Well Done Stiffy

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

I think it is awful that Graham's win of the Showdown Medal on saturday night has been questioned. With 7 judges giving there 3,2,1 votes it is alway going to be an open contest.

The judging was

Kym Dillon

3 C Cornes, 2 D Brogan, 1 P Burgoyne

Chris McDermott

3 K Cornes, 2 D Wakelin, 1 C Cornes

Michelanglo Rucci

3 R James, 2 G John****, 1 K Cornes

Chris Dittmar

3 G Wanganeen, 2 G John****, 1 D Wakelin

Roger Wills

3 P Burgouyne, 2 G John****, 1 D Wakelin

KG

3 D Wakelin, 2 G John****, 1 K Cornes

Paul Kermode

3 R James, 2 G John****, 1 K Cornes


He won it fair and square and I think he should be given the praise he deserves.

k
xx

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl
I think it is awful that Graham's win of the Showdown Medal on saturday night has been questioned. With 7 judges giving there 3,2,1 votes it is alway going to be an open contest.

The judging was

Kym Dillon

3 C Cornes, 2 D Brogan, 1 P Burgoyne

Chris McDermott

3 K Cornes, 2 D Wakelin, 1 C Cornes

Michelanglo Rucci

3 R James, 2 G John****, 1 K Cornes

Chris Dittmar

3 G Wanganeen, 2 G John****, 1 D Wakelin

Roger Wills

3 P Burgouyne, 2 G John****, 1 D Wakelin

KG

3 D Wakelin, 2 G John****, 1 K Cornes

Paul Kermode

3 R James, 2 G John****, 1 K Cornes


He won it fair and square and I think he should be given the praise he deserves.

k
xx

He played ok and well done. Not undeserving at all.

But I think you have mistaken what people have been saying with respect to his win.
He was not BOG, and the medal is supposedly for the BOG.
This could be fixed up easily by making a stipulation that the medal winner must also have at least one BOG vote.
With so many judges it could easily happen again that the "consolation vote getter" will be the winner. With 2 or 3 judges only, it would be harder for it to happen.

The vote I find funny amongst that lot is the one from Roger Wills. How can you give a player 3 votes for BOG, and his direct opponent 2 votes for second BOG? Baffling.

 

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

I think the issue is with the number of judges.

I just think it has been a bit unfair some of the things that have been said and the deal made out of it.

k
xx

 

[macca23]

Excellent post MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl.

The most important thing of the evening was to win the footy match. Port won that and should be more than delighted with that.

The award for the best player in the game is just a little crumb when compared to the win, and for Choco or any one else to be so bloody minded and petty to question Johncoc k being voted as best player is the sign of a very small pathetic mind.

The voting for best player was done by 7 voters on an equal basis. Some of these voters have well known pro Port Adelaide inclinations, and voted for Johncoc k as their 2nd best player, which contributed to his aggregate votes and helped him win it. The fact that the 7 voters spread their 3 point votes over 6 different Port players only proves that none of these was the standout best player - everybody sees the game and best players differently.

Stiffy won the medal on the voting system established before the match by scoring the most votes from the 7 different voters voting independently.

Well done Stiffy. As for those who have tried to tarnish Stiffy's win, all they have done is to tarnish their own public image of sportsmanship.

 

[brent33brett33]

maybe mark williams shouldn't have said what he did in the rooms.. but either way, it shouldn't have been caught on tape or whatever and it shouldn't have been re-played on radio. its his business what he says in the port rooms to the port players.

the media are as much to blame for it, if not fully. it is obvious that john**** deserved the medal, all the port players took votes off each other and john**** was the only crow player who did any good.
and i hope that made sense. lol

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by brent33brett33
maybe mark williams shouldn't have said what he did in the rooms.. but either way, it shouldn't have been caught on tape or whatever and it shouldn't have been re-played on radio. its his business what he says in the port rooms to the port players.

the media are as much to blame for it, if not fully. it is obvious that john**** deserved the medal, all the port players took votes off each other and john**** was the only crow player who did any good.
and i hope that made sense. lol

Choco got caught accidentaly. The calling panel was going live down to Power rooms to Hamish Atrhur who was interviewing Wakelin. In the middle of interview you could hear Choco loudly in the background saying "You wouldn't believe this, Johnc*ck is the West End Medallist. Its a joke"

The radio station didn't set out to record Choco it just happened. Wakelin was in the middle of his sentence when Choco came barging in.

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by macca23
The award for the best player in the game is just a little crumb when compared to the win, and for Choco or any one else to be so bloody minded and petty to question Johncoc k being voted as best player is the sign of a very small pathetic mind.

If Choco had come out on radio and said that I would probably agree that he erred. However he didn't, and sometimes a bit of commonsense from the reporters wouldn't go to waste. He was talking to his players from what I gather, and it shouldn't have gone to air.
As far as BOG goes, I stick by my comments on the previous post.
Reduce the number of judges, and better still, get rid of the journalists from the panel.

 

[brent33brett33]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Choco got caught accidentaly. The calling panel was going live down to Power rooms to Hamish Atrhur who was interviewing Wakelin. In the middle of interview you could hear Choco loudly in the background saying "You wouldn't believe this, Johnc*ck is the West End Medallist. Its a joke"

The radio station didn't set out to record Choco it just happened. Wakelin was in the middle of his sentence when Choco came barging in.

oh. oooops. my bad.

 

[Leaping Lindner]

Re: Re: Well Done Stiffy

Originally posted by PAfolwr
......
The vote I find funny amongst that lot is the one from Roger Wills. How can you give a player 3 votes for BOG, and his direct opponent 2 votes for second BOG? Baffling.

In 1982 Sturt played North at Footy Park. Tim Paech played centre for Sturt and Greg McAdam centre for North. Both were named in the media as their team's best player. From memory Paech scored 3 votes come Magarey night and Mc Adam two.
Okay it was a 'while' ago but it does happen.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by PAfolwr
However he didn't, and sometimes a bit of commonsense from the reporters wouldn't go to waste. He was talking to his players from what I gather, and it shouldn't have gone to air.

No he wasn't talking to his players. I was listening to 5AA at the time and they were interviewing Wakelin. In the middle of the interview you could hear Choco barging in and saying how it was a joke how they gave Stiffy a medal as BOG. It was purely accidental and the guys on radio seemed lost for words a bit

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
No he wasn't talking to his players. I was listening to 5AA at the time and they were interviewing Wakelin. In the middle of the interview you could hear Choco barging in and saying how it was a joke how they gave Stiffy a medal as BOG. It was purely accidental and the guys on radio seemed lost for words a bit

In that case , the fact that he is getting picked on for getting caught out is a bit "stiff".

 

[Port01]

KG said on radio he felt obligated to give at least one crow player a vote, whereas the Port players took votes off each other.

If the other voters felt the same way, personally I think that is a joke

But, I don't really care who won it, we all know its Francou's medal anyway. Congrats to John**** on being the best camry on the park.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by PAfolwr
In that case , the fact that he is getting picked on for getting caught out is a bit "stiff".

Yeah pretty stiff

 

[crowsfan]

Originally posted by macca23
Excellent post MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl.

The most important thing of the evening was to win the footy match. Port won that and should be more than delighted with that.

The award for the best player in the game is just a little crumb when compared to the win, and for Choco or any one else to be so bloody minded and petty to question Johncoc k being voted as best player is the sign of a very small pathetic mind.

The voting for best player was done by 7 voters on an equal basis. Some of these voters have well known pro Port Adelaide inclinations, and voted for Johncoc k as their 2nd best player, which contributed to his aggregate votes and helped him win it. The fact that the 7 voters spread their 3 point votes over 6 different Port players only proves that none of these was the standout best player - everybody sees the game and best players differently.

Stiffy won the medal on the voting system established before the match by scoring the most votes from the 7 different voters voting independently.

Well done Stiffy. As for those who have tried to tarnish Stiffy's win, all they have done is to tarnish their own public image of sportsmanship.

Very good point about the nature of the system macca. This is not the first time in sports, where a system has been somewhat controversial. Look at the test cricket rankings - that is an excellent example - according to the system, Australia is 2nd in the world but everyone knows we are really numero uno. There's been a few flaws with tennis world rankings too.

Point is, if Choco and/or Port aren't happy who was awarded the medal, they should question the system, not the player who won it. Whether their comments put to air or not, intentionally or unintentionally, is irrelevant IMO.

And like you say, Stiffy ranked highest according to the system, and for that he deservingly congratulated upon.

 

[Macca19]

Re: Re: Re: Well Done Stiffy

Originally posted by Leaping Lindner
In 1982 Sturt played North at Footy Park. Tim Paech played centre for Sturt and Greg McAdam centre for North. Both were named in the media as their team's best player. From memory Paech scored 3 votes come Magarey night and Mc Adam two.
Okay it was a 'while' ago but it does happen.

Goin back a bit there arent ya!! Midfielders play off each other all the time. Buckley and Voss in the GF the prime recent example. Both were the best 2 players on the ground.

It is odd however for someone to rate a player who played in the forward lines for 90% of the night BOG, and then give his opponent for 90% of the night 2nd best on ground. I thought that blokes particular votes were odd.

 

[Jars458]

Re: Re: Well Done Stiffy

Originally posted by PAfolwr
He was not BOG,

No everyone agreed that he was second best (5 out of 7 anway)

No-one could agree who was best.


Its a bull**** medal anyway., Who cares whether you are BOG in a minor round game, esepecially when the medal is named after a company that make urine and call it beer.

 

[napsyd]

My understanding is the Brownlow system is the same in that whilst umpires may individually see different players as BOG, it is possible for a player to be seen as "second best" yet still receive the three votes for the match.

Is it also not unfair to say that if John**** was the only player to poll votes from the majority of judges then by concensus he was the BOG?

Whilst I undersand PAfolwr's sentiment in that the medal winning player should receive at least one BOG vote, to my mind it would have been unfair to give the medal to a player who had received less votes than John****.

If we want to go down this track we should all move out West.

 

[Portia]

I just don't understand why they're using preferenced votes in the first place. Shouldn't they just come to an agreement?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Porthos
I just don't understand why they're using preferenced votes in the first place. Shouldn't they just come to an agreement?

With 7 judges, it is unlikely they would get agreement! There wasn't even a majority for 1 player being BOG.

 

[Jars458]

I would be interested to see the votes for McLeods second Norm Smith

In that game argualbly Hart Jarman and Johnson could have been Best on ground.

Its all subjective.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Jars458
I would be interested to see the votes for McLeods second Norm Smith

In that game argualbly Hart Jarman and Johnson could have been Best on ground.

Its all subjective.

Exactly! I had Hart BOG, because we would not have been in a position to win the game at half-time without his defensive efforts. However, others argue that Macca turned the game around in the 2nd half & was the matchwinner. Different people see different things & rate different aspects of the game differently. I guess this post won't make much of a difference.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
With 7 judges, it is unlikely they would get agreement!

I disagree. These are people that live with compromise, and a compromise would be made. Hell, umpires condense their decision down to one set of votes easy enough. I'm pretty confident that if they all knew that a few `eveners' had John**** down for 2 votes, they would've made a serious compromise.

There wasn't even a majority for 1 player being BOG.

So? This is what discussion is about. Its a lot more useful than a bunch of aimless votes. I know I can be convinced by other views.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Porthos
I disagree. These are people that live with compromise, and a compromise would be made. Hell, umpires condense their decision down to one set of votes easy enough. I'm pretty confident that if they all knew that a few `eveners' had John**** down for 2 votes, they would've made a serious compromise.

So? This is what discussion is about. Its a lot more useful than a bunch of aimless votes. I know I can be convinced by other views.

It is much easier to get a compromise between 3 people than 7 people as there are less divided opinions & easier to convince 1 person to get a majority than 3 others! Getting agreement between 7 people on a subjective matter is not as simple as you make out - particularly when you consider some of the egos of the judges. If there are only 1 set of votes to be give like the umpires do with the Brownlow, then it would best to reduce the number of voters to 3 IMO.

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by napsyd
Whilst I undersand PAfolwr's sentiment in that the medal winning player should receive at least one BOG vote, to my mind it would have been unfair to give the medal to a player who had received less votes than John****.

It wasn't a sentiment as such, just stating a point that some people are prone to give sentimental type votes.
With 7 judges, the chance of that happening is increased. Definitely a case of more means less (quality) with too many judges.

As far as Burgoyne and John**** both receiving votes, in the so called old days, most teams pretty well put their "best" players in the centre, and their focus was not so much looking out for their opponent, but if they were good enough, it was to create drive.
They could easily be their respective teams best on the night.
As Macca19 has said, it was a different situation on Saturday night.

 

[Leaping Lindner]

Originally posted by Jars458
I would be interested to see the votes for McLeods second Norm Smith

In that game argualbly Hart Jarman and Johnson could have been Best on ground.

Its all subjective.

I always thought Caven was the other possible. As Mike Sheehan said at the time "One thing stood between Adelaide and the premiership and that was Wayne Carey and Caven took him out of the game.That is why I would have given the norm smith to him" - or words to that effect.