So pies fans know more aboutthe game than their own coach?

[1892]

If MM gave Ball 5 then the other votes don't work
Carlton v Collingwood
8 Chris Judd (Carl)
8 Luke Ball (Coll)
7 Dane Swan (Coll)
5 Scott Pendlebury (Coll)
1 Marc Murphy (Carl)
1 Jordan Russell (Carl)

Please EXPLAIN

This works:

5 Ball
4 Judd
3 Pendlebury
2 Swan
1 Russell / Murphy

5 Swan
4 Judd
3 Ball
2 Pendlebury
1 Russell / Murphy

 

[choo]

This works:

5 Ball
4 Judd
3 Pendlebury
2 Swan
1 Russell / Murphy

5 Swan
4 Judd
3 Ball
2 Pendlebury
1 Russell / Murphy

If that's right
then MM thought Swan was 4th best and both coaches believed Judd was top 2
Not sure why all the BS about the brownlow

Most Collingwood fans suggest

5 Swan
4 Ball
3 Judd
2 pendlebury
1 Murphy

5 Judd
4 Ball
3 Pendlebury
2 Swan
1 Russell



Brownlow
3 Judd
2 Swan
1 Ball


APPEARS REASONABLE CONSIDERING IT WAS 1 SET OF VOTES FOR 3 UMPIRES

 

[Monkey King]

First of all I'm not arguing whether or not Judd deserved three votes that day I agreed with Malthouse that Ball was BOG that day and that Judd deserved 2 votes.

Second, I was trying to point out that the OP was using flawed logic because he used votes from an award, that he didn't even research, to prove that Judd deserved to win the Brownlow in a veiled attempt at a troll on my club.

I say that rather than being a veiled attempt at a troll on your club, it was a direct reaction the many poor sport Collingwood posters who have rubbished Judd's season and in particular, his performance in THIS match. Many have said Swan deserved the votes, so it's solid logic to point to the coaches opinions for a more moderate viewpoint.

Additionally, there is also solid logic in referring to an award where Judd finished 5th and ahead of Ablett (who many have stated would have been a deserving winner) as the top 5 are ALWAYS in with a chance of winning the Brownlow ... despite some in the media - unbelievably stupid too IMO - telling you the favourite was a sure thing.