Just now, Palace Dees said:

Hehe.

I'm calm. I'm just amazed.

Anyway well done to Clarry. Super effort. Nice touch in his speech thanking the receptionist.

4 minutes ago, Nasher said:

It's not splitting hairs at all. You made it sound like someone "decided" Viney should be second, when clearly that's not what happened or how it works.  You could challenge the individual votes which is where all the subjectiveness is (which we haven't seen and for all you know, could be perfectly valid), but by arguing against the final result, you might as well be arguing against the Microsoft Excel sum function.

Ouch 

2 minutes ago, P-man said:

Hehe.

I'm calm. I'm just amazed.

Anyway well done to Clarry. Super effort. Nice touch in his speech thanking the receptionist.

Yep. Spoken like the normal young bloke he is.  Refreshing.

3 minutes ago, Nasher said:

It's not splitting hairs at all. You made it sound like someone "decided" Viney should be second, when clearly that's not what happened or how it works.  You could challenge the individual votes which is where all the subjectiveness is (which we haven't seen and for all you know, could be perfectly valid), but by arguing against the final result, you might as well be arguing against the Microsoft Excel sum function.

It is absolutely splitting hairs. How they arrive at the result is secondary, be it in a final determination or a result of votes being attributed each week. The point is, clearly, Hibberd's performances did not get the recognition they deserved when votes were being distributed.

I'm amazed I'm debating this to be frank.

Not a surprising or left-field winner in Oliver, though what is surprising is that he's done it only his second season. A legend looms.

On the other hand, speaking of left-field picks, Richard Thaler has just won the Nobel Prize in Economics. Unfavoured, even though he almost single-handedly turned Economics on its head and started a whole new field (Behavioural Economics).

Thaler has written quite a bit about drafting in American football etc., and I'm sure he would have approved of our strategy to land Clayton.

 

3 minutes ago, P-man said:

It is absolutely splitting hairs. How they arrive at the result is secondary, be it in a final determination or a result of votes being attributed each week. The point is, clearly, Hibberd's performances did not get the recognition they deserved when votes were being distributed.

I'm amazed I'm debating this to be frank.

So if he got 4 extra votes across the season and finished 5th you would be happy? 10 extra votes and finished outright 3rd? It was tight, nothing malicious in it.

3 minutes ago, P-man said:

The point is, clearly, Hibberd's performances did not get the recognition they deserved when votes were being distributed.

Au contraire, Hibberd clearly DID get the votes he deserved. The issue here is that your criteria for being deserving of votes are not the coaches criteria.

Also, this is judged by points over the whole season, and Hibberd didn't really become AA Hibberd until a bit of a way into the year. On the other hand, he finished strongly, and as we all know, that counts for a lot in terms of how we make judgements. Yours included.

Finally, Hibberd had basically the same votes as Jones, Lewis, Jetta. Hard to argue with.

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

So if he got 4 extra votes across the season and finished 5th you would be happy? 10 extra votes and finished outright 3rd? It was tight, nothing malicious in it.

I'd be happier. He should've been top two with a fair distance to third.  To not feature at all is mind boggling.

It may not be malicious. I'm not accusing anyone of nepotism. If that was the case then both Hibberd and Melksham would have got a gig. I just think it's quite clearly the wrong outcome.

Viney is one of my favourite players. He wasn't our second best player this year. He wasn't within cooee of it.

5 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Au contraire, Hibberd clearly DID get the votes he deserved. The issue here is that your criteria for being deserving of votes are not the coaches criteria.

Also, this is judged by points over the whole season, and Hibberd didn't really become AA Hibberd until a bit of a way into the year. On the other hand, he finished strongly, and as we all know, that counts for a lot in terms of how we make judgements. Yours included.

Finally, Hibberd had basically the same votes as Jones, Lewis, Jetta. Hard to argue with.

Hibberd's season was a lot more consistent than what you're painting. He had a down patch but his selection wasn't just built on a strong end to the year.

Any selection criteria that results in our second All Australian player since Adam was a lad missing out on top five is flawed.

19 minutes ago, P-man said:

I'd be happier. He should've been top two with a fair distance to third.  To not feature at all is mind boggling.

It may not be malicious. I'm not accusing anyone of nepotism. If that was the case then both Hibberd and Melksham would have got a gig. I just think it's quite clearly the wrong outcome.

Viney is one of my favourite players. He wasn't our second best player this year. He wasn't within cooee of it.

I don't really know how they do the votes so it's pretty hard for me to comment really.

8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't really know how they do the votes so it's pretty hard for me to comment really.

Nor do I. But ideally they would provide a true reflection of the season that was. As they generally have done in previous years.

I'm committing the Demonland cardinal sin of disagreeing with the club, so I best leave it there and go do my penance. Seven Hail Clarrys.

Edited October 9, 20177 yr by P-man

Goody's speech?

Anybody sober?

9 minutes ago, Akum said:

Goody's speech?

Anybody sober?

Not me. I had a drink every time a player said ummm during their speeches. Thank God for Lewis or I'd be undergoing a liver transplant right now.

1 hour ago, P-man said:

I'd be happier. He should've been top two with a fair distance to third.  To not feature at all is mind boggling.

It may not be malicious. I'm not accusing anyone of nepotism. If that was the case then both Hibberd and Melksham would have got a gig. I just think it's quite clearly the wrong outcome.

Viney is one of my favourite players. He wasn't our second best player this year. He wasn't within cooee of it.

Yes he was.

5 hours ago, Nasher said:

It's because we fans know heaps more about footy than the coaches who do the votes.

If you're a fan you're a reverse cycle of hot air !

5 hours ago, BAMF said:

Yeah, deep issues. I'm a consumer [censored] who thinks he is better than everyone else. That's why I got the Mac.

Is that O Mac ?

4 hours ago, chook fowler said:

This is taking longer than a bowel action after a week on OxyContin 

Does this mean its giving you the _____ ?

4 hours ago, Jaded said:

Stellar effort from Hannan!

Good thing Oliver is a superstar because gees he's not much of a public speaker ?

Ah give him a break , apparently he'd still be a virgin if he wasn't an AFL player !

Not as surprised as others were in regards to Viney finishing 2nd.  He's one of our most influential players.  When he doesn't play we simply aren't as good.  His finish is also somewhat indicative of how he polled in the Brownlow.  

1. Clayton Oliver (12 votes)

=2. Tom McDonald (9)

=2. Jack Viney (9)

=4. Michael Hibberd (7)

=4. Nathan Jones (7)

Edited October 9, 20177 yr by grazman

7 hours ago, goodwindees said:

Viney must have been given votes for playing when far from 100% fit because he had a lot of poor games when obviously not fit and when you add those to his missed games this is a horrific result. 

Possibly picked up some votes for his performances in the coaching box when he was off injured.

Pleasantly surprised Sam Frost finished as high as he did.

 

7 hours ago, P-man said:

Hibberd not top five? He made All Australian! LOL

The other question is - how did Oliver NOT make at least the AA squad of 40 this year?!

Bloody outrageous.

 

7 hours ago, P-man said:

It is absolutely splitting hairs. How they arrive at the result is secondary, be it in a final determination or a result of votes being attributed each week. The point is, clearly, Hibberd's performances did not get the recognition they deserved when votes were being distributed.

I'm amazed I'm debating this to be frank.

As I said, without seeing the breakdown and being able to scrutinise that, I think it's baseless criticism. Re: the cardinal sin comment, my point has nothing to do with disagreeing or agreeing with the club. I was as surprised as you - I just thing it's a bridge too far to declare it "wrong".

Anyway by my calculations, the difference between 6th and 2nd was an average score of 0.3 points per coach each game - I've never really looked at this before so I have nothing to compare too, but that seems very close. I thought Hibberd's front half of the season would get him up higher in the count. 

Really wish we could see the vote spread.

7 hours ago, P-man said:

Splitting hairs. Decision. Decisions. The votes aren't plucked out of a hat.

A player can Get between 0 and 40 votes per game. That gives plenty of opportunities for some baffling results.

6 hours ago, Skin Deeamond said:

Yes he was.

Viney probably got 100 votes each for the West Coast and Port games which would account for his high standing 

Barely out of nappies.

Fellas, we have a real good 'un here.

Well done Clarry. Use some of that coin to build a bigger trophy cabinet -  you are going to need it.