stats tell us" you'd better learn the language of statistics

 

[Hodgepodge]

Just a little EFA required. But I'm still left to ask how you could have such a stunningly inaccurate conclusion from your own manipulated data set. "Not many goal assists". WTF? He's had only one less than Swan, with a game still in hand.

Actually 2 less than Swan with a game in hand, after tonight. Swan now with 7 of 23 goal assists against Top 8 sides.

That other players haven't done as well against "poor" teams reflects poorly on them,

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

For a start, at least create some kind of tier scale for the teams. Good teams versus poor teams; it's all just a bit ridiculously simple isn't it. At the very least you should create a middle tier for "average" teams to properly assess.

Not necessary, there is already a clear pattern even in the distribution of goal assists between Top 8 and Bottom 9 teams. 5/32 goal assists against Top 8 sides tells a story.

 

[Monkey King]

Actually 2 less than Swan with a game in hand, after tonight. Swan now with 7 of 23 goal assists against Top 8 sides.

Judd has 13 of 32 goal assists against Top 8 sides. Swan is 2 ahead on your poorly conceived good-team/poor-team index; nothing more

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

Yes. And it's welcome upon me. That you think it's the other way around is probably the most striking example of the backwardness of your approach to this subject.

Not necessary, there is already a clear pattern even in the distribution of goal assists between Top 8 and Bottom 9 teams.

You don't have to do it mate, just pointing out the fact you can't say to anyone what "the stats tell us" if you don't clean up your ridiculous research method. Your conclusions are statistical gibberish and the accompanying narrative distorts them even further. I've laid out a far more acceptable method of statistical analysis, but you could do even more again.

Given the focus on goal assists came about due to doubts on Judd's impact, the goal assists should be weighted according to total goal tallies, ie what percentage of team totals do these goal assists represent against poor/average/good teams. Further, should be an evaluation of close games and thrashings. 2 goal assists in a tight game should be worth more than 2 goal assists in a blow out.

Finally, as football is a team game and individual performances can be influenced by team dominance, there should be a relative weighting on your good/poor team index that accounts for comparative team quality - Collingwood being an excellent team versus Carlton being a good team. Perhaps you can account for this in the initial criteria for establishing your excellent/good/average/poor team index by adding some kind of weighting according to premiership points and percentage.


As it stands your internally devised good/poor team standard is even less useful than a top 8 team comparison. If anything, just removing the team that Judd scored heavily against only distorts your data set.

 

[Fasta_123]

Umm. This is a Judd thread. This is a football forum. This is the Polls Board. I'm expressing my opinion in exactly the right place. I've not gone on about other people being emotional; just you, because you are. Sorry if I hurt your feelings by not agreeing with you, but there are more appropriate places to express your offended. Move on son.

Lol your arguing with about 6 people. Im arguing with no one. For someone else replying to you you gave em a serve saying "i wasnt talking to you!" However suddenly its a place where people can express their opinions? as long as they agree with you and when it suits you of coarse... I look forward to looking at this thread next week to realise youve wasted another week of your life... Yeah im the emotional one...

 

[Monkey King]

Lol your arguing with about 6 people. Im arguing with no one. For someone else replying to you you gave em a serve saying "i wasnt talking to you!" However suddenly its a place where people can express their opinions? as long as they agree with you and when it suits you of coarse... I look forward to looking at this thread next week to realise youve wasted another week of your life... Yeah im the emotional one...

Hmmm ... I'm in a thread about Judd, discussing Judd. I'm on a football forum discussing football. I mean, I'm pretty sure I joined this site to talk about footy right? I doubt you joined this site to talk about Monkey King

Take your wounded pride and move on!

 

[Fasta_123]

Oh yes my wounded pride! and my emotions which have obviously been on show in this thread. what with my at best 20 minutes ive spent in this thread... Lets compare that to you. Obviously your not the one with wounded pride and being emotional. youre arguing for the sake of arguing. Just by saying something doesnt make it fact. You do realise that dont you? I mean everyone else in this thread does which is why they keep proving you wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Dont believe me? Read page 5-10 and see how many times youve said something doesnt matter only to say a bit later on it does.

 

[Monkey King]

Oh yes my wounded pride! and my emotions which have obviously been on show in this thread. what with my at best 20 minutes ive spent in this thread... Lets compare that to you.

Let's.

I love footy. I love Carlton. I'm talking about Judd in a thread about Judd. I've backed up what I've said with statistics and reason.

You're in a thread about Judd/Swan talking about ME. You make loose accusations and back them up with how you feel.

Well done Champ. Now if you don't want to discuss footy, move on, or I'll have you moved on.