Goodes - 4 Brownlows?

[Industrial Fan]

We were playing Geelong.

3 points Goodes.

[johnno]

I was going to start another thread, but then I thought I would just add to this one instead. I'm not sure about a 4th brownlow, certainly a 3rd is certainly possible, but what I am going to say is, from what I have seen so far from Goodes at centre half forward, I really cant see him being beaten in a game of football by any opponent if he plays there till the end of his career and plays the way he has been playing in the last 4 rounds. He will get outpointed in a marking contest from time to time, like I saw Taylor outpoint him once on Saturday night, compared to about 5 times Goodes outpointed him, but in an overall game I cant think of any CHB who will totally dominate him for a whole game. He will just blow all of them up(lung capacity wise) with his constant 120m leads and will always be dangerous one out in the forward 50. There is not one player that will be able to control him....and I like it

[Lucky Knickers]

Maybe 4 Brownlows is beyond him. What about 3 Charlies and 3 Colemans in his last few years?

[JudesaGun]

BOG on the weekend from all reports.

[Lohengrin]

It helps when you're a star in a team of plodders.

[Industrial Fan]

Didnt help Scott West.

BOG also accounts for the opposition...

[Lohengrin]

Does help you stand out though, especially when the opposition has a pretty even performance.

I don't really like individual awards in team games, especially the Brownlow. Far too many distortions to be particularly meaningful.

[johnno]

will easily get 1 brownlow vote, maybe even 2, wont get the 3 votes as we got done by 41 points ahnd they have to give it to a player from the winning team. Cant see who at Collingwood was better than Goodes though on the day.

[bloodboy]

I reckon he'll get at least the two...I mean, really, he was the BOG no matter who won. No Collingwood player was even 75% as good as Goodesy but I can understand the rationale behind giving the three votes to a winning player - especially when it was such a convincing win.

[goswannie14]

will easily get 1 brownlow vote, maybe even 2, wont get the 3 votes as we got done by 41 points ahnd they have to give it to a player from the winning team. Cant see who at Collingwood was better than Goodes though on the day.

That is the most stupid comment I have heard this season. The votes are for BOG, not best on winning team.

[Bleed Red Blood]

That is the most stupid comment I have heard this season. The votes are for BOG, not best on winning team.

Yes. But it is - generally - how the umpires give them.

[Lohengrin]

It's not really "the most stupid comment" or even close. When a team gets thrashed they usually get no votes almost regardless, and if they are well beaten they frequently don't get 3 votes.

[liz]

It's not really "the most stupid comment" or even close. When a team gets thrashed they usually get no votes almost regardless, and if they are well beaten they frequently don't get 3 votes.

But neither is it unknown for a player from a team well beaten to get 3 votes.

Macca did against the Doggies last year. And how many votes has Goodes received in the last 4 losses to the Pies (before this season)? I think he's been given BOG at least twice.

[Melbournehammer]

But neither is it unknown for a player from a team well beaten to get 3 votes.

Macca did against the Doggies last year. And how many votes has Goodes received in the last 4 losses to the Pies (before this season)? I think he's been given BOG at least twice.

off topic - which actually says more about just how badly we go against them that we can consistently get the BOG (and it is the same fella) and they accept that and still beat us by about 5-6 goals on average and we NEVER look like winning

But I do not reckon he is a chance. Played well second half of the year but not as many stand out performances frankly.

[Lohengrin]

But neither is it unknown for a player from a team well beaten to get 3 votes.

True, which is why I said they "frequently don't" rather than they "never do".