Is Goodes still eligible for the Brownlow.

[annew]

I thought that Goodes was ineligible for the Brownlow because of his tribunal appearance after the Melbourne game but he is listed at $1.30 on TabSports Bet as the most likely swan.

[goswannie14]

This discussion has been held. I thought that he was ineligible, but who knows with the AFL these days, they make it up as they go.

[j s]

I thought so too! But you'd think SportsBet would have it right!

[j s]

Goodes is not in CentreBet's list

[j s]

I thought that Goodes was ineligible for the Brownlow because of his tribunal appearance after the Melbourne game but he is listed at $1.30 on TabSports Bet as the most likely swan.

Ah!! All is explained!

That is the odds for the "most votes" - his eligibility is not relevant top that criteria

[annew]

Ah!! All is explained!

That is the odds for the "most votes" - his eligibility is not relevant top that criteria

Thanks for explaining that.

[shippo]

Goodes is not in CentreBet's list

Aren't we forgetting the first half of the year?

[#73]

"Is Goodes eligible for the Brownlow?"

No. He was found guilty of striking Godfrey who went down like a sack of crap.

Shame really. Goodes will poll well. Again.

[Plugger46]

I'd be surprised if he polls a vote between Rounds 1-12. He'll come home like a train.

[reigning premier]

Aren't we forgetting the first half of the year?

Are we forgetting the performance of his peers for the enitre year??? lol He did have a blinder of a second half of the year. Though still think Kirk will get more votes purely on his consistency.

[#73]

You have to consider the blinkered way in which the umpires vote. They vote for players with flair and high posession. Goodes has both. It doesn't matter how well a player does his designated job, if he's not in the midfield gathering touches out of the pack, he won't poll. Kirk does his job each week, but he does it with grunt, in close and with the absence of any Judd-esque wankery. Therefor he won't get the sort of votes he should.

The Brownlow's a joke anyway. We spend all year bagging the umpires (correctly) and yet we still hold their award up as the highest accolade.

More should be made of the Players' Awards or media awards.

[hammo]

with the absence of any Judd-esque wankery.

What an idiotic statement

[Plugger46]

Kirk does his job each week, but he does it with grunt, in close and with the absence of any Judd-esque wankery. Therefor he won't get the sort of votes he should.

The Brownlow's a joke anyway. We spend all year bagging the umpires (correctly) and yet we still hold their award up as the highest accolade.

More should be made of the Players' Awards or media awards.

Kirk polled 20 votes in 2004 so there goes that theory.

Why should more be made of the players award? Just because they're extremely talented at the game, doesn't mean they have a great understanding of the game.

I don't think the umpires get the winner wrong too often. Key forwards could probably poll a little better.

[ScottH]

What an idiotic statement

Not really.
Judd does no inspiring of team mates.
All he ever does is kick goals, or gather enormous amounts of possessions, or set the ball on the chest of his forwards.

We'll have none of the wanker-esqueness at the swans. Not part of the Bloods Ethos.

[Sanecow]

All Judd does is receive, run and deliver. Soft.