BigMart wrote:I said I use facts (not stats) to support an argument...
The facts are what Harves has achieved - they are not stats they are facts.....he has ACTUALLY WON THOSE AWARDS.....that is A FACT....
He has won more than any other - that is a FACT
Well here's some facts based on your use of the Brownlow as a 'fact'
Since the inception of the Brownlow Medal, Umpires have consistently voted midfielders/on-ballers as better than any other players
Lockett is the best Full-Forward to have ever played the game, as he's the only one to have ever won a Brownlow.
Addam Cooney is obviously a better player than Scarlett, Silvagni, Frawley and plenty of other Full-Backs who never won a Brownlow. He is the equivalent of Verdun Howell who also wone a Brownlow.
Baldock, Barassi, Whitten, Matthews, Carey, Ablett (senior and junior) Bob Pratt, Hudson, Bartlett and countless other Legends/Champions of the game were obviously not as good as Cooney because he won a Brownlow and they didn't.
The Brownlow Medal is decided on the OPINIONS of umpires. Yet you choose to use their OPINIONS as some sort of vindication that your opinion is a fact?
I'll give you a tip - most football people don't even think that Cooney was the best player of 2008.
Are you ever going to understand that you cannot use statstics to compare players from differing eras unless all the conditions are the same? And to use achievements only has relevance when you are comparing players from the same era.
Even the way the Brownlow is voted for is changed. 30 years ago if a player had been reported and/or suspended, the Umpire didn't give him a vote as he was ineligible. Today the umpires are instructed to give the votes to the best player (in their OPINION) regardless of his eligibility.
