Things that need to go

[blue00eyes]

I am not Realest but I would answer that both Australia and Sweden are doing well with juries, because their efforts are indeed juryfriendly BUT in my opinion Australia's live performances are overvalued - Isaiah and especially Jessica were not THAT strong to receive such amount of points. Low televotes were just Karma.

 

[Realest]

[MENTION=15870]Realest[/MENTION]

Can I just ask you why you believe that Sweden entries don't get any special treatment by the juries but Australian entries do...? :? You wrote earlier that the reason why Sweden's done so well with the juries is the fact that they've sent "juryfriendly songs and it's as easy as that". Well so has Australia so where's the difference

Because I find your arguments quite ironically as everything's based on your taste, and you have absolutely nothing to support your claims that Australia gets special treatment. I just can't take your arguments seriously about this Sweden/Australia thing because I feel like your arguments are so one-dimensional

As I said, Sweden brought additionally something new to the Stage, while Australia doesnt. I said it in another Thread, I could understand 5-6 Points to Isaiah, but some Professionals put him #1-4, which is ridiculous imo. Neither does he have a strong voice (at least Live) nor is he a great Liverperformer, nor was the Staging outstanding etc... In the Case of Benjamin (without being subjective right now), I can totally Get why soe Jurymembers in their Bureau and think that this was the best of 26 Entrys, since it definitely stood out.

 

[hrcgfd]

In case of Isaiah, I believe that 2017 wasn't a strong year and juries just had got lost in a diversity of domestic songs (≠ bad) and decided to vote for the song that had traits which they get used to considering as quality ones.

 

[tuorem]

In case of Isaiah, I believe that 2017 wasn't a strong year and juries just had got lost in a diversity of domestic songs (≠ bad) and decided to vote for the song that had traits which they get used to considering as quality ones.

Moldova, Belgium, Azerbaijan (and to a lesser extent Poland) were not "domestic"-sounding songs, yet they got significantly lower amounts of points despite having good stagings (!) and songs that should have appealed a lot more to juries.

"Don't Come Easy" was indeed jury-friendly, but it wasn't the only one. Personally, I can't rationally explain why it stood out more to them compared to entries with similar - if not greater - appeal. That's why some people wonder if they actually just voted for the song's merit or if the flag helped get that result.

I'm waiting for the day when Australia are ranked higher with televoters than with juries, since it never happened so far (even in the semis). From my perspective, juries have been showing way too much leniency, especially this year while their effort was far from being on point.

 

[hrcgfd]

Moldova, Belgium, Azerbaijan (and to a lesser extent Poland) were not "domestic"-sounding songs, yet they got significantly lower amounts of points despite having good stagings (!) and songs that should have appealed a lot more to juries.

Both Moldova and Belgium were at the juries top 10 the same as Australia, so all of them were appreciated by jury. 60 points gap isn't that huge for their places.

 

[tuorem]

Both Moldova and Belgium were at the juries top 10 the same as Australia, so all of them were appreciated by jury. 60 points gap isn't that huge for their places.

60 points represent almost one third of Isaiah's final score, so it's not that negligible imo. What in this act deserved more support than the others from a professional point of view? That's the question.

 

[Realest]

Thank god the EBU invented the exponential Juryvoting, otherwise Jessica would have been 8th with 104 Points instead of 12th with 90 Points. That would throw another bad light on the Juries. Also Isaiah would have only 149 Jurypoints instead of 171 with the exponential Juryvoting.

 

[Preuss]

Well if I judged the last jury results with my own honest opinion, 90% of the entries wouldn't get a score I'd approve of tbh, so that's not really an argument. Well Realest, once again you're just basing your claims on your own damn opinion. Why the hell shouldn't jury members have been allowed to rank Isaiah 1-4th if they want it themselves lol? I'm pretty sure that a majority of the grand final entries are in the top 4 of some individuals, so why aren't you judging those entries than constantly throwing shades over Australian entries when ironically enough defending Swedish entries...? :? Well I agree with your "subjective" opinion on Benjamin's jury points too btw. It isn't Isaiah's fault that he competed in a rather weak year. It's not his fault that other countries couldn't collect points more consistently. I mean, if he competed this year, he wouldn't end up in 4th place with 171 points. And I'm pretty sure many jurors ranked Isaiah and Jessica down their lists
[MENTION=9195]tuorem[/MENTION], well this is why I want jury members to explain the reasons why they vote as they vote, because right now, a lot of people only assume how the jury members think and vote

 

[Preuss]

Thank god the EBU invented the exponential Juryvoting, otherwise Jessica would have been 8th with 104 Points instead of 12th with 90 Points. That would throw another bad light on the Juries. Also Isaiah would have only 149 Jurypoints instead of 171 with the exponential Juryvoting.

See, another proof that what you about Isaiah is the fact that he ended up fourth lol. I mean, here we're talking about 14 points for Jessica and you're making a big deal about it. So I'm pretty sure you wrote once that you could accept 80 points for Jessica, but if she ended up with a score of 104 and 24 points more it would put the juries in a bad light...? :?

 

[hrcgfd]

I think that the principles of an old system answer why Isaiah got a gap - average ranking is helpful for calm entries without triggers, some country with 8-9-14-10-10 places from juries would be higher than one that has 2-24-24-1-15.