Judd on The Footy Show

[RhEF JC]

i didnt see much wrong with his interview...

i dont hold much affection for the guy anymore but we seem to go a bit over the top when talking about judd.

it is fun to laugh at the coincidence that his time at carlton coincides with their behavioral downfall though.

with the exception of the first line, because I didn't see it, I completely agree with the above.

 

[mehow2g]

Ive always thought when he was holding the premiership cup was weird.

 

[NYJetsfor2029]

football supporters are so tribal

wow, funny you say that, my friend is about to hand in a thesis on this. (on english soccer supporters though)

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Not sure what was wrong with the interview.

Judd was told what questions would be asked, his media manager then told him how to answer.
The public think its a real interview and then go on BF to talk about it.

Standard AFL stuff if you ask me. Robots at their best.

 

[bodazoka]

This is why I dont understand the legal issues people have with others posting deflamatory comments on sites like this. Every time it happens the troll gets ripped to shreds by the majority of sensible posters anyway...

O and isnt Judd that guy who plays for Carlton? Why is there a thread about him on the WC board?

 

[Byron_Clanger]

I was glad he was asked some tough questions for once

 

[Patterz123]

I thought Judd spoke well on the show, and has always spoke well even throughout times at west coast.

I think alot of the blame he is copping over the blue's incidents is heavily misdirected, he is one individual and can't control the actions of every person around him.

He is a top bloke, god forbid he has a bit of sensor of humour from time to time. Just appreciate the good he gave us and if anything the interview made me think how good it would be to still have him at the club.

But in saying that, we are moving forward fine .. whilst the blue's not so.

 

[15_year_member]

Not sure what was wrong with the interview.

Judd was told what questions would be asked, his media manager then told him how to answer.
The public think its a real interview and then go on BF to talk about it.

Standard AFL stuff if you ask me. Robots at their best.

Dead right. Questions would have been agreed in advance and the aswers prepared by the Carlton management. That would also be why he was not asked any questions about the eye gouging/pressure point incident - he did not consent to questions on that subject before the interview.

Good to see he is copping a bit of flak now. It was ridiculous how long the Melbourne media carried on with the hallowed saint image despite how many times he was around the place when poor behaviour was going on at both clubs, was best mates with the main offenders and made no attempt to stop or change what was going on and protest in any way. They always wanted to paint him as the exception and pretend he was not a part of it.

The worm has definately turned now though. The media are after him. Everything that happens at Carlton will get pinned on him and his poor captaincy and leadership. It took a long time for his image as a person and captain to get tarnised and it will take an equally long time for him to repair it, if he can.

 

[Eagle87]

Dead right. Questions would have been agreed in advance and the aswers prepared by the Carlton management. That would also be why he was not asked any questions about the eye gouging/pressure point incident - he did not consent to questions on that subject before the interview.

Good to see he is copping a bit of flak now. It was ridiculous how long the Melbourne media carried on with the hallowed saint image despite how many times he was around the place when poor behaviour was going on at both clubs, was best mates with the main offenders and made no attempt to stop or change what was going on and protest in any way. They always wanted to paint him as the exception and pretend he was not a part of it.

The worm has definately turned now though. The media are after him. Everything that happens at Carlton will get pinned on him and his poor captaincy and leadership. It took a long time for his image as a person and captain to get tarnised and it will take an equally long time for him to repair it, if he can.

You watched the interview and got that from it?

Or is this more pontificating from a bloke who has his mind made up and the facts be damned?

The questions about him being both a willing and strong leader have existed since he first, reluctantly, took on the role of captain at West Coast. They remain. Seems much more of a leader by example rather than a hard leader and that comes with some downsides....

He was there on the show as the captain of Carlton and, as such, was asked questions about Carlton. As such, questions about a suspension from last year are somewhat irrelevant, although the subject was touched on anyway. In addition, the notion of agreements on questioning and so on are silly, sure they may have had some off topic questions, but the eye gouging was not in context of the interview and was the only "tough" topic not directly discussed. Which makes suggestions of a scripted interview pretty baseless - I mean what else did they leave out?

It was a pretty decent interview, the issues about his captaincy and the specific issues were all asked and answered and all that really showed is that Judd is competent at answering and, as always, a little uncomfortable with the whole process.

Noone watching that interview would conclude that "the worm has turned" or that his image is now "tarnished" and the media are out to get him - nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

 

[15_year_member]

You watched the interview and got that from it?

Or is this more pontificating from a bloke who has his mind made up and the facts be damned?

The questions about him being both a willing and strong leader have existed since he first, reluctantly, took on the role of captain at West Coast. They remain. Seems much more of a leader by example rather than a hard leader and that comes with some downsides....

He was there on the show as the captain of Carlton and, as such, was asked questions about Carlton. As such, questions about a suspension from last year are somewhat irrelevant, although the subject was touched on anyway. In addition, the notion of agreements on questioning and so on are silly, sure they may have had some off topic questions, but the eye gouging was not in context of the interview and was the only "tough" topic not directly discussed. Which makes suggestions of a scripted interview pretty baseless - I mean what else did they leave out?

It was a pretty decent interview, the issues about his captaincy and the specific issues were all asked and answered and all that really showed is that Judd is competent at answering and, as always, a little uncomfortable with the whole process.

Noone watching that interview would conclude that "the worm has turned" or that his image is now "tarnished" and the media are out to get him - nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

Exactly what "facts" are we talking about now, Egotist? Let us know. We all know you have the market on them cornered from your dingy bungalow, sorry, i meant multi million dollar penthouse in Bangkok. Exactly what "facts" am i damning?

It's my opinion that these types of interviews, especially on light and fluffy shows like TFS and especially involving high profile players like Judd and especially when their image has taken a bit of a battering are usually scripted. Thats what these forums are for - contibuting opinions, not that you would know how. I didn't claim that i was in the negotiations between carlton and TFS before the interview and can give a first hand account of what was said between the two parties and the nature of the agreement. I contributed an opinion. Just as it is your opinion that there would have been no agreement between Carlton and Judd and TFS before the interview was scheduled. Or is it your opiniion? I am not sure. Your very vague with your own opinion here, as always. Too cowardly. It's always easier to to avoid stating your opinion and instead attack others, usually by misquoting them such as here claiming that i have stated that i know for a fact that the interview was scripted. Very typical cowardly Ego87 posting. Is it your position then that there was no agreement between TFS and the Judd camp and that you know this for a "fact"?

As for your assertion that they didn't ask about the eye gouging because it wasn't "in the context" of the interview. What exactly is the context? Judd appeared to try and shore up his battered image more so than anything else. And what does "context" have to do with anything? TV is about ratings. You know, asking interesting questions of your subject that the audience would like answered. Thats the point of it - to generate interest and ratings. And most footy followers would be interested in hearing Judd's answer about the eye gouging. So it was in the interests of the interviewers and the TV show to ask him. But they didn't. And you say the reason they didn't ask is "context" rather than because they were told that the subject is off limits before Judd agreed to the interview. Laughable logic. If you don't think that all the questions and topics in that interview were pre screened by Carlton you are very naive.

As for tough questions that were avoided, i would have liked to have seen them discuss the west coast culture problems that developed while he was a senior player and captain and the fact that not only did he fail to effect positive change at west coast he never even raised the issue with the coach or club management at all and completely failed to act as a leader of the organisation. I would ask why he did nothing when he obviously knew what was going on?

And i say that the media are after him because, if you haven't noticed, the media are starting to write negative articles about him now, which they never used to do. They are not giving him a free pass and and are in fact now bringing up his time at west coast and asking about his captaincy record at our club instead of just giving him a free pass and saying he was the exception. His captaincy and ability as a leader and reputation as a clean skin are getting a battering on talk back on the east coast, which never used to happen. So the perception of him by the public and the willingness of the media to question him has changed IMO. i didn't say it changed as result of that interview. But don't let that stop you from more misquotes and BS. Where would you be if there were red cards on here for misquoting posters?

Don't worry, if all gets tough and scary stating your opinion on something real you can just start another riveting thread bagging Priddis or laughing at Wilkes (as though a loser who gets his jollies misquoting people on BF and lives in a fantasy world claiming to be a millionaire businesman can laugh at anyone).

 

[Eagle87]

Exactly what "facts" are we talking about now, Egotist? Let us know. We all know you have the market on them cornered from your dingy bungalow, sorry, i meant multi million dollar penthouse in Bangkok. Exactly what "facts" am i damning?

It's my opinion that these types of interviews, especially on light and fluffy shows like TFS and especially involving high profile players like Judd and especially when their image has taken a bit of a battering are usually scripted. Thats what these forums are for - contibuting opinions, not that you would know how. I didn't claim that i was in the negotiations between carlton and TFS before the interview and can give a first hand account of what was said between the two parties and the nature of the agreement. I contributed an opinion. Just as it is your opinion that there would have been no agreement between Carlton and Judd and TFS before the interview was scheduled. Or is it your opiniion? I am not sure. Your very vague with your own opinion here, as always. Too cowardly. It's always easier to to avoid stating your opinion and instead attack others, usually by misquoting them such as here claiming that i have stated that i know for a fact that the interview was scripted. Very typical cowardly Ego87 posting. Is it your position then that there was no agreement between TFS and the Judd camp and that you know this for a "fact"?

As for your assertion that they didn't ask about the eye gouging because it wasn't "in the context" of the interview. What exactly is the context? Judd appeared to try and shore up his battered image more so than anything else. And what does "context" have to do with anything? TV is about ratings. You know, asking interesting questions of your subject that the audience would like answered. Thats the point of it - to generate interest and ratings. And most footy followers would be interested in hearing Judd's answer about the eye gouging. So it was in the interests of the interviewers and the TV show to ask him. But they didn't. And you say the reason they didn't ask is "context" rather than because they were told that the subject is off limits before Judd agreed to the interview. Laughable logic. If you don't think that all the questions and topics in that interview were pre screened by Carlton you are very naive.

As for tough questions that were avoided, i would have liked to have seen them discuss the west coast culture problems that developed while he was a senior player and captain and the fact that not only did he fail to effect positive change at west coast he never even raised the issue with the coach or club management at all and completely failed to act as a leader of the organisation. I would ask why he did nothing when he obviously knew what was going on?

And i say that the media are after him because, if you haven't noticed, the media are starting to write negative articles about him now, which they never used to do. They are not giving him a free pass and and are in fact now bringing up his time at west coast and asking about his captaincy record at our club instead of just giving him a free pass and saying he was the exception. His captaincy and ability as a leader and reputation as a clean skin are getting a battering on talk back on the east coast, which never used to happen. So the perception of him by the public and the willingness of the media to question him has changed IMO. i didn't say it changed as result of that interview. But don't let that stop you from more misquotes and BS. Where would you be if there were red cards on here for misquoting posters?

Don't worry, if all gets tough and scary stating your opinion on something real you can just start another riveting thread bagging Priddis or laughing at Wilkes (as though a loser who gets his jollies misquoting people on BF and lives in a fantasy world claiming to be a millionaire businesman can laugh at anyone).

Drunk again aren't you....

Honestly, you are beyond help and its increasingly obvious.

One question - did you watch the interview?

 

[Eagle87]

Exactly what "facts" are we talking about now, Egotist? Let us know. We all know you have the market on them cornered from your dingy bungalow, sorry, i meant multi million dollar penthouse in Bangkok. Exactly what "facts" am i damning?

It's my opinion that these types of interviews, especially on light and fluffy shows like TFS and especially involving high profile players like Judd and especially when their image has taken a bit of a battering are usually scripted.

So your assertion is now fact? I mean where is this evidence of Judd's image taking a battering?

Thats what these forums are for - contibuting opinions, not that you would know how.

Yes, I never venture opinions.

I didn't claim that i was in the negotiations between carlton and TFS before the interview and can give a first hand account of what was said between the two parties and the nature of the agreement. I contributed an opinion. Just as it is your opinion that there would have been no agreement between Carlton and Judd and TFS before the interview was scheduled. Or is it your opiniion? I am not sure. Your very vague with your own opinion here, as always. Too cowardly. It's always easier to to avoid stating your opinion and instead attack others, usually by misquoting them such as here claiming that i have stated that i know for a fact that the interview was scripted. Very typical cowardly Ego87 posting. Is it your position then that there was no agreement between TFS and the Judd camp and that you know this for a "fact"?

Genuinely funny

As for your assertion that they didn't ask about the eye gouging because it wasn't "in the context" of the interview. What exactly is the context? Judd appeared to try and shore up his battered image more so than anything else.

Judd appeared as captain of Carlton, to answer questions about a rough off-season for his club. That was the focus, the context. Pretty obvious.

And what does "context" have to do with anything? TV is about ratings. You know, asking interesting questions of your subject that the audience would like answered. Thats the point of it - to generate interest and ratings. And most footy followers would be interested in hearing Judd's answer about the eye gouging. So it was in the interests of the interviewers and the TV show to ask him. But they didn't. And you say the reason they didn't ask is "context" rather than because they were told that the subject is off limits before Judd agreed to the interview. Laughable logic. If you don't think that all the questions and topics in that interview were pre screened by Carlton you are very naive.

Is that your opinion again or a fact. You ventured earlier that it was your OPINION that screening occurred. In fact I will quote you "I contributed an opinion" - exact quote.

Now its an absolute fact? Anyone who doesn't agree that "all the questions and topics in that interview were pre-screened by Carlton (is)... very naive"? Really?

Ok. But thats just your opinion, even though anyone who doesnt agree is "very naive". Ok.

As for tough questions that were avoided, i would have liked to have seen them discuss the west coast culture problems that developed while he was a senior player and captain and the fact that not only did he fail to effect positive change at west coast he never even raised the issue with the coach or club management at all and completely failed to act as a leader of the organisation. I would ask why he did nothing when he obviously knew what was going on?

Are these opinions or statements of fact?

I mean you are absolutely sure that Judd "never even raised the issue with the coach or club management at all" AND "completely failed to act as a leader of the organisation" .... in fact, you said THE FACT, so this bit was fact not opinion. Ok. Can you point me to the source of this FACT. Or are you confused again, struggling with this whole Fact/Opinion dichotomy?

As for that being a "tough question avoided", (a) why would Carlton screen such questions out and (b) its 3 years since Judd left, everyone has moved on, how was this a question that was relevant?

By the way, Lyon did ask Judd about the comments some had made making the connection between him being captain of WC when in off-field turmoil and then him being captain of Carlton in similar circumstances ... you did see the interview didnt you?

And i say that the media are after him because, if you haven't noticed, the media are starting to write negative articles about him now, which they never used to do. They are not giving him a free pass and and are in fact now bringing up his time at west coast and asking about his captaincy record at our club instead of just giving him a free pass and saying he was the exception. His captaincy and ability as a leader and reputation as a clean skin are getting a battering on talk back on the east coast, which never used to happen. So the perception of him by the public and the willingness of the media to question him has changed IMO.

I think you are drawing a VERY long bow. I dont think Judd's captaincy has ever been the subject of universal approval. He has never shown himself to be a great or overly keen captain.

The fact that he was captain (thrown in at the deep end) of WC in 2006/2007 barely reflects on him - except they won a flag in trying off-field times. I mean you could have gone with a Seaby/RoJo godsquad of captains when Cuzz got removed as captain and that wouldnt have cleaned up the club - or damaged their squeaky clean reps ....

As I said, long bow. WC had issues before Judd was captain. Fev was a disgrace before Judd walked through the doors at Carlton... and so on.

Is Judd questioned in articles re his off field leadership? Yes. Has that always been an issue? Yes.

Is the "worm turned"? Are the "media now after him"? Is his "image tarnished"? and will it "take a long time to rebuild it"? Well, these are all statements you made (see your posts above) - and they are ridiculous.

i didn't say it changed as result of that interview. But don't let that stop you from more misquotes and BS. Where would you be if there were red cards on here for misquoting posters?

You struggle with English at times dont you?

Don't worry, if all gets tough and scary stating your opinion on something real you can just start another riveting thread bagging Priddis or laughing at Wilkes (as though a loser who gets his jollies misquoting people on BF and lives in a fantasy world claiming to be a millionaire businesman can laugh at anyone).

You are a very sad individual. Which is fine. The issue on this board is your inability to add anything at all .....

 

[The Don't Argue]

That's a sweet burn.

 

[kfleong2000]

What the hell happened to this thread?

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

What the hell happened to this thread?

Someone let 15 year member post.

And lo and behold someone gets annoyed with his rubbish posting.

And the discussion gets heated.

Surprise suprise the thread gets derailed.

Time to lock the thread mods.

 

[Ochre]

the eagles board great pissing contest v10323463.0

 

[Ghossein]

absolute prick

 

[MoraMora]

Thought Judd was very classy, my respect grows for the man every time I see him talk