Melbourne v Western Bulldogs, MCG

[jayvee]

Brownlow votes:

3. - Aaron Vandenberg (Melbourne)
2. - Jake Spencer (Melbourne)
1. - Matthew Boyd (Western Bulldogs)

Laughable. Obviously using champion data stats again. Nathan Jones, Bernie Vince and Hogan or Pedersen - take your pick - were huge. Boyd should be nowhere near in the best 3 players. A good rule of thumb is to actually watch the games..

 

[Damon_3388]

Laughable. Obviously using champion data stats again. Nathan Jones, Bernie Vince and Hogan or Pedersen - take your pick - were huge. Boyd should be nowhere near in the best 3 players. A good rule of thumb is to actually watch the games..

So Vandenberg and Spencer's stoppage/clearance work and tackling weren't driving forces in getting Melbourne to where they got to as well? Could have fooled me, they looked like prime, vital cogs in the Demon engine in the game I was watching...

 

[Ron The Bear]

$3.65 v Richmond
$3.45 v Dogs

Go Dees!

 

[jayvee]

So Vandenberg and Spencer's stoppage/clearance work and tackling weren't driving forces in getting Melbourne to where they got to as well? Could have fooled me, they looked like prime, vital cogs in the Demon engine in the game I was watching...

Melbourne had a very even spread of players, and was a great team performance, with Spencer and Vandenberg being very good. But they also had genuine match winners who presented all day, and went up a gear when the game needed to be won. I already mentioned these players. Bernie Vince was stellar.

As for Boyd - again, laughable. Not unlike when you had Goddard in the votes when Essendon played Fremantle. No Essendon player should've been within a frogs fat ass of getting near the best players that night.

 

[Damon_3388]

Melbourne had a very even spread of players, and was a great team performance, with Spencer and Vandenberg being very good. But they also had genuine match winners who presented all day, and went up a gear when the game needed to be won. I already mentioned these players. Bernie Vince was stellar.

Well if they had such an "even spread" it's hardly "laughable" to prefer some over others then, is it? Different people define "matchwinning" importance differently. Personally, while it might not be the "sexy" thing, I feel that stoppage/clearance work is just as important and vital in driving the team and winning a match as anything else.

As for Boyd - again, laughable. Not unlike when you had Goddard in the votes when Essendon played Fremantle. No Essendon player should've been within a frogs fat ass of getting near the best players that night.

I thought Boyd was manful in a losing effort. It wasn't a blow-out the whole way; There was a goal in it at 1/4 time, then Melbourne got the ascendancy in the second, and then the margin was just 11 points at 3/4 time, before the Demons pulled away for a second time in the last. I generally feel like when the margin ends up in that 25-40 point range, and it's a pretty competitive contest most of the way, generally the best player from the losing team generally deserves some credit and acknowledgement, and often gets it on Brownlow night, too. You don't usually see a team dominate the 3-2-1 in the actual count unless they properly dominate the game and win by 50+

 

[jayvee]

Personally, while it might not be the "sexy" thing, I feel that stoppage/clearance work is just as important and vital in driving the team and winning a match as anything else.

Yet the biggest clearance beast in Fyfe was left out of your votes in the Essendon v Freo game, in favour of Goddard where Freo smacked them around the park, and only wasn't 50+ points due to them taking their foot off the gas. C'mon mate, bit of consistency if contested ball is your big thing. Even the commentators mentioned how they thought Goddard had the 'quietest 30+ possession game they had ever seen' that night.

I thought Boyd was manful in a losing effort. It wasn't a blow-out the whole way; There was a goal in it at 1/4 time, then Melbourne got the ascendancy in the second, and then the margin was just 11 points at 3/4 time, before the Demons pulled away for a second time in the last. I generally feel like when the margin ends up in that 25-40 point range, and it's a pretty competitive contest most of the way, generally the best player from the losing team generally deserves some credit and acknowledgement, and often gets it on Brownlow night, too. You don't usually see a team dominate the 3-2-1 in the actual count unless they properly dominate the game and win by 50+

No, they don't deserve credit in the best 3 players on the ground, when a team hit the lead in the second quarter, and never lost that lead. Plus the fact that by simply watching, it was obvious all the best 6-7 players on the ground were all Melbourne players. He may deserve some credit in his teams best 3 players, but not the best on ground. And anyone who has watched football will tell you Brownlow votes are hardly a foolproof measure to go by..

 

[Damon_3388]

Yet the biggest clearance beast in Fyfe was left out of your votes in the Essendon v Freo game, in favour of Goddard where Freo smacked them around the park, and only wasn't 50+ points due to them taking their foot off the gas. C'mon mate, bit of consistency if contested ball is your big thing.

It's not my "big thing", or the only thing I judge on. Different games get viewed differently, and different things are valued within the context of a particular game, and each team's strengths and weaknesses. I thought that given that the Bulldogs are noted for their contested ball winning/clearance ability and their tackling, that two relatively unheralded players beating them soundly at their own game and constantly being the starting point for their team's attacking moves deserved some credit.

Even the commentators mentioned how they thought Goddard had the 'quietest 30+ possession game they had ever seen' that night.

And I happened to disagree with them. When the comment was made (sometime in the third quarter, from my recollection), Essendon were yet to make their comeback and make the score respectable, too.

No, they don't deserve credit in the best 3 players on the ground, when a team hit the lead in the second quarter, and never lost that lead. Plus the fact that by simply watching, it was obvious all the best 6-7 players on the ground were all Melbourne players. He may deserve some credit in his teams best 3 players, but not the best on ground. And anyone who has watched football will tell you Brownlow votes are hardly a foolproof measure to go by..

So you felt differently about who the best players on the ground were to me. There's no categorical "right" in this situation, because it's all subjective and I don't really care less . Wouldn't changing my opinion and parroting the "consensus" be just as "bad" as anything else? How would that be any more "proof" that I "watched the game"? Not sure where the idea comes from that I didn't watch or don't watch games anyway, but still...

 

[jayvee]

It's not my "big thing", or the only thing I judge on. Different games get viewed differently, and different things are valued within the context of a particular game, and each team's strengths and weaknesses. I thought that given that the Bulldogs are noted for their contested ball winning/clearance ability and their tackling, that two relatively unheralded players beating them soundly at their own game and constantly being the starting point for their team's attacking moves deserved some credit.

Nice way of saying you can change your standard willy-nilly to suit your opinion for justification. You should get into politics.

So you felt differently about who the best players on the ground were to me. There's no categorical "right" in this situation, because it's all subjective and I don't really care less . Wouldn't changing my opinion and parroting the "consensus" be just as "bad" as anything else? How would that be any more "proof" that I "watched the game"? Not sure where the idea comes from that I didn't watch or don't watch games anyway, but still...

It's pretty obvious that you always like to put controversial choices in your best players to go against the 'consensus' (people on the boards, media and the teams themselves best players) so to speak, even though it's pretty obvious it's generally based on the 'consensus' of championship data, which hardly tells the full story. Cool story but.

And I happened to disagree with them. When the comment was made (sometime in the third quarter, from my recollection), Essendon were yet to make their comeback and make the score respectable, too.

Lets just drop the Goddard call. It was embarrassing. you know it.

 

[Damon_3388]

Nice way of saying you can change your standard willy-nilly to suit your opinion for justification. You should get into politics.

It's pretty obvious that you always like to put controversial choices in your best players to go against the 'consensus' (people on the boards, media and the teams themselves best players) so to speak, even though it's pretty obvious it's generally based on the 'consensus' of championship data, which hardly tells the full story. Cool story but.

Lets just drop the Goddard call. It was embarrassing. you know it.

I disagree with your opinions and oppose your judgements.

 

[jayvee]

I disagree with your opinions and oppose your judgements.

Haha, ahh, that Nic Cage pic always makes me laugh. Oddball bastard that he is..

 

[Bluelegs]

Brownlow votes:

3. - Aaron Vandenberg (Melbourne)
2. - Jake Spencer (Melbourne)
1. - Matthew Boyd (Western Bulldogs)

Bulldogs won't be getting any votes in a 39 point loss.
Also Spencer.. What??

 

[markm106]

Spencer won the ruck battle but won't be polling a vote. Perhaps 3 - vandenBerg 2 - Vince 1- Jones.
Hogan also a chance.

 

[wowlace]

Dees played alright yesterday. Not bad, but need to be better if we wanna beat a team that is any good.

 

[Bluelegs]

Dees played alright yesterday. Not bad, but need to be better if we wanna beat a team that is any good.

Agreed still made a lot of mistakes with the ball and took too much time that any decent team would punish us off. It will be good when Viney and hopefully an in form Tyson return.