AFL 2010

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Judd 100% deserved the Brownlow. Still the best player in the comp, just doesnt get as bigger media hype now hes at a mid-table side and not winning flags/playing in GF's like he was at West Coast and Swan/Ablett are now.

Please!!!

Swan outperformed Judd in every category, except Frees For of course.

I think Judd appears better than he is because he is an above average player in a borderline average team.

CT

[bennymacca]

Meh, we are all entitled to our opinions....

There is actually quite a lot of science to back this up, it's not just my opinion

[666HARPS666]

Harps the modern game is more skillful, faster and harder than it has ever been. there has been lots of scientific studies done that prove this fact.

Its debatable whether you think the style of the game is better or worse to watch across era's, and that comes down to each persons opinion, but the above things that i mentioned can all be mentioned, and are simple facts about the modern game.

Back to this one, the game is definately not harder (not as in difficulty, but physical toughness) than it was back then, it is alot softer now because players can't get away with the hard knocks and rough play that used to occur. That is the big difference between now and then I think.....

sorry mate, but this is wrong. muzz is correct, you dont get belted behind the play anymore, but the collisions that occur in the modern game are, on average, much harder than say 30 years ago

arrrh what ???? Barry hall smacking a few players out . no hits behind play WTF there are more hits behind play now then ever . look in the 80's the threw a punch face to face no sneak f,n hits , except Sam Newman because he knew Kevin Murray would of killed him toe 2 toe

[666HARPS666]

Harps the modern game is more skillful, faster and harder than it has ever been. there has been lots of scientific studies done that prove this fact.

Its debatable whether you think the style of the game is better or worse to watch across era's, and that comes down to each persons opinion, but the above things that i mentioned can all be mentioned, and are simple facts about the modern game.

Back to this one, the game is definately not harder (not as in difficulty, but physical toughness) than it was back then, it is alot softer now because players can't get away with the hard knocks and rough play that used to occur. That is the big difference between now and then I think.....

sorry mate, but this is wrong. muzz is correct, you dont get belted behind the play anymore, but the collisions that occur in the modern game are, on average, much harder than say 30 years ago

arrrh what ???? Barry hall smacking a few players out . no hits behind play WTF there are more hits behind play now then ever . look in the 80's the threw a punch face to face no sneak f,n hits , except Sam Newman because he knew Kevin Murray would of killed him toe 2 toe
You lot are just Kidding yourselfs Judd renound f,n eye gouger .dirty mongrel player . @ least in the old days it was toe 2 toe don't give me schiesse about more behind play hits its crap
3 main umpires 4 boundary
comparierd with 1 then 2 main & 2 boundary
point 2 you get hit by Dippa or Dermie or Ronnie Andrews you aint getting up quick

Watch old games then comment otherwise if you are going by stats YOU WHERE NEVER THERE & YOU HAVE NO IDEA what footy was like hard hits these days FFS bull .
getting angry i've had my
say i'm out of this thread .
faster game my ar$e there's a ball up every 30+ seconds , comparired with about 1 every 2/3+ minutes
100+ intercanges a game . comparied to about 10/12 a game

[bennymacca]

were YOU there harps? have you played the game at the highest level?

i have seen my fair share of footy, both past and present.

im not gonna bother arguing with you harps, it is clear you can't present a proper argument, so why should i put the effort in to do the same.

pull your head in and maybe we can have some rational debate instead of acting like a fool.

[maccatak11]

Harps please don't get angry when you have little idea of what you are talking about. The things about the game being faster and harder actually come from scientific studies that are done.

What they have done to determine that the game is faster is to actually track the ball. How far and fast it moves during a game, which they have also been able to do restrospectively by video. So when they say the game is 20% faster (or whatever figure, it actually escapes me now), they are basing this on actuall evidence.

Similarly they have been able to measure the amount of collisions that each player sustains during a game, and (by looking at the video) the speed of each of those collisions. There are also vastly more tackles in a particular game now, compared to different era's. These two elements of the game have also risen sharply over recent times.

Sure the modern game has less 'behind the ball' incidents, less mele's etc, but that is not the definition of 'hard' we are talking about.

Numerous scientists have actually studied these different facts. I wish i coud find it on the internet, but one of these articles was written by Professor Kevin Norton, one of my lecturers during my Sports Science degree, and who is a consultant at the Crows (often sitting with Craigy in the box).


So when people say the game is harder and faster, these aren't simply opinions, but observed facts. Again, its debatable whether the style of the modern game is better or worse, but we shouldnt confuse the two arguments.

[bennymacca]

found this in a 2 second google


and thats only in the past 10 years!!!

im sure there are lots of other things that can be found given the time

[bennymacca]

use google scholar matthew

found an abstract by kevin norton first link, but you have to pay to get it. maybe you can go through the university website to get access to it.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q= ... =en&tab=ws

[David]

Judd deserved the Brownlow because he polled the most votes.

Until you go back and WATCH the games and SEE where people polled, you can't say who did and didn't deserve it. You are using a feeling and perception of a player which is a far more maleable and grey area than the black and white (pardon the pun) 3-2-1 system.

I think the Judd suffers in image because of who he is - with the public. He's Chris Judd.. a great performance is looked at as "Judd had a good game" where as someone else would look like a superstar. He's been doing it that long.

Chris Judd is a pretty footballer, Dane Swan isn't. Swan polled as much as he could IMO, and I watched a LOT of footy this year (without caring who kicked and handballed, o had a clanger for fantasy).

Fact of the matter is, Judd is a better footballer than Swan. Swan was an average underage player, an ok rookie, and has built himself around the modern game using interchange and nouse to find the ball. His kick leaves a little to be desired.

He was the favourite and everyone wanted him to win because it was new - fresh... it wasn't Judd, Ablett et al that people wanted to talk about because it's boring.

Deserves to go past Shane Wowoden in Brownlow Medal wins.

[bennymacca]

Judd deserved the Brownlow because he polled the most votes.

Until you go back and WATCH the games and SEE where people polled, you can't say who did and didn't deserve it. You are using a feeling and perception of a player which is a far more maleable and grey area than the black and white (pardon the pun) 3-2-1 system.

I think the Judd suffers in image because of who he is - with the public. He's Chris Judd.. a great performance is looked at as "Judd had a good game" where as someone else would look like a superstar. He's been doing it that long.

Chris Judd is a pretty footballer, Dane Swan isn't. Swan polled as much as he could IMO, and I watched a LOT of footy this year (without caring who kicked and handballed, o had a clanger for fantasy).

Fact of the matter is, Judd is a better footballer than Swan. Swan was an average underage player, an ok rookie, and has built himself around the modern game using interchange and nouse to find the ball. His kick leaves a little to be desired.

He was the favourite and everyone wanted him to win because it was new - fresh... it wasn't Judd, Ablett et al that people wanted to talk about because it's boring.

Deserves to go past Shane Wowoden in Brownlow Medal wins.

good post dave

but i also think it works in his favour as well. i.e there were games when the predictor didnt' even have him polling and he was getting 2 and 3 votes for the game.

sometimes, judd can be average for 3 quarters, then do something brilliant, and he gets noticed for that.
wheras someone like swan can be consistently better than average for the whole game.

i guess then you have to weigh up who had move impact on a certain game. someone who was brilliant when it counted and average for the rest of the game, or someone that was consistently good but never truly brilliant.