Andrew Krakouer wins MOTY

[HARKER]

and if judd was the best player last year there wouldnt be a peep on here either
The point is: He just wasnt

I agree. Next point.

It was though the voting system that allowed him to.
8 very good games with top votes amount to 24 Votes = Win Brownlow
18 very good games could easily be 18 Votes = Lose Brownlow

 

[harmesy 37]

No, both victories occured within a system that is purely based on the opinion of a select group of individuals, a comittee and the umpires respectively. The only difference is one process took place over an entire season due to the nature of the award while one took place in a meeting room in a day.

Both are equally subjective, you're simply trying to justify why one is more correct than the other based on the method when what you really disagree with is the result. Lets face it, you believe Walker should've won, had the process been the exact same as the Brownlow you'd still be complaining equally as hard at the result.

OK well I am keen to be enlightened.. Imagine you are in the voting panel- on what grounds do you vote Krakeour's mark as being better than Walker's?

Are there criteria you use?

and what are they?
Could it be

1) length of the hang time in the air
2) the run up- whether it was a long run up or short
3) the height of the mark.

Do you assign a certain importance to each criteria?

Or do you just say...mmmm... I like that one best as it is taken by a Collingwood player.

 

[Zahki]

OK well I am keen to be enlightened.. Imagine you are in the voting panel- on what grounds do you vote Krakeour's mark as being better than Walker's?

Are there criteria you use?

I just use my own judgement I guess. Theres no way to say objectively which one was better, so I guess I'd base it on which I thought was the most spectacular leap. For mine I would've gone with Nic Nat, great jump and he plucked it at the highest point.

 

[chappo52]

Darcy in this interview - right at the end- justifiies his decision because he believes Krakouer's was a "pack mark".

Does he even know what a pack mark is? How can he be making decisions on the mark of the year when he doesn't even know what a pack mark is?

Two people standing in front of Krakeour/not contesting for the ball/ don't make a "pack mark" in my estimation. There are some people that rush in after Krakeour goes to ground but the actual people involved in the area - 2 people plus Krakeour. Or do you just need people in the area to make it a pack mark...so next time Walker wants to take a mark- he should ask 2 people to stand nearby and be spectators?



And anyway these people in Darcy's "pack" weren't even contesting for the ball. They were standing at the foot of it. Illogical argument on two counts from Luke Darcy.

Just going to ignore Johncock being right on Krakouer when the ball hits his hands?

1) They both got clean jumps(no hands on shoulders/back)

2) One is uncontested, one is contested (ignore the guys they are jumping on).

3) They both get the second boost when on the shoulders.

4) One takes it in the hands the other takes it on the chest

5) One gets pulled to the ground, the other rests slightly longer on the shoulders and twists

1 and 3 are ties, 2 and 4 go to Krakouer, 5 goes to Walker. Had Walker taken it in out stretched hands it would have been a no brainer,

if anyone can add more criteria to that list feel free.

 

[Steeleyourself]

OK well I am keen to be enlightened.. Imagine you are in the voting panel- on what grounds do you vote Krakeour's mark as being better than Walker's?

Are there criteria you use?

and what are they?

I personally don't think the criteria has anything to do with measurements, most of them are probably emotionally driven. Kraka's may have been because Collingwood were down and it was taken at a miracle moment?

Could it be

1) length of the hang time in the air
2) the run up- whether it was a long run up or short
3) the height of the mark.

Do you assign a certain importance to each criteria?

I'd just vote for which one blew me away the most. But I'd have personal bias, so I wouldn't be the right person to ask.

Or do you just say...mmmm... I like that one best as it is taken by a Collingwood player.

What do they have to gain? I honestly think they were equally impressed by both, but maybe they just decide Kraka's was just a smidgen better?

 

[Gone Critical]

OK well I am keen to be enlightened.. Imagine you are in the voting panel- on what grounds do you vote Krakeour's mark as being better than Walker's?

Are there criteria you use?

and what are they?
Could it be

1) length of the hang time in the air
2) the run up- whether it was a long run up or short
3) the height of the mark.

Do you assign a certain importance to each criteria?

Or do you just say...mmmm... I like that one best as it is taken by a Collingwood player.

I will have a go

Things that favour Krakouer

1 Pack mark under more pressure, surrounding traffic to distract
2 Takes the ball at a higher point
3 Marks the ball cleanly above his head
4 Collingwood bias, I accept it is there even if I have tried to avoid it
5 Thomas 's kick was a bit up and under making it difficult to judge

Things that favour Walker

1 Higher pure leap
2 More hang time
3 Spectacular, this was aided by more flattering camera angles and the close up vision compared to Krakouers
4 Didnt have as clean a run at the ball

My conclusion - I lean to Krak and understand I am probably a little biased

Why - I just rate pack marks better and I have played footy for more seasons than many posters here will have lived. The v clean overhead take with the big leap I also rate v highly

Thy are both great and there's not much between them. Perhaps thats whty the real experts, Lethal etc essentially had them level pegging on their assessment

 

[harmesy 37]

OK we have some valid criteria here from 3 collingwood supporters. All of it is justified.



Do we know if the voting panel from the AFL used a methodology such as this or not?
Why do we get to know how the Norm Smith was voted on but not the MOTY? Is the voting panel a secret brotherhood? Are they templar knights or something?

Anyway- I like all three of your answers.

We have

1) if it was taken at an important moment in the match- helped team get over line- valid choice. ok walker's wasn't at an important moment in the match.


2) chappo 52 thinks it does qualify as a contested mark because on the way down Johncock was close enough to have a fist near the ball. OK maybe that is why Darcy thought it was contested? I can see that now. Obviously my idea of a "contest" is different to Darcy's but I can meet you half way on that one.

3) above the head or chest mark

OK we have 3 good criteria here. On these grounds you would have to give it to Krakeour. All I ask is that they explain that this is the criteria that they value or do they look at other criteria.




I remember Malcolm Blight on tv a few grand finals back saying he judges it on
1) the height
2) hang time.

I think Jesaulenko said the same in another g/f show as well.


But perhaps now we should judge each mark solely on

1) time in the match the mark was taken
2) whether it was deemed as being contested(personally i don't see Krakeour's one as being truly contested but perhaps I am wrong)
3) whether it was taken on the chest or not

If that is the sole criteria then maybe Krakeour should have won it and really I am just being a biased Carlton supporter. I welcome being told I am wrong, as to be frank I couldn't work it out at all.

 

[Steeleyourself]

OK we have some valid criteria here from 3 collingwood supporters. All of it is justified.



Do we know if the voting panel from the AFL used a methodology such as this or not?
Why do we get to know how the Norm Smith was voted on but not the MOTY? Is the voting panel a secret brotherhood? Are they templar knights or something?

Anyway- I like all three of your answers.

We have

1) if it was taken at an important moment in the match- helped team get over line- valid choice. ok walker's wasn't at an important moment in the match.


2) chappo 52 thinks it does qualify as a contested mark because on the way down Johncock was close enough to have a fist near the ball. OK maybe that is why Darcy thought it was contested? I can see that now. Obviously my idea of a "contest" is different to Darcy's but I can meet you half way on that one.

3) above the head or chest mark

OK we have 3 good criteria here. On these grounds you would have to give it to Krakeour. All I ask is that they explain that this is the criteria that they value or do they look at other criteria.

I remember Malcolm Blight on tv a few grand finals back saying he judges it on
1) the height
2) hang time.

But perhaps now we should judge each mark solely on

1) time in the match the mark was taken
2) whether it was deemed as being contested
3) whether it was taken on the chest or not

If that is the sole criteria then maybe Krakeour should have won it and really I am just being a biased Carlton supporter. I welcome being told I am wrong, as to be frank I couldn't work it out at all.

Doesn't mean your wrong, Walker's mark can be MOTY for you, but the selectors decide a clear winner in THEIR opinion. You may enjoy a huge jump after a short start, while Andy D might like little guys doing big things. If you put clear rankings in that have to be noted by a count, the whole thing will lose meaning IMO.

It's just a fun award anyway, the players probably have a laugh and try to outdo each other next year, I don't get the big fuss.

 

[HARKER]

I think you guys are really complicating things. This really isn't a scientific study.

The question though may be best put to neutral supporters:
Which mark got you out of your seat?
I personally don't care if a player "catches" the ball between his ankles. If it gets me out of my seat, then it must have been spectacular.
I hate this which mark was harder stuff. Is that what it's about?
If it is then Fyfe should have won the goal of the year by a mile.

 

[Summer Nights]

My reactions when I first saw both marks:

Krakouer: "nice"

Walker: "oh my ****ing god"


My reaction last night after hearing the winner: "what the ****??"

 

[arkie]

Yep, robbed.

 

[Jimmy C]

The only mark that mattered to Walker happened in the last 10 seconds against west Coast - instead he chose not to put his arms up and attempt to mark but to throw them out horizontally and it was all over

I'm sure if he made a genuine attempt with arms up in those final seconds he would of got the free in the square and the rest would be history - as opposed to some subjective pissing contest about MOTY

For what its worth can anyone off the top of their head name the last 5 MOTY winners?

means shite

 

[Eth]

Krakouer, Jurrah, Burton...Newton and Lloyd?

 

[KnaveyBlue]

LOL, I can't believe Collingwood supporters are still in here arguing that Krakouer's was better.

By all means be glad that a panel with an agenda gave him the award, but have the common sense to accept that it wasn't the best mark of the year.

 

[KissStephanie]

You know what. After having slept on this I am even more pissed off than last night.

You should save your anger and frustration for more appropriate issues. Andrew Walker's mark was a beauty, but Andrew Krakouer's mark was better!

The fact that Collingwood supporters and those who thought the Krak mark was better are having to vehemently defend it says it all for mine. It's clear as day that Walker's was better and deserved MOTY. Those polls posted earlier tell the tale.

Nah. It's the fact that people either love or hate Collingwood. Especially since since last years premiership, and those opposition supporters are vehemently defending Walker's mark by posting meaningless polls when it's obvious that very few opposition supporters would vote for a Collingwood player whether they believed it was the best mark or not.

Many opposition supporters simply feel sorry for Carlton though after years of struggling. That says it all for mine. The judges based Andrew Krakouer's mark as the best on aspects that weren't evident in Andrew Walker's mark, and I understand what they were, even if many don't.

 

[Bayer_]

You should save your anger and frustration for more appropriate issues. Andrew Walker's mark was a beauty, but Andrew Krakouer's mark was better! Nah. It's the fact that people either love or hate Collingwood. Especially since since last years premiership, and those opposition supporters are vehemently defending Walker's mark by posting meaningless polls when it's obvious that very few opposition supporters would vote for a Collingwood player whether they believed it was the best mark or not.

Many opposition supporters simply feel sorry for Carlton though after years of struggling. That says it all for mine. The judges based Andrew Krakouer's mark as the best on aspects that weren't evident in Andrew Walker's mark, and I understand what they were, even if many don't.

Have you ever considered nominating yourself to be on the MOTY judging panel? How about the MRP, too? Perhaps you can even show KB a thing or two over the summer with the rules of the game committee?

 

[Steeleyourself]

By all means be glad that a panel with an agenda gave him the award, but have the common sense to accept that it wasn't the best mark of the year.

I'm sure you have an abundance of evidence to prove this, or is this an "off the hip" comment because you are still bitter about the decision?

 

[imadodgyumpire]

31 pages before I've even logged in the site! I haven't bothered reading past the first page, don't know if anyone else has said it, but Walker not getting MOTY is the BIGGEST TROLL OF ALL TIME!...IT'S THE TROLL TO END ALL TROLLS! There could not possibly be another reason not to give it to him!

 

[Bayer_]

I'm sure you have an abundance of evidence to prove this, or is this an "off the hip" comment because you are still bitter about the decision?

Except it's not just Carlton supporters saying it. Indeed, only Collingwood fans are bothering to support the MOTY decision.

 

[Steeleyourself]

Except it's not just Carlton supporters saying it. Indeed, only Collingwood fans are bothering to support the MOTY decision.

An abundance of opinion does not evidence make. I believe it was better, do you have testable proof to refute it?

I could probably wade back and find 1 non-Collingwood supporter to agree Krak's was top and your claim is disproven.

 

[blaze036]

LOL, I can't believe Collingwood supporters are still in here arguing that Krakouer's was better.

By all means be glad that a panel with an agenda gave him the award, but have the common sense to accept that it wasn't the best mark of the year.

U also realize Carlton supporters are still in here arguing walkers was better as well? so thats a bloody stupid point isn't it?

What kind of agenda does the panel have? grow up this isn't a conspiracy, it was a line ball and they went with a contested mark out in front that was crucial to the game.

Walkers only looks better (to some) because of the amazing camera angels (krakours was further away and less angels), and it was a huge match between Carlton v Essendon.

Krakours was in the middle of a pack with 7 or so people going for the ball how can u possibly say it wasnt contested?

 

[sherb]

It's the fact that people either love or hate Collingwood.

The MOTY judging panel have certainly made it clear which camp they fall in.

 

[Bayer_]

An abundance of opinion does not evidence make. I believe it was better, do you have testable proof to refute it?

A marking contest is subjective by its nature, this is true. But where one candidate is unanimously regarded as the best - except by interested parties - and it doesn't win, those who selected it are either severely out of touch with the rest of the public, or have an interest of their own.

Here it appears the latter is the case.

 

[sherb]

U also realize Carlton supporters are still in here arguing walkers was better as well? so thats a bloody stupid point isn't it?

Take the Carlton and Collingwood supporters out of the discussion and I wonder which mark the majority of neutral supporters think should have won MOTY.

Actually, I don't wonder, I know.

 

[Steeleyourself]

A marking contest is subjective by its nature, this is true. But where one candidate is unanimously regarded as the best - except by interested parties - and it doesn't win, those who selected it are either severely out of touch with the rest of the public, or have an interest of their own.

Here it appears the latter is the case.

Going to the public I agree with, since we vote the nominees each week, and I don't refute how damn good that mark was, I still "whoa" when I see it, but I do the same for Pettard's, NN's and Kraka.

I just don't get what the fuss is about, Walker's will be a showcase, Kraka gets Fuel vouchers, seems we have 2 winners IMO.