Andrew Krakouer wins MOTY

[Gone Critical]

Funny you say that yet you rely on what the official line tells you is MOTY.

Maybe you should get sheared, because that wool is wrapped too tightly around you.

Super Ted and Dangermouse. The most constructive idea you have added to this debate thus far.

As you are so sure of your opinion in this matter can you tell me why the likes of Leigh Matthews, Mark Riccuito etc have got this so wrong?

Is it their lack of footy smarts or are you subscribing to one of the conspiracy theories?

 

[MadBomberman]

Pretty hilarious thread. You are all a bunch of sheep that can't think for yourselves. Krak's was the better mark.

Walkers was 10 times better. Krakouers was fantastic, but Walkers was one of a kind. Naitanui's mark was great to. I would rate it:

Walker
------- (Daylight)
Naitanui (Just)
Krakouer

I dont understand how that is not the mark of the year. It is the mark of the last 2 years at least. The mark doesn't have to be a packed mark for it to be a great mark (although Burtons mark in 09 was great). Walkers falls in that category probably just below sampi's mark.

 

[Redlight]

After reading this thread its pretty clear that Walker should of won it. Supporters from every team agree apart from Collingwood supporters who are obviously going to say their own player deserved it.

After reading the thread? Why would that have a bearing? Are you under the illusion that only Carlton supporters have a 'thing' about Collingwood?

Walker's mark is really, really good but not as good as Nic Nat's. If you set out to portray the perfect screamer would it be a chest mark?

No.

Natanui took his mark with arms outstretched in an iconic Australian Rules style. Beautiful.

Krak's is better though. Why? Because he rose above and through a large pack. Much, much harder than leaping onto a solo opponent. If you look at the second angle in his replay he gets super high and it's only the camera angles that favour Walker.

The decision isn't a disgrace, a farce or a conspiracy. It's the considered judgement of a panel of expert former footballers.

Former footballers that have no pro-Collingwood agenda. In fact that's a laughable suggestion.

Krak took the best mark in the home-and-away as judged by a panel of experts.

Deal with it

 

[MadBomberman]

After reading the thread? Why would that have a bearing? Are you under the illusion that only Carlton supporters have a 'thing' about Collingwood?

Walker's mark is really, really good but not as good as Nic Nat's. If you set out to portray the perfect screamer would it be a chest mark?

No.

Natanui took his mark with arms outstretched in an iconic Australian Rules style. Beautiful.

Krak's is better though. Why? Because he rose above and through a large pack. Much, much harder than leaping onto a solo opponent. If you look at the second angle in his replay he gets super high and it's only the camera angles that favour Walker.

The decision isn't a disgrace, a farce or a conspiracy. It's the considered judgement of a panel of expert former footballers.

Former footballers that have no pro-Collingwood agenda. In fact that's a laughable suggestion.

Krak took the best mark in the home-and-away as judged by a panel of experts.

Deal with it

Now now. Dont get your hate for Carlton into this. I know it is hard (I find it hard as this is against Essendon done by a Carlton player). I by no means will argue that the decision should be overturned, but I will recognize that Walker's was the best. Why? because this guy was basically standing on top of Carlisle. That's how high he got. It makes you jump off your seat and the mark was one of a kind. They were all fantastic marks, but Walker's was the best of them all. I think the reason why they didn't chose Walker was to spice things up and make headlines. That's the only reason I can think of.

 

[dumb]

it brings to mind that luke darcy article where he said the hands in the back rule has contributed to the current long-kicking game...? both his own stupidity and weird subjective analysis. thread makes me wish natanui won.

 

[Nerv_01]

After reading the thread? Why would that have a bearing? Are you under the illusion that only Carlton supporters have a 'thing' about Collingwood?

Walker's mark is really, really good but not as good as Nic Nat's. If you set out to portray the perfect screamer would it be a chest mark?

No.

Natanui took his mark with arms outstretched in an iconic Australian Rules style. Beautiful.

Krak's is better though. Why? Because he rose above and through a large pack. Much, much harder than leaping onto a solo opponent. If you look at the second angle in his replay he gets super high and it's only the camera angles that favour Walker.

The decision isn't a disgrace, a farce or a conspiracy. It's the considered judgement of a panel of expert former footballers.

Former footballers that have no pro-Collingwood agenda. In fact that's a laughable suggestion.

Krak took the best mark in the home-and-away as judged by a panel of experts.

Deal with it

It's a shocking decision. There is no 'perfect screamer' and no doubt if Krakeour played for Carlton and took that same mark you would be calling bullshit.

To all the people saying Krakeours was more difficult, actually think for a moment if you had to jump onto a pack of players or leap and put your knees onto a 196cm guys shoulders one out which would you prefer? Pack mark is far easier as you have a larger area to leap onto.

Krakeours was chosen as a PR exercise - the 'ex-convict revives AFL career and take MOTY' headlines are meant to show the value of AFL to the community.

 

[mike ockerts]

The funny thing is, walkers mark will be the one that gets shown more often in promo stuff the AFL will use for our great game IMO. Go figure

 

[Gone Critical]

A couple more conspiracy theorists and a new motivation

The " Spice things up and create headlines" theory.

A relative failure you would think given the lack of mainstream press outrage. Face it it seems its only footy desperates like all us that have even registered the decision. Big risk for the AFL if conspiracy theory was true for what gain?

But the question I have asked anyone pushing these theories a few times now is

How did the AFL coerce L Matthews et al into making a sham decision?

ANYONE?

 

[Steeleyourself]

It's more like saying SuperTed would kick Dangermouse's arse in a 1v1 battle to the death.

So basically it's all irrelevant because we have a winner.

 

[jethro11]

I mean honestly, it's just a novelty and a of bit airtime for Hungry Jack's. We've got bigger fish to fry.

 

[Xtreme]

By all means be glad that a panel with an agenda gave him the award, but have the common sense to accept that it wasn't the best mark of the year.

But it was the best mark, it won MOTY for crying out loud

 

[Thrawn]

Super Ted and Dangermouse. The most constructive idea you have added to this debate thus far.

As you are so sure of your opinion in this matter can you tell me why the likes of Leigh Matthews, Mark Riccuito etc have got this so wrong?

Is it their lack of footy smarts or are you subscribing to one of the conspiracy theories?

How do you know Leigh Matthews and Mark Riccuito voted for Krakouer? The voting is done with a 3-2-1 system. Yes, they did get it wrong - ex-footballers or administrators aren't infallible. A great example is Luke Darcy.

 

[harmesy 37]

I went onto the Collingwood website and watched Andrew Krakouer's interview.




He seems like a pretty humble bloke, and I also like the fact he had a blinder for Swan Districts last year and how he won that g/f for Swan Districts. That is a great story, but I have to admit I still can't see how people can say the height of the mark isn't THE key determinent in what is the mark of the year.


Malcolm Blight said

"the highest mark of the year deserves it"...considering Walker was 12 feet up in the air I think his was safely the highest of the year. I would prefer to listen to Malcolm Blight on the subject of high marks than someone such as for example, Luke Darcy.








Also, I am still not getting how they are calling it a "pack mark"...but I guess I will have to concede on that as everyone is calling it a "pack mark."




When I think of pack marks I think of Leo Barry- 7 people all competing. Krakouer had no one competing,(unless you call Johncock's lame punching attempt 2 seconds after the mark's completion) and had just two people in front of him. Walker had one person in front of him.


Anyway- this is my last post on this topic you will be glad to hear. I will have to just concede something happened that just doesn't make any sense and concede the fact. It has me puzzled, but that is life.

 

[yeee_haaaa!!!!!]

Take the Carlton and Collingwood supporters out of the discussion and I wonder which mark the majority of neutral supporters think should have won MOTY.

Actually, I don't wonder, I know.

similar concept to taking the carlton supporters out of the argument last year as to whether judd deserved the brownlow

 

[pieman_vinnie]

The reaction of carlton fans in this and other threads on their own board on this subject is hilarious. It's mark of the year FFS, who really gives a sh!t?? Obviously the fact that a Collingwood player won it has gotten under the skin of some, just as anything positive about Collingwood does for so many haters

I can't wait for the Carlton reaction next monday night when golden boy is overrun late in the brownlow medal count by Dane Swan

 

[HARKER]

similar concept to taking the carlton supporters out of the argument last year as to whether judd deserved the brownlow

Again, I think it's fair to say that most Carlton supporters were surprised for Judd's win considering the fact he missed the first three games through suspension.

No news here and before you start calling out for a Collingwood Brownlow, I already have my money on Pendelbury and if he did win, he'd be just as deserving as Judd was last year.

The MOTY? If the panel had their time again, I reckon they'd go back to what they knew in their heart to have been the right decision.
They're all an embarrassed lot today, and so they should be.

 

[Monkey King]

1. Walkers is a beautiful clear leap onto the shoulders of a tall man

Krakouers is a clean leap to near shoulder level of a tall but more prone man

Conclusion - Walker has clearly jumped higher than Krakouer. Perhaps as much as 12 inches which is a long way when considering a differential height of a jump.

2. Walker takes the ball at about the level of his umbilicus. On his jumper the ball arrives at the lower part of the CFC insignia

Krakouer takes the ball with his hands above his head by a few inches. I am a similar height to Krakouer and measure approx 27 inches from umbi to top of head

Conclusion - Krakouer has marked the ball at a point approximately 30 inches higher than Walker relative to their own bodies.


Final Conclusion - Walker jumps higher than Krakouer but Krakouer marks the ball at a higher point from the ground than Walker

Just interested on the basis you declare Walker to be so clearly higher than Krakouer

Erm ... isn't that what you just concluded yourself?

Your conclusions were that Walker got higher, but that the ball was higher for Krakouer. All I said was that Walker got higher. For mine, the basis for this is its obviousness. Krakouer's knees didn't even get as high as Beams shoulder. Walker's were higher than Carlisle's head. Additionally, both Walker and Carlisle are taller than both Beams and Krakouer. Walker's umbilicus was very probably around the height of Krakouer's head and had Krak got higher, would have had to mark on his chest too.

As for the height of ball, which Krakouer took with the bottom point level to his head, it may have been higher, but it might not have been either. Certainly it is nowhere near as clear as it is with the players. Not sure what this response has to do with one player getting up higher than the other though.

 

[HARKER]

A couple more conspiracy theorists and a new motivation

How did the AFL coerce L Matthews et al into making a sham decision?
ANYONE?

Good question GC.

I must start off with my understanding of the process and I put my hand up that I may be wrong:

Voting Process:
a. 8 panelists
b. 3-2-1 Vote
c. Vote is done in secret so that no panelist knows who his fellow panelists have voted for.
d. There will be no disclosure of the panelists voting.

The voting panel would be well aware that the majority of the footballing public thought that Walkers mark was MOTY
There were a couple of overt Carlton haters on this panel
Could have some members just wanted to be a little bit different thinking that the others would have voted for Walker, anyway?

Conspiracy? That is just silly and that is not what happened here, but something else did.

 

[yeee_haaaa!!!!!]

Again, I think it's fair to say that most Carlton supporters were surprised for Judd's win considering the fact he missed the first three games through suspension.

No news here and before you start calling out for a Collingwood Brownlow, I already have my money on Pendelbury and if he did win, he'd be just as deserving as Judd was last year.

The MOTY? If the panel had their time again, I reckon they'd go back to what they knew in their heart to have been the right decision.
They're all an embarrassed lot today, and so they should be.

i'm not calling for a collingwood brownlow this year. i think any of judd murphy swan pendlebury would be very deserving winners and it's just a matter of how the umpires call it as all had stellar seasons. any of those 4 winning wuold be well deserved as they all hold claims to being the best player for the year that is eligible to win the medal. sam mitchell would be right there too if eligible. judd in 2010 was not a deserving winner, he was not even in the top half dozen players for the year by whatever measure you wish to use. 3 votes in a game his team lost by the best part of 10 goals?? please


as for MOTY, walker's mark was not clearly better than krakouer's. and i don't think either were clearly better than naitanui's against carl either. any of those three would have been a deserving winner. had the winner not been 1 of those 3 then eyebrows would have been raised. krakouer is a very deserving winner

 

[HARKER]

judd in 2010 was not a deserving winner, he was not even in the top half dozen players for the year by whatever measure you wish to use. 3 votes in a game his team lost by the best part of 10 goals?? please

Judd was as embarrassed last year to take the Brownlow as Krakouer was with this MOTY award, yet it is not their fault and that's not what we're debating here.

My point for Judd last year was that when we look back on Judd the player, there will be no argument for him to have won 2 or possibly 3 Brownlows.
He will be recognized as a champion of the game and deserved all the accolades bestowed upon him.

When we look back at the 2011 MOTY, we're going to have a good laugh about it, and ask WTF?

 

[Monkey King]

The reaction of carlton fans in this

Do you think it's only been Carlton supporters calling the MOTY selection a joke? LOL Probably best you just cast your eye to the left of each post mate. Every man and his dog has called bullshit on this one. The only club allegiance consistently aligned to opinion in this thread has been Collingwood fans backing Krakouer; and yes, it has been very, very amusing to watch.

as for MOTY, walker's mark was not clearly better than krakouer's.

Perhaps not, but the footballing public CLEARLY think it was better; and by some majority.

 

[Gone Critical]

Erm ... isn't that what you just concluded yourself?

Your conclusions were that Walker got higher, but that the ball was higher for Krakouer. All I said was that Walker got higher. For mine, the basis for this is its obviousness. Krakouer's knees didn't even get as high as Beams shoulder. Walker's were higher than Carlisle's head. Additionally, both Walker and Carlisle are taller than both Beams and Krakouer. Walker's umbilicus was very probably around the height of Krakouer's head and had Krak got higher, would have had to mark on his chest too.

As for the height of ball, which Krakouer took with the bottom point level to his head, it may have been higher, but it might not have been either. Certainly it is nowhere near as clear as it is with the players. Not sure what this response has to do with one player getting up higher than the other though.

I think I have misunderstood what you meant by Walker being higher. I thought you meant which mark was the higher which I have always taken to mean the height the ball was taken.

If we are talking height of jump we agree, there is no doubt walker go higher, that was sensational. Krakouer also went very high but Walker covered him.

I cant agree that there is doubt that Krakouer took his mark at a higher point though. If we even concede that relative to their own bodies Krakouer took the ball 2 feet higher than Walkers, and its almost certainly around another 6 inches more than that, Walker would have to have leaped 2 feet higher than Krakouer.

Krakouer has already gone high so another 2 feet would have even Bob Beamon looking embarrassed. You just dont see differentials like that in marks like these.

 

[HARKER]

[YOUTUBE]Ot8iQpY6r5Y[/YOUTUBE]

The winner himself really says it all.
Why no mention of NicNat?

 

[Gone Critical]

How do you know Leigh Matthews and Mark Riccuito voted for Krakouer? The voting is done with a 3-2-1 system. Yes, they did get it wrong - ex-footballers or administrators aren't infallible. A great example is Luke Darcy.

I dont know who voted what. I could ask what in my expression Matthews Riccuito ETC would have you conclude I did

My point is either you believe there is some campaign or conspiracy within the panel to deprive Carlton and Walker of the award or you believe their ability to judge MOTY is inept

No offence to you but there are some very illustrious football CVs on the panel. I have seen criticism of people like Luke Darcy in this blog and I assume people are comparing his knowledge to his peers i.e other footballers with illustrious playing careers who continue to be heavily involved in the industry as experts.

These people have far greater insight into the skills of the game than anybody posting here. It just smacks of arrogance for any poster to suggest otherwise. Accept their decision is reasonable. That doesn't mean you cant have a different opinion just that you are not in a position to declare theirs wrong.

So that gets to the other possibility of a conspiracy. Harkers had a go and I thank him for it. Any ideas from you?


.

 

[Austin_McCrabbs]

Walker's umbilicus was very probably around the height of Krakouer's head and had Krak got higher, would have had to mark on his chest too.

It's an unusual word to see in a football forum but very welcome all the same.