- Mar 23, 2007
- 34,932
- 23,542
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Man U, Canucks and 49ers
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Judd's Brownlow - Evidence of fixing in AFL?
- Thread starter sirlothie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Oh dear
Perhaps you need a bit longer to think about it. No worries ... take your time.
my 2c.
Carltons gameplan is to block for Judd in the midfield. So the amount of times he will burst out of a pack uncontested, break an arm tackle and look awesome happens on regular basis. The only other midfielder who does anything for Carlton if Murphy and he is very unspectacular.
Gibbs and Carazzo can also get votes, but both had bad years.
So when you think about it, Carlton made the finals and won quite a few games and when they win, Judd is almost always going to get the votes.
When you look at Collingwood: Swan, Pendles, Thomas will all steal votes off each other. Much like St Kilda: Hayes, Montagna, Dal Santo will do the same.
It's only logical that Judd won it.
Carltons gameplan is to block for Judd in the midfield. So the amount of times he will burst out of a pack uncontested, break an arm tackle and look awesome happens on regular basis. The only other midfielder who does anything for Carlton if Murphy and he is very unspectacular.
Gibbs and Carazzo can also get votes, but both had bad years.
So when you think about it, Carlton made the finals and won quite a few games and when they win, Judd is almost always going to get the votes.
When you look at Collingwood: Swan, Pendles, Thomas will all steal votes off each other. Much like St Kilda: Hayes, Montagna, Dal Santo will do the same.
It's only logical that Judd won it.
Art Corvelay
Super Chief_
- Oct 4, 2004
- 13,686
- 26,810
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Victory, Pats, Celtics, Ricciardo
I'd suggest you review it considering you are bringing up old, off field incidents which have no relevance to this season.
You're right. With the benefit of further reflection I should have used the word moronic. Correction duly noted!Oh dear
Perhaps you need a bit longer to think about it. No worries ... take your time.
I take it then that you have no logical response?
ThePuppetMaster
Yay
so you are ready just to throw away assault which cost a man his life virtually??? I'm sure its always relevant to Swan and the victims
pathetic
That's not the point. What happens outside football is irrelevant to brownlow voting. Why anybody would bother to raise it in that context defies logic.
ThePuppetMaster
Yay
i agree, it just seemed you were blowing off the significance of the event, thats all
The only reason people are making such a fuss is because the Brownlow is the most prestigious individual football award in the country. I couldn't tell you who won the MVP this year, or in the past 5 years because it means nothing, on history's page the Brownlow is the most recognised award and really the MVP does not equate too much future value.
For those that actually go through and keep a tally of Brownlow votes (see Stats Board) it was no suprise to see Judd win and most were willing to bet their house that Judd would come in the top 5. So maybe next season, before anyone starts having a go at the winner of the Brownlow you go through and watch every game and then have a guess at who the winner of the Brownlow will be, it's surprisingly accurate!
Not at all. I just can't fathom what kind of person decides it's logical to raise it in a question about the brownlow. May as well have said he wears the wrong coloured jocks. Just as relevant or probably moreso given the time since the incident in question.
Oh look; now there's two of you. I can almost hear the upbeat melody.
dum dum dum dum
Now tell me something I don't know.
In the end I still think (and I know many will scream blasphemy,) that Judd's win devalues the Brownlow. The players, coaches and press can't all be wrong and even Judd didn't think he deserved it. No offence intended to Judd, he's a gun player but his season by his own standards was way below par.
By the same token, because of the flawed methodology a player in his position can always win and he is not the first to have come out of the blue. IMO it needs to be a combination of the players, coaches and umpires who vote and I think the umpires should only be represented in terms of their percentage involvement in the game. The simple answer is get votes from both coaches, all the players and the umpires and average them. I defy anybody to tell me how that would not produce the best and fairest player in the league.
By the same token, because of the flawed methodology a player in his position can always win and he is not the first to have come out of the blue. IMO it needs to be a combination of the players, coaches and umpires who vote and I think the umpires should only be represented in terms of their percentage involvement in the game. The simple answer is get votes from both coaches, all the players and the umpires and average them. I defy anybody to tell me how that would not produce the best and fairest player in the league.
And what happens in season 2009 is irrelevant to 2010 Brownlow voting.
So let's check the post that wound your knickers up so ...
dum ... dum dum dum
dum ... dum dum dum
dum dum dum dum
Your point? I haven't said a word about anything to do with 2009. What's the relevance of that comment? Did you even read my posts before shooting your trap off? What kind of moron would raise issues that are irrelevant and expect to have any sembleance of credibility? It might have been relevant to raise Judd's snipe on Pavlich but I didn't did I? I simply made the observation that raising an issue which is irrelevant to the topic at hand is utterly illogical. I have no idea what you're babbling on about.And what happens in season 2009 is irrelevant to 2010 Brownlow voting.
So let's check the post that wound your knickers up so ...
dum ... dum dum dum
dum ... dum dum dum
dum dum dum dum
Marsha Marsha Marsha ... it's not all about Marsha mate.
If you're going to put your two bobs worth into a running conversation, you might as well at least bother to garner the context in which comments are made.
This is a fallacy. In fact, his early season form had quite a few in the football world considering if Judd was once again the premier player in the comp. Easily forgotten by seasons end though.
He was top 3 in the league in some of the most valued stats a midfielder can accrue; clearances, hardball gets, contested possessions, distance gained from CP & goal assists among mids.
The players don't watch all games. Some would have barely seen Judd play this year. The AFLPA MVP is a consensus award.
The coaches weren't wrong; they reckoned Judd a top 5 player by the voting and all top 5 players are in with a good chance come Brownlow night ... always have been.
3AW gave Judd their player of the year award. So not all press "got it wrong".
Provide quote where Judd said he didn't deserve it. I know he said he didn't expect it ... but I reckon you've taken liberty with his words, so best we confine ourselves to what Judd really said when gauging his opinion.
I think the best couple of posts I've seen on the matter are these ones below.
I reckon there's some in the media - and obviously BigFooty - who should pay attention to what these blokes have to say.
I did and you were clearly off-topic and out of context. Just because somebody else says something outrageous does that mean you then have the right to say something even more idiotic. We all know that 2009 has nothing to do with it but at least there's some context to include it in the discussion because it was in the game even if not in the relevant season. Like I said, you may as well have said Swan wears the wrong coloured jocks for all the sense you make.
Umm ... sure I do. I have the right to say whatever I like within the rules of this forum. If I want use sarcasm to exaggerate a point, who are you to say I can't? Go play Nazi some place else.
I'll stop you here before the but kicks in and take the opportunity to agree with you. No point pretending relevancy where there is none.
Eastern Rangers
2015 Worsfold Medalist - Rowen Powell
Lolzard.
How can it be relevant if it does not happen in the year in which the player wins the Brownlow Medal? Should Adam Goodes hand his Brownlow Medals back because he has been reported? How about the big Dipper? Had a number of suspensions during his career, but not in the year he won his Brownlow Medal.
The Brownlow Medal is awarded to the fairest & best player from the season in which the votes are awarded. Incidents in prior seasons are totally irrelevant.
chefmeister
Big Footy’s Best Dressed Cat
- Banned
- #221
ummmmm, where did I say Swan should have won it?
Where did I say Judd shouldn't have?
It seems you have gone off half cocked again.
What I said was that a player infracting on the rules during a football match is a very relevant consideration when it comes to discussion about the perceived honesty/dishonesty of awarding votes that culminate in a best and fairest award.
"Perhaps you best go review what exactly the best and fairest component pertains to."
While your at it perhaps you could also review basic comprehension before loudly drawing attention to yourself through immature tantrums and childish misunderstanding of a basic statement.
Oh look, it's sunny outside.
chefmeister
Big Footy’s Best Dressed Cat
- Banned
- #222
*sigh*
Please read title of thread.
Then re-read my original post.
Then read my above post...
Ok, now like it or not the guy clearly has a record of unfair play... That is the the point Im making.
He has himself admitted to using pressure point tactics he picked up from Steven Seagal movies.
Even this season he was excused for a blatant hit on Pavlich.
It is regardless if it happened this season or not.
Now, don't you think certain people may perceive this as somehow fixing the result?
Whether he should have won or not is a whole 'nother discussion.
FWIW I think Judd is a worthy winner.
Just thought I needed to add that for clarity and to avoid anymore misunderstandings.
After all, I don't want to have to spell it out again.
Football Pope
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 24, 2009
- 8,345
- 4,151
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Australian International Sides
MK,..I couldn't give a rats clacker who won the Brown nose. .. It's an irrelevant midfielders award and goes under the pretense of being a Best & Fairest award..should be phased out...
A good game is when you don't notice the umpires....A great season would be where we don't notice or hear from them....It's a joke we value the umpires award as prestigious above awards, voted on by coaches and players.....So it's no surprise games are being over officiating..
*sigh*
Please read title of thread.
Then re-read my original post.
Then read my above post...
Ok, now like it or not the guy clearly has a record of unfair play... That is the the point Im making.
He has himself admitted to using pressure point tactics he picked up from Steven Seagal movies.
Even this season he was excused for a blatant hit on Pavlich.
It is regardless if it happened this season or not.
Now, don't you think certain people may perceive this as somehow fixing the result?
Whether he should have won or not is a whole 'nother discussion.
FWIW I think Judd is a worthy winner.
Just thought I needed to add that for clarity and to avoid anymore misunderstandings.
After all, I don't want to have to spell it out again.
How can you possibly have an AFL conspiracy on the basis of a report & suspension that occurred in a previous season? And how can that report & suspension in any shape or form be relevant to the voting for the Brownlow Medal in 2010?
Based on your scenario, neither Dipper or Libba should have won a Brownlow Medal (nor should several other previous winners who have incurred suspensions in seasons prior to their Brownlow Medal winning seasons).
As for the pressure point comments Judd made, they were made the morning after the loss to Brisbane in the EF, having just got off an early morning flight from Brisbane & were an off the cuff remark made by someone who was 'feeding the chooks', but failed to realise the chooks in question would come back & bite him.
Any suggestion of "fixing the result" or conspiracy theories, is just blatant bias because Judd won & nothing more. The reality is the favorite, Dane Swan, was still listed with Centrebet (among other betting agencies) at $1.80 for the win. on the day of the Brownlow count, suggesting he was not as big a certainty as some would have had you think (Ablett was a damn sight shorter last year). Then when you consider Ablett also finished ahead of Swan, it becomes fairly apparent the umpires did not view Swan's performances in the same way they did those of Judd & Ablett.
Swan did not win the Brownlow because he scored 2 votes or 1 votes in games where the media had determined he should get 3. In some of those games Pendlebury & Didak got the 3 votes. Would you have us believe that happened due to "fixing the result" or were they just deemed to have been better on the day by the umpires? Even in the Carlton/Collingwood match in which Judd got the 3 votes ahead of Swan, the coaches determined that Judd & Ball were equal best on ground.
For the life of me I cannot see why, if anyone was to fix the Brownlow result (which is crock of shit anyway), it would be fixed to benefit Chris Judd. I would have thought if such a directive were to come from the powers that be (once again, such a scenario is a crock of shit), it would be in favour of a player from a club that needs a 'leg up', not a high profile player/club like Judd & Carlton.
chefmeister
Big Footy’s Best Dressed Cat
- Banned
- #225
ummm, I think I stated clearly that I don't believe in a conspiracy bud.
I am just stating a possible reason why others might.
And if you think that one is unfathomably possible then you are quite naive.
Bitch and moan all you like but if it would be absolutely impossible then this thread wouldn't even exist.
Once again, you need to find the "Judd did not deserve to win the Brownlow" thread as this one is discussing the possible chance of rorting.
Yes you're probably right but it's still a rather extravagant story to concoct if the guy was suffering from sleep deprivation & depression.
Especially considering he was deflecting the interviewer away from a possible (and infinitely more serious) eye gouging accusation.
Regardless of the circumstances, he was caught on camera doing it and was trying to lessen the backlash from the outcome, such as being labeled a two time eye gouger.
If you cant admit that then you are truly blinkered.
I agree for the most part, but you can see why some people may look for basis to this suggestion.
Perhaps the mention of fixing was merely just an "off the cuff remark" to begin with...
Im not saying that Judd didn't accrue more votes to win.
And Im not saying he doesn't deserve those votes.
What Im pointing out is that he admits to using unfair techniques and has a guilty record.
Then having no case to answer for regarding the Pavlich incident could be seen as something more underhanded transpiring between either the umpires or the match review panel and a separate entity.
There are plenty of other ways to fix an outcome rather than tamper with the votes.
BTW you do understand that Andrew Demetriou, Mike Fitzpatrick, Peter Schwab and quite probably David Doherty know the final outcome before the presentation ceremony and vote count, don't you?
The part you don't understand is that if these dealings were taking place it matters not at all which player or club is benefiting or getting a "leg up" due to the outcome.
It is the person or entity with the money, placing the bets who benefits.
And they would more than likely care little for Carlton or Judd, but would see a good opportunity to clean up.
I think he was at $27 to win.
Now if some punter laid out big dollars at the start of the year they would do as much as possible to protect that investment.
Like slip a few bucks to the MRP for example.
I believe it is a fanciful scenario too, but surely you must see how it could be just a little bit possible and that others could imagine it too?
After all, stranger things have, and continue to happen.
