Judd - worst Norm Smith winner ever

[goswannie14]

Re: Judd - worst Norm Smith winner ever

Originally posted by Sanecow
When you next watch the Grand Final (you know, like tonight), watch Judd's disposal. Almost none of his kicks on the run result in an effective possession for a teammate (I would say none but there may be one I missed). Only a kick from a free kick and his handballs are effective. He gathered a lot of possessions but geez he did nothing with them. Is he always this crap or was it just one game? Why don't the umpires pay attention when they are handing out awards?

At last somone is listening to me I have been saying this for the last 2 1/2 months, I counted 11 turnovers from Judds boot, I reckon that he was amongst our best players for the day...always kicking to one of our players in the clear, great work

The panel of experts out to be taken out and shot

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by sydfan83
True, though, if Kerr had played the whole match fully fit he may well have gotten them over the line.

But the same could be said for Mickey O'Loughlin

[graystar]

I always wonder that these medal counts are sweked by the fact judges are looking to see what the "good players" do on field. So they watched Judd like a hawk, so he got lots of the votes but ignore people like LRT and Fozzie.

[dimelb]

My hunch is that when panels like that watch the game they count possessions and rate players accordingly - so Judd (who is a brilliant player and had an ordinary game) and Fosdike (who is a good player and was effective) feature strongly. For my money Buchanan (good throughout, awesome final quarter), Leaping (towelled up Gardner, and that mark) and LRT were our best. Of the Eagles, Cousins was good, so was Cox (but couldn't carry Seaby) and Hunter was very dangerous (and should probably be a permanent forward). I don't think any of the Eagles deserved the NS. I'd have given it to Monty.

[punter257]

i reckon that the winning team should get the norm smith unless a player from the losing team plays an absolute blinder - IMHO judd didnt do this

at half time i thought goodsey would get it if he maintained his 1st half form but he dropped away - he was our only "big name" player that could have won it at the break

and i dont agree with buckley's norm smith either

[Lucky Knickers]

Originally posted by liz
The Swans, as is their wont, put in a very even performance. The three best performed Swans were probably a midget delisted two years ago who half the commentating public still can't tell apart from a team mate, a tall lanky defender who was meant to be the Swans' weak link going in, and a runner who, despite being a past top 5 draft pick, is low profile.

You forgot to add our blind CHF........

[dread and might]

Originally posted by goswannie14
But the same could be said for Mickey O'Loughlin

Frustrating. If he had converted all his chances he would have won it for sure. Anyway....

[giant]

Originally posted by dread and might

If Kerr had played the whole match......

I've wondered about this - basically he hobbled off in Q1 - then he bounces back full of beans in the 2nd half. Just how serious were the drugs they gave him? Must have been bleeding elephant juice!!

[Lucky Knickers]

Originally posted by giant
Just how serious were the drugs they gave him? Must have been bleeding elephant juice!!

Methinks they were the same juicy fruits given to the Swans - walking wounded or what!

[hammo]

On the day I had no complaints. He was quicker than every other player and seemed to get plenty of it.

Having watched the match since I agree with the disposal and apart from a brilliant first quarter didn't have much impact on the game.

Don't know if anyone else really stood out though - Buchanan and Fosdike were the best Swans but I still think Judd deserved it.

[goswannie14]

I watched it again today, I still can't believe that Judd got the Norm Smith Goodes, Hall, Buchanan, Fosdike, LRT, all had a major impact on the game at different times. If it had to go to a Wiggles player then Wirrpunda certainly was more consistent.

I just do not understand the decision

[Eala ?ireann]

I agree. I thought LRT was massive. It was offered up as a consolation prize I reckon which totally cheapens the award. Judd was brilliant of course, but I don't agree he was best on ground.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Eala ?ireann
I agree. I thought LRT was massive. It was offered up as a consolation prize I reckon which totally cheapens the award. Judd was brilliant of course, but I don't agree he was best on ground.

I think brilliant is stretching it a bit. He was good, but not BOG by any stretch of the imagination

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by goswannie14
I think brilliant is stretching it a bit. He was good, but not BOG by any stretch of the imagination

I don't think it takes much of a stretch to make him BOG.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I don't think it takes much of a stretch to make him BOG.

Not when you look at his disposal...it was deplorable, at least 1/3 (but probably closer to 1/2) of his kicks/handballs resulted in direct or indirect turnovers. He was brilliant in the first quarter, but dropped of markedly after that. I still don't agree with the decision, but I can't change it, however wrong I believe it may have been.