The Non-Essendon Thread

[Summer Nights]

lol this is ridiculous. I give up.

How can you honestly say that the player you think is the second best player still deserves the Brownlow if he happens to win it?

How can you say that the award for best player can go to the non-best player if they are 'close enough'. It's ridiculous.

Reason: it's because you don't have the strength of your conviction. You just say "oh well, it's subjective, so i'll admit I could be wrong because he's close enough, so I'll say he still deserves it."

 

[SirJimi05]

Do you know what definitive is? It means conclusive. Well there is no such thing as a definitive answer when it comes to subjectivity.

This is why the whole jist of what you are saying makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Summer Nights]

By your logic, if the worst player in the league wins the award, do you say "oh well he still deserves it because it's subjective"?

 

[Burzum]

If I had to pick 1 winner for each year I'd be this:

2000: McLeod
2001: Akermanis
2002: Black
2003: Riccuito
2004: Tredrea
2005: Judd
2006: West
2007: Ablett
2008: Richardson
2009: Ablett
2010: Sandilands

Change '05 to Cousins and '06 to Judd, then I would agree. Could also argue that Buddy deserved it in '08.

 

[Summer Nights]

Do you know what definitive is? It means conclusive. Well there is no such thing as a definitive answer when it comes to subjectivity.

This is why the whole jist of what you are saying makes absolutely no sense at all.

No but you can make a reasonable argument about things. You could make a reasonable argument that Buddy deserved it in 08, and that Lloyd deserved it in 00 or 01.

Can you make a reasonable argument that Cooney was the best player? Could you make a reasonable argument that Woedodin was a better player than Kouta in 00? I think that's where the difference is. Woewodin was in the top 10 players, but when you think he's not the best, you can't make a reasonable argument that he was the best. Does that make sense? It's just how I see it, personally.

 

[SirJimi05]

By your logic, if the worst player in the league wins the award, do you say "oh well he still deserves it because it's subjective"?

Are you for real, dude?

I think Judd was the best player in 2010. I think there were a few players who were very close to him.

Given that subjectivity is based on opinion, assumption, bias, judgement and belief and that it varies from person to person, it stands to reason that if one of the players just behind Judd won the award they would be a deserving winner, taking all of the above into account.

If Scott Gumbleton won the brownlow this year I would say it is ludicrous because even once taking all subjective components into account he would still be miles off Judd.

 

[SirJimi05]

Jason Tutt 3 goals with his first 3 kicks in league footy for the Bullies...

Look out John Coleman!

 

[Tassieboy]

Oh no Swans in front

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

****, Swans win.

 

[yaco55]

No but you can make a reasonable argument about things. You could make a reasonable argument that Buddy deserved it in 08, and that Lloyd deserved it in 00 or 01.

Can you make a reasonable argument that Cooney was the best player? Could you make a reasonable argument that Woedodin was a better player than Kouta in 00? I think that's where the difference is. Woewodin was in the top 10 players, but when you think he's not the best, you can't make a reasonable argument that he was the best. Does that make sense? It's just how I see it, personally.

At best Woewodin was just in the top 50 players when he won the Brownlow.

 

[Summer Nights]

Are you for real, dude?

I think Judd was the best player in 2010. I think there were a few players who were very close to him.

Given that subjectivity is based on opinion, assumption, bias, judgement and belief and that it varies from person to person, it stands to reason that if one of the players just behind Judd won the award they would be a deserving winner, taking all of the above into account.

If Scott Gumbleton won the brownlow this year I would say it is ludicrous because even once taking all subjective components into account he would still be miles off Judd.

But where do you draw the line in subjectivity? See the problem? You're almost there. You've just admitted you do draw the line somewhere, outside of subjectivity. What is your line? The top 3 or 4 players in your judgements? Mine is the top 1 in my judgement. What if someone ele's was anyone in the top 15? What would you think if someone labelled Jack Riewoldt a deserving winner if he takes it home this year, even if they think he's only 15th best?

 

[Vince12]

I just have to interject that Mumbo, stop now. Jimi is 100% right. You draw the line when NOBODY thinks that gumbleton was the best player. ie. he got 0 votes. Every single year there are SEVERAL players who could be defined as the best player. This is due to the sport having more than 1 role. If we were comparing the 100m sprint, itd be easy because the quickest person wins. However in AFL it is impossible to compare a guy who had 10 tackles to a guy who had 10 smothers. Were the tackles important? Were the smothers influential? There are too many factors over a 22 game season. That's why we have a medal based on votes on the umpires opinion as Jimi has pointed out. In my opinion I thought cousins was a better player than Judd, however I can totally 100% see how other people would have a different opinion and they wouldn't be wrong in saying Judd is/was better

 

[SirJimi05]

I'm done with this. It's absolutely ridiculous this this is even being discussed.

 

[Summer Nights]

Wellllll it's not ridiculous. Asked a few simple questions which jimi couldn't answer, so I think my point is made. Cheers.

 

[Summer Nights]

Brb, winning threads.

 

[Summer Nights]

I just have to interject that Mumbo, stop now. Jimi is 100% right. You draw the line when NOBODY thinks that gumbleton was the best player. ie. he got 0 votes. Every single year there are SEVERAL players who could be defined as the best player. This is due to the sport having more than 1 role. If we were comparing the 100m sprint, itd be easy because the quickest person wins. However in AFL it is impossible to compare a guy who had 10 tackles to a guy who had 10 smothers. Were the tackles important? Were the smothers influential? There are too many factors over a 22 game season. That's why we have a medal based on votes on the umpires opinion as Jimi has pointed out. In my opinion I thought cousins was a better player than Judd, however I can totally 100% see how other people would have a different opinion and they wouldn't be wrong in saying Judd is/was better

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that rather than someone saying "I don't think he was the best but he still deserved it", they should say "I don't think he was the best and IMO didn't deserve it, but I can see how others might think he was the best".

The former is illogical and is not the same thing. It is impossible to say "he wasn't the best player but he deserves to be crown the best player".

If you think that they could be thought of by others as the best, then say so, but don't just say they deserve it.

 

[kfc1]

so will the St Kilda player get suspended for tripping Goodes? Or is he let off because he isn't Fletcher?

 

[Kong]

Of course he won't get suspended. They don't call it The Fletcher Rule for nothing.

 

[SirJimi05]

And I get accused of knit picking

 

[yaco55]

Sports Today commented on the Polo tripping offence - Suggested that if Fletcc committed this offence he would have got weeks.

 

[Kong]

They can't even use the "Fletch has a history" excuse, either.

It's either an offense or it isn't.

 

[Kong]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-selection-panel/story-e6frf9jf-1226121185073

"Don't fool yourself ... Tom Harley being a premiership captain is a great thing, and not an easy thing, but that's totally different to being able to pick a good coach," he said.

"Yes, you do know what good coaches do but you're only seeing it on a superficial level"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-selection-panel/story-e6frf9jf-1226121185073

What does that even mean?

 

[kfc1]

LOL, none of what Aker said in that article makes any sense...

 

[Lord Nicholson]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-selection-panel/story-e6frf9jf-1226121185073http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-selection-panel/story-e6frf9jf-1226121185073

What does that even mean?

I agree with him insofar as it would also be wise to have an external premiership coach on these panels, but Walls? Parkin? People who have been out of the game for over a decade? Good Lord.

There are nuggets of value floating in the rivers of shit that are Aker's diatribes, but... seriously, they are buried deep, and I'm not even sure that they're intentional.

He probably hates Harley purely because of the Leading Teams bizzo.

 

[Kong]

Yep, my first thought.

He's an outspoken critic of Leading Teams, whereas Harley was probably the biggest advocate.

I also agree, that they could've/should've added somebody like Matthews or Roos.