Its obvious you still dont know football.He was equally bad V Richmond and got 3 ...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Its obvious you still dont know football.He was equally bad V Richmond and got 3 ...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Its obvious you still dont know football.
I think what people need to understand about Brownlow Medal voting (and any football award where the umpires gives the votes) is this:
* Umpires discuss at each break - quarter time, half time and three quarter time - who they think is playing well
* They do not look at the stats sheet after a match
* Umpires are really only concerned with their part of the ground therefore once the ball leaves their 'zone' they turn their attention to what is going on around them to watch for player's holding etc. This point is important because if you see a player regularly win the ball in congested situations, tackle a lot and always around the play like Priddis is, then you will always get their attention. Umpires won't always focus on the disposal so much because at the forefront of their mind is whether they need to pay a free kick or not. That being said players do stand out.
* Finally, it is not that surprising that the league's highest possession winner, second highest clearance player and third highest tackler received a lot of votes. Priddis is one of the most consistent players in the competition and always touched the ball 20 times or more in every game this season. So, good luck to him. You can't begrudge a player winning the Brownlow Medal because others have voted for him.
I think what people need to understand about Brownlow Medal voting (and any football award where the umpires gives the votes) is this:
* Umpires discuss at each break - quarter time, half time and three quarter time - who they think is playing well
* They do not look at the stats sheet after a match
* Umpires are really only concerned with their part of the ground therefore once the ball leaves their 'zone' they turn their attention to what is going on around them to watch for player's holding etc. This point is important because if you see a player regularly win the ball in congested situations, tackle a lot and always around the play like Priddis is, then you will always get their attention. Umpires won't always focus on the disposal so much because at the forefront of their mind is whether they need to pay a free kick or not. That being said players do stand out.
* Finally, it is not that surprising that the league's highest possession winner, second highest clearance player and third highest tackler received a lot of votes. Priddis is one of the most consistent players in the competition and always touched the ball 20 times or more in every game this season. So, good luck to him. You can't begrudge a player winning the Brownlow Medal because others have voted for him.
No the umpires don't look at the stats sheet. There was a video on either Fox or Channel 7 this year going through game day for the umpires and they clearly stated that they don't access any statistical information, they vote on their discussions throughout the day and decide within 30 minutes after the match.
Although I suspect, eventually, it will lead to discussions about the significance of the medal - what it actually stands for.
It's always been the most overrated medal. There's absolutely no reason why it should be considered our most prestigious award. The opinions of the umpires are not sacred, and there's no reason they should be viewed above others, it's always been a bit silly.
That's exactly a Bradbury. Consistent and steady while the better players are injured, rested or ineligible.
It's always been the most overrated medal. There's absolutely no reason why it should be considered our most prestigious award. The opinions of the umpires are not sacred, and there's no reason they should be viewed above others, it's always been a bit silly.
Another person who does not understand what the Brownlow Medal is.
How far in?This is too good. Well in Pridda, fantastic achievement.
Who's team went from fifth to 11th after he got injured...Cut the Bradbury shite. He polled well because he plays consistently all year - to the best of his ability. Keep twisting everything to your own bitter view on this all you like BUT it won't change this one fact:
Priddis won. He deserved to win because he played solid and consistent all year. Fairly. He did everything his coach asked from him and has been rewarded.
It takes a team to win the flag...not one player...ask Brownlow medalist Gary Ablett from Gold Coast.
So he's Bradbury. Awesome. How exactly does that warrant the "haters have no idea" posts that you and others are posting?
The criticism of Matt is that he can't play the role he plays and us win anything. The fact he Bradburys a Brownlow doesn't alter that.
The fact he's now got the highest award in the land. An award our 1990's greats couldn't get is, a touch, awkward and embarassing... He's not even in Don Pykes class and Pykey was a fair way behind the really great players in that era ... It's a great personal achievement but **** me it diminishes the award ...
Don't really understand how people can say Priddis didn't deserve it. Fact is, 13 times this year the umpires judged him to best one of the best three players playing. If Gary Abblett hadn't been injured, if Fyfe hadn't been suspended then it might (/would) have been different. But it wasn't, and so Priddis has the Brownlow.
Its like saying Dan Ricciardo didn't deserve his 3 Grand Prix wins, because they only happened due to issues with the two front runners. However, Ricciardo was good enough to be in the position to make the most of it, and so he deserves the wins.
So does Priddis. Bloody Legend!
No offense meant, but the fact that you say 'it diminishes the award' implies that it is undeserved.
Don't really understand how people can say Priddis didn't deserve it. Fact is, 13 times this year the umpires judged him to best one of the best three players playing. If Gary Abblett hadn't been injured, if Fyfe hadn't been suspended then it might (/would) have been different. But it wasn't, and so Priddis has the Brownlow.
Its like saying Dan Ricciardo didn't deserve his 3 Grand Prix wins, because they only happened due to issues with the two front runners. However, Ricciardo was good enough to be in the position to make the most of it, and so he deserves the wins.
So does Priddis. Bloody Legend!
If it was an award for the Best & Meanest Matthews would have won six.Fair enough.
I understand how the award works and why Matt therefore stood s half decent chance of a high finish. Once you are say top 5, an injury here or there, the odd lucky vote and you win. So in that sense, I understand how he won and that he "deserves to win".
I just think many, (most?) still see it as the award for the best AFL player of year 20xx and in that sense the award is diminished by players who simply aren't.
The award is diminished by Shane Woewodin winning it and also by players like Matthews and Carey not winning it.
So one increasingly sees it as the sort of FA Cup of football medals. An award for what exactly? And one that most take some enjoyment out of winning but don't take it as seriously as they once did as a measure of "the best". It's nice when the best player actually wins it, which does happen sometimes but when a guy who isn't in the best 30 or so gets it, then I think as THE best and fairest its diminished.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If it was an award for the Best & Meanest Matthews would have won six.
Lethal?Odd comment. Matthews was hard, but with one or two exceptions played the game the way you'd like people to.
"meanest"?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk