Andrew Krakouer wins MOTY

[Gone Critical]

Good question GC.

I must start off with my understanding of the process and I put my hand up that I may be wrong:

Voting Process:
a. 8 panelists
b. 3-2-1 Vote
c. Vote is done in secret so that no panelist knows who his fellow panelists have voted for.
d. There will be no disclosure of the panelists voting.

The voting panel would be well aware that the majority of the footballing public thought that Walkers mark was MOTY
There were a couple of overt Carlton haters on this panel
Could have some members just wanted to be a little bit different thinking that the others would have voted for Walker, anyway?

Conspiracy? That is just silly and that is not what happened here, but something else did.

Interesting thoughts. I am glad you have distanced yourself from the conspiracy idea. Thats just too hard to believe. Massive downside for the AFL
if caught out for what gain.

Dont really understand why someone would vote against a mark they thought was better just to be different. They don't seem contrarians to me.

As for the the Carlton haters that just impinges their integrity again. I am guessing KB is your Carlton hater but I have spoken to him a number of times in person and he strikes me as pretty conscientious with these positions. Dont mistake his on air persona as reflecting how he would have voted. Amongst Demitriou, Anderson, Frawley Riccuito Matthews and Darcy I cant pick the other Carlton haters

How about the concept that there isn't the difference between these marks you are perceiving. A panel of experts with far greater knowledge than us found it hard to split but gave the narrowest of decision to Krakouer. You dont have to share their opinion , clearly there were differences amongst them. But you cant say its outrageous.

Its the same as Judds Brownlow. Its just nonsense to say he wasn't a worthy winner. Its not like the flag which is 1st past the post. Its subjective which means there will always be a number of potential worthy winners. Judd was that in 2010.

MOTY Krakouer is that in 2011

 

[Gone Critical]

It's an unusual word to see in a football forum but very welcome all the same.

I considered umbi but thought I would go the whole hog

 

[HARKER]

How about the concept that there isn't the difference between these marks you are perceiving. A panel of experts with far greater knowledge than us found it hard to split but gave the narrowest of decision to Krakouer. You dont have to share their opinion , clearly there were differences amongst them. But you cant say its outrageous.

I think anyone that has watched football for any period of time can call themselves an expert on whether a mark was good or not.

I mean, this isn't an Olympics diving championship where all sorts of technical factors are taken into account in order to attain a score.
It is largely based on the "Wow" factor and that is where the popular concensus approved of Walker's mark.

Walker’s mark in the final quarter of Carlton’s round 18 match against Essendon has certainly been the most viewed online and replayed in the media. There is no doubt it will be the mark that is remembered (and replayed) over the next 20-years.

Football supporters have been very quick to voice their disagreement with the decision by the judging panel. While most acknowledge selecting between some great marks during the season is extremely difficult and obviously a subjective decision, there is an overwhelming feeling that Walker’s is the classic leap that will be remembered and would be fitting as the Mark of the Year.

He may not have been awarded Mark of the Year but there seems little doubt Andrew Walker’s huge mark that brought everyone at the MCG to their feet (yes including the Essendon supporters still at the game), is the popular mark of the year with football supporters and many in the media.

I picked this up from the Carlton website, and it pretty much sums up what most have been saying here for the past two days.

All done and dusted though and I've been here long enough.

 

[bourbons]

Brownlow Medal only reminds me of Grand Final week, an exciting drawn Grand Final when it looked like we were beaten with 5 minutes to go, and then a premiership the following week!

Your memories from last year have nothing to do with post I was replying to, please, don't feel the need to share every facet of your life in the future.

 

[Monkey King]

I cant agree that there is doubt that Krakouer took his mark at a higher point though.

AK 176cm
DB 186 cm

AW 190cm
JC 197cm

So we start with a relative difference of 25cm. With Walker's knees getting higher than Carlisle's head and Krakouer's knees not getting higher than Beams shoulder, you can throw in another 30-35cm. Umbilicus to head is about 50cms. Says to me that claims of Krakouer definitely taking the ball higher are pretty dubious.

NicNat looks to have taken took the ball higher than both, so not sure what the point is anyway.

 

[mcuzzy]

if you think walker took the better mark, then you have never played footy before, nor do you know much about taking marks

 

[Brad Goodman]

The most pointless 532-post thread of all time?

 

[phantom13]

if you think walker took the better mark, then you have never played footy before, nor do you know much about taking marks

Wow... I can only assume you polish your three brownlows daily?

 

[Gone Critical]

AK 176cm
DB 186 cm

AW 190cm
JC 197cm

So we start with a relative difference of 25cm. With Walker's knees getting higher than Carlisle's head and Krakouer's knees not getting higher than Beams shoulder, you can throw in another 30-35cm. Umbilicus to head is about 50cms. Says to me that claims of Krakouer definitely taking the ball higher are pretty dubious.

NicNat looks to have taken took the ball higher than both, so not sure what the point is anyway.

Mmmm a novel approach but flawed

1. 25 cm relative difference. They were not standing on top of each others head so you cant just add them together and subtract

2. Krakouer clearly jumps onto Luke Thompsons shoulder not Dayne Beams. Thompson is listed at 196cm

3. Like Walker Krakouer gets a secondary boost off Thompsons shoulder and when he takes the ball is no longer in contact with Thompson but in fact has risen higher again

4. I am a small man and measuring myself from the umbi 50 cm gets to my lips, around 72 cm to the top of my head

5. Best ever recorded running vertical leap at the AFL draft camp is 102 cm, (around 3 feet). Brennan and Nic Nat.

Consider that and its clear that Krakouer took the higher mark even if Walkers initial leap was a bit higher. Walkers initial vertical leap has to be around 2 feet higher minimum to get to where Krak took the ball.

Just not physically possible to have such a differential when considering 2 elite footballers who have both taken one of the best high marks of the season. Physical prowess at the top end of sports is measured with v small differences amongst the best performances

Sorry to be pedantic but couldn't help myself. Not sure why you are so loath to admit that Krakouers mark was taken higher with this sort of evidence plain to see.

 

[KissStephanie]

It is no different to saying something as ridiculous as Simon Beasley being as good as Dunstall.

it is like comparing an Audi R8 with a Ford XR6.

Ha ha ha! These clichéd, unrelated, unfounded, and unproven comparisons are ridiculous, but funny!

By the way, Andy Krakouer's mark was better and absolutely deserving of Mark of the Year. I understand the correct criteria the panel used to vote for it. Many don't. You're one of them.

Your memories from last year have nothing to do with post I was replying to, please, don't feel the need to share every facet of your life in the future.

Let me think about that for a sec...Nah. I found my response quite appropriate to your post!

 

[phantom13]

By the way, Andy Krakouer's mark was better and absolutely deserving of Mark of the Year. I understand the correct criteria the panel used to vote for it. Many don't. You're one of them.[/quote]

Respectfully i disagree, firstly no-one fully knows what criteria the judging panel used, all i have heard was Darcy on one week at a time saying (vaguely at that) that some in the panel judged pack marks as more difficult than one on one marks, if that was the case, my opinion and my opinion only, Naitanuis was better than Krakouers in pretty much every way, higher, more impressive, more difficult (Jamison actually gets a legitimate spoil on the ball and Naitanui still holds it). However i still think Walkers is best, for a whole host of reasons, also think Petterds mark was underrated, it doesnt matter at the end of the day cause Krakouer got it and thats that. FWIW i think Krakouer should have had goal of the year and Walker should have had mark, but who really cares.

 

[Korn]

What's this rubbish about pack marks? Leo Barry's mark in the GF was a pack mark. It was good because there were about 6 other players contesting the ball.

When you jump as high as krakouer and you are higher than everyone else, the contest is totally gone. So that's not even a pack mark.

 

[Korn]

True, however this is only because Walkers was in a huge match everyone was watching live between big rivals everyone was pumped for it. However Kraks was in a low tempo match against adelaide which hardly generated interest.

Also, obviously, the Camera angles of walker are amazing from close up at all sides and slow mo too. However kraks only seems to have a relativly far away camera shot. THIS IS WHY THE GENERAL PUBLIC LEAN TO WALKER. Guess the official selectors were more proffessional than that and just judged which was infact the better mark.

You are just embarrassing yourself. You are not even talking about the mark there.

 

[Fastback]

After watching Nic Nat's, Walker's and Krak's mark again it's very hard to judge but I have no problem awarding it to Krak... great pack grab with added boost for effect from the smallest player of the trio - fair call.

 

[Blue Spirit]

@mcuzzy 12:37 today... I'm with you all the way, buddy. Krakouer was surfing that dude!

 

[mcuzzy]

Wow... I can only assume you polish your three brownlows daily?

haha

i know i sounded like a w***er in that post, was just trying to get the point across

walker's mark looked better, but krakouer's would've been very hard to take and he still managed to make it look magical

 

[phantom13]

haha

i know i sounded like a w***er in that post, was just trying to get the point across

walker's mark looked better, but krakouer's would've been very hard to take and he still managed to make it look magical

Yeh, little bit, they all would have been difficult to take, still think Naitanuis had a higher degree of difficulty than any of them, but as you said Walkers looked better, think that should be the main criteria. Everyone has an opinion you dont need to be an expert to pick your own mark of the year, but the experts picked theirs.

 

[Gone Critical]

Yeh, little bit, they all would have been difficult to take, still think Naitanuis had a higher degree of difficulty than any of them, but as you said Walkers looked better, think that should be the main criteria. Everyone has an opinion you dont need to be an expert to pick your own mark of the year, but the experts picked theirs.

Of course you dont. We are all entitled to an opinion. Punters here should just refrain from saying the experts are fools or have a hidden agenda if they dont agree with their view

 

[MightyTiger]

I thought Jack Riewoldts mark against Collingwood was pretty special, may not have looked flashy but the degree of difficulty would of been huge.

Skip to 1:00

[YOUTUBE]cSNHSiW1kjg[/YOUTUBE]

EDIT: Also this is another mark I rate very highly considering the conditions, and yep, once again it's Riewoldt.

Skip to 3:10

[YOUTUBE]zxAHXaKSQ4k[/YOUTUBE]

 

[phantom13]

I thought Jack Riewoldts mark against Collingwood was pretty special, may not have looked flashy but the degree of difficulty would of been huge.

Skip to 1:00

[youtube]cSNHSiW1kjg[/youtube]

EDIT: Also this is another mark I rate very highly considering the conditions, and yep, once again it's Riewoldt.

Skip to 3:10

[youtube]zxAHXaKSQ4k[/youtube]

That grab against sydney was insane, in the wet. Yeh i watched that about 5 times in disbelief.

 

[bourbons]

Let me think about that for a sec...Nah. I found my response quite appropriate to your post!

Yes dear, I've got no doubt youdid, but as usual your thoughts have little correlation with reality

 

[Monkey King]

Mmmm a novel approach but flawed

1. 25 cm relative difference. They were not standing on top of each others head so you cant just add them together and subtract - Of course they weren't, but it's fair to suggest from knee to head would reflect a similar difference. I'm not saying it's "centimeter perfect" but nothing you've said has been either. The height difference between players must be accounted for (you'd think the ball would be higher with Sandi taking a mark on Warnock's shoulders than Betts on Rodan's yeah) and using body measurements (ie total height and knee level relative to ridee's body parts) it's a more credible approach than simply ignoring it, like you have.

2. Krakouer clearly jumps onto Luke Thompsons shoulder not Dayne Beams. Thompson is listed at 196cm Eh? Thompson was well and truly hunched over. Beams is also right there and fully upright; hence an obviously much better measuring tool.

3. Like Walker Krakouer gets a secondary boost off Thompsons shoulder and when he takes the ball is no longer in contact with Thompson but in fact has risen higher again And yet the highest point is not passed Beams shoulders, even if he had a third or fourth boost.

4. I am a small man and measuring myself from the umbi 50 cm gets to my lips, around 72 cm to the top of my head You're probably right, I actually measured it from the bottom of the CFC logo (where AW took the ball), which is more the solar plexus region than umbilicus. It's about 57cms.

5. Best ever recorded running vertical leap at the AFL draft camp is 102 cm, (around 3 feet). Brennan and Nic Nat. And? So? What was Walker's? The boy has always had a big leap on him.

Not sure why you are so loath to admit that Krakouers mark was taken higher with this sort of evidence plain to see.

Why am I loath? Why are you loath? TBH I don't care much either way except that it should be an accurate claim. I've already demonstrated how the claim is well and truly questionable. You claiming it as a flawed approach is pretty funny when all you've done is measure between your umbilicus and head and say Walker must have leaped that distance again to equal the BALL height of Krak's mark ... without even accounting for the height difference of players which is nearly 2 foot in itself

 

[Sloth]

wow is this thread still going? have we consulted the biomechanical experts yet..?

 

[Gone Critical]

Why am I loath? Why are you loath? TBH I don't care much either way except that it should be an accurate claim. I've already demonstrated how the claim is well and truly questionable. You claiming it as a flawed approach is pretty funny when all you've done is measure between your umbilicus and head and say Walker must have leaped that distance again to equal the BALL height of Krak's mark ... without even accounting for the height difference of players which is nearly 2 foot in itself

I love posting with you Monkey because you are so bloody minded. It seems impossible for you to concede even minor points against your beloved Blues unless its in a strategic fashion. I admire your besottedness (if thats a word). Still it means we get boring as bat sh-t for others but they are not forced to read so it matters little.

So come on you cant be serious. You want to include Carlise's height in its entirety even though as Walkers leaps onto him his knees and hips are clearly flexed and his torso prone forward. Yet because Thompson is not bolt upright his height doesn't count

No one stands fully upright in this situation. Thompson looks about as upright as Carlise. We have 2 men of similar size who were jumped onto. Beyond that there is no discernable difference. If you watch the tape Beams for the same reason isnt upright and with camera angles etc makes a poor reference point.

Originally you claimed a 25cm height difference by slipping Beams into Thompsons position which is nearly 1 feet but in this reply you have increased it to nearly 2 feet.

Beams shoulder as a reference point is poor as he is adjacent to the mark and camera angles mean its difficult to interpret much. Think of judging a horse race finish if you are not on the finish line

Now I am really getting pedantic but the solar plexus (as popularly used rather than medically) is an ill defined term similar to the "pit of the stomach". Its somewhere in your guts for want of a better expression. Its about at the level of the umbilicus. So we are talking about the same spot. Umbilicus gives a set reference point and is usually equidistant between the xiphisternum and pubic symphysis in most people. Clearly all the measures we are using are estimates so lets stick with the umbi as we can define that point.

The significance of the AFL running vertical leap I thought would be plain to you. The AFL use it as it replicates running and leaping for a mark. If the very best draftees have reached 102 cm with their best ever effort its safe to surmise Walker and Krakouer haven't reached that height with their initial leap. They do both get some secondary elevation but Walker cant have outjumped Krak by 2 feet. Its just to big a differential between 2 elite AFL athletes where they both have produced efforts that would appear near PBS so to speak.

As an example of what I am getting at if you look at Usain Bolts 100m gold medal time and the slowest guy run out in the semis final there would appear a light year distance between them in performance. Bolt has streeted the other guy. But in absolute term he is probably only running around 10% faster.

3 foot is a great running vertical leap. Even allowing for all the secondary lift differentials and one player being more prone than the other etc etc Walker cant have leapt that much higher than Krakouer. Not enough to make up for the difference in the level they have taken the ball relative to their bodies.

Its seems a pretty minor point for us to have gone on about. To me its pretty clear Walker had the higher leap but Krakouer took the ball at a higher point.

Thats all. Sorry but I cant but help enjoy these arguments. I know thats a bit sad. Cheers

 

[jonbe54]

What a weird thread, 37 pages of bitching about a b/s pop quiz award. Some of you guys need to get a life - really