The Non-Essendon Thread

[Kong]

Simple. Champ.

You have no idea. You embarrass yourself on here and the main board.

Now, as I'm sure noone else is interested in our squabble I'm calling a truce.

I won't respond you, you don't respond to me.

 

[SirJimi05]

Your only retort to my Yarran comment was that it's because he takes the game on.

a) somebody with the skills and composure that he supposedly has wouldn't turn it over as often as he did. Don't see Goddard or Pendlebury doing that.
b) you don't afford Dempsey that same excuse

Yarran hardly ever turns the ball over. He sells his team mates under pressure occasionally because he takes the most attacking options.

Bit different to Dempsey who is a poor kick and sells his team mates into pressure with floating hospital passes or simple poor decision making.

Who can seriously claim double standards when the situations are completely different.

And FWI I don't know how much you've watched the Saints this year but I reckon Goddard has turned the ball over a bit.

 

[SirJimi05]

Simple. Champ.

You have no idea. You embarrass yourself on here and the main board.

Now, as I'm sure noone else is interested in our squabble I'm calling a truce.

I won't respond you, you don't respond to me.

What a great way of calling a truce. Good to see you being the bigger man.

 

[Kong]

Easy done.

 

[yaco55]

He wasn't even expected to place in 2004.

Tredrea was the best player that year, followed by Riewoldt.

You could maybe mount an argument for Chad Cornes or one of the Brisbane fab four (IIRC Lappin was the pick that year).

And Judd, being an explosive midfielder in a goodish side, romped it home on 30 votes.

I love him as a player, and he probably should've won one in 2006 or 2007 (injury robbed him in 07), but he certainly wasn't the best player in 2004. I'm adamant. I remember it clearly.

You are opening a can of worms.

Judd was a gun player and a deserved winner in 2004.

Thought that when Goodes won his first Brownlow wasn't elite enough at that time - No problems with Goodes second victory.

Thought that Cooney wasn't at the elite level when he won in 2008 - Was probably better in 2009.

And Judd was nowhere near the best player in 2010 - His Management didn't attend the count - Thinking that he had no chance.

 

[yaco55]

Yarran was excellent, again. Probably their second best player behind Kade Simpson. He was instrumental in getting the Blues back into the game in the second half.

He does occasionally put his team mates under pressure but this is only because he takes the most attacking option at all times. He is given a license to do so and it is for the betterment of the team.

Need to agree SJ.

Simpson was inarguably Carlton's best - and Yarran was probably second or third best.

 

[yaco55]

Will say that this particular thread sometimes turns into a ' Pot the Opposition Player.

 

[Burzum]

Well most threads on this board end up potting one of our players so it's no surprise that this thread degenerates into that

 

[yaco55]

Well most threads on this board end up potting one of our players so it's no surprise that this thread degenerates into that

Have to agree.

 

[Summer Nights]

I'm not silly enough to think that only one guy is deserving of a brownlow. There were 3 or 4 players last year who would have all been well deserving had they won. Much like Judd.

He was an absolute freak in 2004 and I can't believe that you are actually questioning his win. You certainly wouldn't be if he was playing for Essendon I can tell you that much.

Are you seriously comparing Dempsey to Yarran? Get your goggles off, dude. Yarran's skills are sublime and he is a weapon. He was instrumental in getting Carlton into the game last night.

FYI Yarran went at 80% de last night which was something like the 4th or 5th best efficiency on the ground.

Lol. Brownlow is supposed to represent Best and Fairest. How can you say that there is more than one 'best' player. Best, by definition, means the absolute highest player. To say there is more than one is to say either:

1. There are a few that could be, and you just don't know how to differentiate them
2. Two players were exactly equal in every way, which is virtually impossible

I'm guessing the former. You pick 5 players and then because you don't have the skills to differentiate them, you say they're all deserving.

There can be only one deserving winner. The 2nd best player in the league does not deserve the Brownlow.

 

[Summer Nights]

Simple. Champ.

You have no idea. You embarrass yourself on here and the main board.

Now, as I'm sure noone else is interested in our squabble I'm calling a truce.

I won't respond you, you don't respond to me.

Calm down.

 

[SirJimi05]

Not sure if the post above this is serious?

 

[Kong]

I don't think Goodes deserved either of his Brownlows, either.

 

[Kong]

This is who I think was the best in each year:

2003: Buckley
2004: Tredrea
2005: Cousins
2006: West/Judd
2007: Ablett
2008: Ablett
2009: Ablett
2010: Swan

 

[Summer Nights]

Not sure if the post above this is serious?

It was a serious post. In my opinion, there is only one best, so nobody but the best player deserves it. To say that a player in the top5 or 10 'deserves' it because they're close enough is nonsensical.

 

[Summer Nights]

No love for Judd in 05?

Thoughts on Buddy in 08?

 

[SirJimi05]

It was a serious post. In my opinion, there is only one best, so nobody but the best player deserves it. To say that a player in the top5 or 10 'deserves' it because they're close enough is nonsensical.

You would be onto something if judging a players performence is objective but it isn't.

 

[Kong]

Judd was great in '04-07, but IMO was probably pipped in each year.

Cousins was clearly the best player in 2005.

IMO Buddy was the 2nd best, and - as much as you'll hate this - would've deserved it in 2008.

The way I see it is, because it's such a subjective thing, I can understand it coming from the 2 or 3 best. But when it comes from a guy not on their level in that year, it really annoys me.

So yeah, if I had to break it down into the best for each year, I'd go:

2003: Buckley/Riccuito/Hird/Wanganeen
2004: Tredrea/Riewoldt/Cornes/Black
2005: Cousins/Judd
2006: West/Judd/Goodes*
2007: Ablett/Bartel/Judd
2008: Ablett/Franklin/Richardson
2009: Ablett
2010: Swan/Ablett/Sandilands/Hodge


* So maybe Goodes' 2006 wasn't that outrageous.

 

[Summer Nights]

You would be onto something if judging a players performence is objective but it isn't.

I think it's okay to say you think they deserve it if you think they were the best player, and only the best player.

I agree that it's subjective, but that's beside the point. For example, if I think Judd is the 2nd best player this year behind player x, it doesn't make sense to say "Judd still deserves it if he wins it", because only the player who I think is the best should get it.

 

[Burzum]

The year Judd deserved it most ('06) he didn't get it. But, he was edged out by Goodes, which isn't much of a surprise.

Anyway, this weekend has been pretty poor for footy in general tbh

 

[SirJimi05]

I think it's okay to say you think they deserve it if you think they were the best player, and only the best player.

I agree that it's subjective, but that's beside the point. For example, if I think Judd is the 2nd best player this year behind player x, it doesn't make sense to say "Judd still deserves it if he wins it", because only the player who I think is the best should get it.

Yes it does because it is subjective. A subjective judgement takes place in the mind and is modified by individual bias.

Bearing this in mind I feel that a few other players would have been worthy winners of the Brownlow last year.

 

[Summer Nights]

Yes it does because it is subjective. A subjective judgement takes place in the mind and is modified by individual bias.

Bearing this in mind I feel that a few other players would have been worthy winners of the Brownlow last year.

What I'm trying to say is that if you subjectively believe that a player, for example Ricky Dyson, has been the second best player in the league this year behind Chris Judd, then if Ricky wins the Brownlow he still deserves it. That is contradictory.

 

[Rack Watts]

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

 

[djrossie16]

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

That's a good list and precisely why no one should really put a premium on the Brownlow medal . The good footy judges know who the best players are.

 

[SirJimi05]

What I'm trying to say is that if you subjectively believe that a player, for example Ricky Dyson, has been the second best player in the league this year behind Chris Judd, then if Ricky wins the Brownlow he still deserves it. That is contradictory.

lol this is ridiculous. I give up.