What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? (Part 1 - cont in Part 2)

[ScarlettFever]

The point of the competition is to determine the best team.... the winner.

No, the point of the comp is to win a premiership. That doesn't necessarily make you the best team that year, just the team that won when it counted. Again, the best team does not always win and that is a good thing, but to believe that the best team is the one that always wins the premiership is delusional.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

No, the point of the comp is to win a premiership. That doesn't necessarily make you the best team that year, just the team that won when it counted. Again, the best team does not always win and that is a good thing, but to believe that the best team is the one that always wins the premiership is delusional.

Completely disagree. You can make it personal by calling me delusional if it makes you feel better, but its pretty reasonable to suggest that if you win a competition, you're the best team in that particular competition.

I'll keep your logic in mind though next season, and during the Olympics, NBA, EPL, and any other competition that involves someone winning.

 

[Luv_our_club]

The best team does not always win the flag and there is nothing wrong with that, as it would be a boring game if that was the case.

That's simply not true. Please show me this definition?

Karate Kid
Rocky
8 Mile
Cinderalla Man
The mighty Ducks
Erin Brokovich
Star Wars
Dodgeball
Revenge of the Nerds

Sometimes it takes a while for the best to reveal themselves. They look like underdogs. But they are the Best.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

I am only 30 years old but Chris Judd is the most damaging midfielder i have seen play the game.

All of his posessions counted. No one-two stat padding accumulation BS. His 'one trick' of being able to break away from packs made him the best player in the game.

He was simply devastating at the eagles and when many thought he would never be the same after his OP in his last season at the Eagles robbed him of his breakaway 'trick' he moved to Carlton and redefined his game to continue to be the premier midfielder in the competition.

Plenty of average players have had bigger posession games but rarely did another player in his era effect a match more than Judd.

The Judd bashing in this thread is bizarre.

 

[ManOfClay]

Sadly, i think the AFLCA votes are not pure.

Some coaches are old fashioned and do not like to vote for their players.

Some coaches are campaigners are always like to vote for their players,

Was proven by Brad Scott and North Melbourne’s petulant spat at Bontempelli in 2016

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

No, the point of the comp is to win a premiership. That doesn't necessarily make you the best team that year, just the team that won when it counted. Again, the best team does not always win and that is a good thing, but to believe that the best team is the one that always wins the premiership is delusional.

By what metric are Adelaide better than Richmond though? Won fewer games and beat fewer teams.

 

[SCRAY72]

By what metric are Adelaide better than Richmond though? Won fewer games and beat fewer teams.

Doesn't matter Barry. Enjoy and savour your success. You won. The history books show that you were the best.

 

[estibador]

By definition the best team of a competition, any competition is the team that wins it.

No it's not. That's a simplistic definition you're only peddling because of 2016. By definition, the team who wins the comp are the premiers, nothing more, nothing less. Fitzroy certainly weren't the best team in the comp the year they simultaneously won the spoon and the flag. Stephen Bradbury wasn't the best skater in the race when he won his gold medal.

Maybe in a comp structured like the EPL it's true, but not in the AFL where it comes down to one match. The best team of the season always has off days and never goes unbeaten in a season, but that doesn't mean they cease being the best team of the season every time they lose, whether that be in R10 or in the GF.

 

[Luv_our_club]

The AFL season fixture is so unfair it is a big claim to use H&A results alone to claim who was the best.

A team that finish 3rd and have a percentage lead of 20% over the whole comp can have claims to be the best performed team during the H&A season.

A team on the rise may go near undefeated and top of the ladder, but meet a hardened and experienced team during the finals who know what to do to get the job done when it matters. (eg. the old adage you have to lose one to win one).

The finals are viewed by most clubs as the start of a new season. Many teams go at half-rat power to get there, then step it up.

Unless you have major injuries, i think it is pretty hard to claim to be the best team if you cannot bring it on GF day. For whatever reason, it was proven that the losing team did not have what it takes.

 

[jatz14]

To be honest I think Judd, Kerr and Cousins were overrated as the way people talk about the 3 of them you would think they were unbeatable as a combination. Problem is that they were not, and even though West Coast was very good in the mid 2000's with the three of them there, they really only won 1 flag, and that 1 flag by 1 point.

At best I would say the Swans midfield of the mid 2000's was workmanlike but they could stand up well against the Judd, Kerr and Cousins combination when if you listened to bigfooty, no team should have been able to do.

All great players are overrated. All of them played stinkers, all of them could be beaten by plodders.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Hard Ball Get]

No it's not. That's a simplistic definition you're only peddling because of 2016. By definition, the team who wins the comp are the premiers, nothing more, nothing less. Fitzroy certainly weren't the best team in the comp the year they simultaneously won the spoon and the flag. Stephen Bradbury wasn't the best skater in the race when he won his gold medal.

Maybe in a comp structured like the EPL it's true, but not in the AFL where it comes down to one match. The best team of the season always has off days and never goes unbeaten in a season, but that doesn't mean they cease being the best team of the season every time they lose, whether that be in R10 or in the GF.

Thanks for telling me why I'm doing something. Here I was thinking, I controlled my own thoughts...

Call me crazy, but I define the winner of a given competition the best in that particular competition. I don't care if it runs for a year, a month or 4 days. You win it, you're the best in it, because you're the only one who has actually achieved what they set out to do. Win.

 

[estibador]

Thanks for telling me why I'm doing something. Here I was thinking, I controlled my own thoughts...

Sorry, I should have said I suspect you're only saying that due to 2016.

And I still firmly disagree. It seems self-evident to me that you can win something without necessarily being the best in the competition, for a variety of reasons.

You run that Bradbury race 100 times and he likely only wins once, barring another unforeseen fluke event. The only reason he won was because he was so much slower than the others he wasn't even close enough to get caught up in the crash. How anyone can argue that a fluke of fortune like that equates to him being the best skater in the race is beyond me.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

Sorry, I should have said I suspect you're only saying that due to 2016.

And I still firmly disagree. It seems self-evident to me that you can win something without necessarily being the best in the competition, for a variety of reasons.

You run that Bradbury race 100 times and he likely only wins once, barring another unforeseen fluke event. The only reason he won was because he was so much slower than the others he wasn't even close enough to get caught up in the crash. How anyone can argue that a fluke of fortune like that equates to him being the best skater in the race is beyond me.

Well obviously that specific example there is an argument for, and I'm sure there are others of similar ilk. I don't see any relationship between that and the AFL though. Most instances don't have drastic side issues such as that.

 

[Acinath]

I am only 30 years old but Chris Judd is the most damaging midfielder i have seen play the game.

All of his posessions counted. No one-two stat padding accumulation BS. His 'one trick' of being able to break away from packs made him the best player in the game.

He was simply devastating at the eagles and when many thought he would never be the same after his OP in his last season at the Eagles robbed him of his breakaway 'trick' he moved to Carlton and redefined his game to continue to be the premier midfielder in the competition.

Plenty of average players have had bigger posession games but rarely did another player in his era effect a match more than Judd.

The Judd bashing in this thread is bizarre.

Agreed, Juddy was an incredible player and #1 on my list. Absolutely brilliant.

 

[ScarlettFever]

Well obviously that specific example there is an argument for, and I'm sure there are others of similar ilk. I don't see any relationship between that and the AFL though. Most instances don't have drastic side issues such as that.

So you admit it can happen in other sports but not in afl, why? Teams/individuals winning when they probably shouldnt have can happen in any and every sport, and does happen in any and every sport. That's what makes sport great!

Some make it more difficult by playing 5 or 7 times to decide the winner. Some provide on shot to get it right. AFL is the latter and leaves little margin for error. Teams have one bad game and they have lost.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

So you admit it can happen in other sports but not in afl, why? Teams/individuals winning when they probably shouldnt have can happen in any and every sport, and does happen in any and every sport. That's what makes sport great!

Some make it more difficult by playing 5 or 7 times to decide the winner. Some provide on shot to get it right. AFL is the latter and leaves little margin for error. Teams have one bad game and they have lost.

I admitted that a circumstance such as every other competitior literally falling over while others crossed the line is a situation where it can happen.

In no way does the Bradburry situation relate to the AFL.

 

[ScarlettFever]

By what metric are Adelaide better than Richmond though? Won fewer games and beat fewer teams.

I apologise as I think my argument is getting crossed. I'm not arguing that Richmond were better or worse than Adelaide. I was simply responding to the post which said the best is always the team who wins.

 

[ScarlettFever]

I admitted that a circumstance such as every other competitior literally falling over while others crossed the line is a situation where it can happen.

In no way does the Bradburry situation relate to the AFL.

Then we shall agree to disagree. Obviously the Bradbury one is a pronounced example, but if you think that less obvious examples don't exist than we are not going to reach any resolution on this issue.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

Then we shall agree to disagree. Obviously the Bradbury one is a pronounced example, but if you think that less obvious examples don't exist than we are not going to reach any resolution on this issue.

The only other examples any one has suggested that I've seen has been Hawks 08. Cats weren't good enough to win when it mattered. Hawks were. They were the better team in 08 because they won the 08 flag, effectively they won the competition.
If you have other less obvious examples I'd listen to them, if not then I'd say you're right we won't agree.

 

[Luv_our_club]

The only other examples any one has suggested that I've seen has been Hawks 08. Cats weren't good enough to win when it mattered. Hawks were. They were the better team in 08 because they won the 08 flag, effectively they won the competition.
If you have other less obvious examples I'd listen to them, if not then I'd say you're right we won't agree.

it mus be a hollow feeling to win or lose in soccer by penalties.

I too can't think of Bradbury examples where a team has such bad luck they can't take responsibility for losing / in international sport.

The 7 games final series obviously wouldn't work in AFL, unless it was a rep international series with lot's of talent on the bench.

I think the argument is more about who "should" have won. Not about who proved themselves the best. The "should have beens" are not the best.

 

[ScarlettFever]

it mus be a hollow feeling to win or lose in soccer by penalties.

I too can't think of Bradbury examples where a team has such bad luck they can't take responsibility for losing / in international sport.

The 7 games final series obviously wouldn't work in AFL, unless it was a rep international series with lot's of talent on the bench.

I think the argument is more about who "should" have won. Not about who proved themselves the best. The "should have beens" are not the best.

I'm pretty sure on another thread you are trying to say Birchall is better than Enright so you clearly have no idea who the best would be.

 

[Luv_our_club]

I'm pretty sure on another thread you are trying to say Birchall is better than Enright so you clearly have no idea who the best would be.

I like the "pretty sure".

Have some confidence man.

 

[ScarlettFever]

The only other examples any one has suggested that I've seen has been Hawks 08. Cats weren't good enough to win when it mattered. Hawks were. They were the better team in 08 because they won the 08 flag, effectively they won the competition.
If you have other less obvious examples I'd listen to them, if not then I'd say you're right we won't agree.

But if you can admit that Bradbury wasn't the best, you admit that the best doesn't necessarily win. You are trying to say the team/person that wins is always the best. So which is it?

just because it's not as obvious doesn't mean it doesn't happen. 2009 if Hawkins goal which was actually a point was given as a point would saints have won? Very possible. If the ball bounced better for Milne in 2010, he may have kicked that goal. The next week they get flogged by the very same team.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

But if you can admit that Bradbury wasn't the best, you admit that the best doesn't necessarily win. You are trying to say the team/person that wins is always the best. So which is it?

just because it's not as obvious doesn't mean it doesn't happen. 2009 if Hawkins goal which was actually a point was given as a point would saints have won? Very possible. If the ball bounced better for Milne in 2010, he may have kicked that goal. The next week they get flogged by the very same team.

Some semantics there.
I've already said that there may be extreme outrageous circumstances (such as Bradbury) that could change things. These extreme instances: A. Don't happen often and B. Don't happen in the AFL. Or NBA, Major soccer league's, golf etc. etc.

There is ZERO correlation between Bradbury and the AFL and since this is an AFL forum, let's focus on that.

In every game there are moments of conjecture that are remembered, usually because they seemingly can alter the result of a game. What people forget is that moments like this happen throughout. Hawkins point is an example, there would have been moments in that game where the cats were "hard done by", weren't given a free kick that could have lead to a goal or conceeded a dodgy free that resulted in a goal the other way. That's sport, and that's footy. What it isn't, is an example of a better team losing.

The dogs board (mainly before 2016) were constantly outraged over Libba's point call in the 97 Prelim. The reality is though, no matter how hard it is for dogs fans to swallow, we weren't good enough. We had our chances and didn't take them. We let them back into the game and didn't cope when things went sour and ultimately we were beaten by the better team on the day.

The aim of the AFL from a team perspective is to win. If you win the competition there are no crazy scenarios like opponents falling over while you sail across the line, there is no one decision that caused the win. There is the simple fact that you are the best team on the day where the two best teams face off after working their way through the season.

If the season was 5 weeks, we'd have a different premier almost every time, reality is, it's a long season. The best isn't the team that wins the most games, finished highest on the ladder or has the highest percentage. Its the team that wins the competition. They are bloody hard to win, and if you do by God you deserved it.

 

[Luv_our_club]

I'm pretty sure on another thread you are trying to say Birchall is better than Enright so you clearly have no idea who the best would be.

After 2008, i thought the Hawks were destined for GF's. Then in 2012 we finally get there and miss out with bad kicking and flaws in our performance. Though we were hot favorites. I like that what defines the "best" is made up of intangible and also immaterial qualities that only are revealed through an arduous trial in front of 100,000 at the MCG.