The Brownlow is now a paper thin award

[Jade]

It used to be that the Bownlow was awarded to the best and fairest player in the league.

This is not the case any more.

The judgement of the umpires against that of the footy fan has become such a discrepancy that this award is now almost redundant.

The Brownlow is obsolete.

Changes need to be made to the vote process. Now whether that be to take it away from the umpires, I am unsure.

Personally, in order to retain tradition I think it should be the umpires to vote - but I believe they should be given 12 - 24hrs to vote.

Has the Brownlow, in its current form, become a farce?

 

[Donakebab]

The MRP has made it a farce.

 

[George Washington]

As far as I know the Brownlow medal is just as thick as it ever was.

Look at Judd's:

Compared to say.. Hird:

They look about the same thickness to me.

 

[DidakDelight]

The umpires get it right 8 out of 10 years.
Judd didnt do anything wrong, just didnt have any decent team mates around to get votes

i did find it strange however that in the first game against Collingwood he got 3 votes in a side that got pumped by 54 points and his combined opponents kicked 7 goals on him.

 

[Gary Ayres]

Just go have a cry abopiut Chris Judd winning it elsewhere.

 

[gandaal]

As far as I know the Brownlow medal is just as thick as it ever was.

Look at Judd's:

Compared to say.. Hird:

They look about the same thickness to me.

You're right, it looks reasonably thick to me. Can we get someone with the official measurements on the thickness of the Brownlow?

 

[Phone]

George Washington'd.

 

[Gary Ayres]

LOL at the Essendon OP getting PWNED by the other Essendon supporters. Kudos!

 

[Jade]

LOL at the Essendon OP getting PWNED by the other Essendon supporters. Kudos!

LOL

Clearly the intelligence required to get the humour is a little beyond this one...

 

[Wallaby]

Bugger off and leave the Brownlow alone. It is what it is.

Make up your own award if you want and see how much 'credibility' it has.

 

[Donakebab]

The umpires get it right 8 out of 10 years.
Judd didnt do anything wrong, just didnt have any decent team mates around to get votes

i did find it strange however that in the first game against Collingwood he got 3 votes in a side that got pumped by 54 points and his combined opponents kicked 7 goals on him.

Yes he did, he elbowed Pavlich in the face, should have been ineligible. Instead of getting rubbed out he got votes, what a joke!

 

[grizzlym]

From the mainboard >

 

[beez]

C. Judd
3 Votes

 

[Phone]

C. Judd
3 Votes

this isn't even an afl match.

 

[George Washington]

You're right, it looks reasonably thick to me. Can we get someone with the official measurements on the thickness of the Brownlow?

Can anyone in here vouch for the thickness of the Brownlow in the past? I'm quite curious, if someone could follow up on the dimensions of say the original Brownlow compared to todays I would be very thankful and we could put this matter to bed.

Though it would be safe to say todays Brownlow is definitely not paper thin, it's at least... 10 times the thickness of even the thickest paper. Imagine how fragile it would be if it were paper thin.. quite a foolish concept.

 

[Geelong63]

Its lost its sparkle for sure

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

Meh, just name it The AFL Umpire's Award and it'll get the credence it deserves.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

It's paper thin already because it largely ignores KPPs.

 

[Monkey King]

It used to be that the Bownlow was awarded to the best and fairest player in the league.

LOL the Brownlow is same as it's always been. So the favourite didn't win. Have a sook FFS. Maybe you should browse back the 1974 result before making ignorant comments like this one.


I'll just quote a couple of neutral posters at this point. I really think next year you should occupy the thread they refer to. You'll probably be blessed with a far greater insight into the award and its winners than you currently have.

For those that actually go through and keep a tally of Brownlow votes (see Stats Board) it was no suprise to see Judd win and most were willing to bet their house that Judd would come in the top 5. So maybe next season, before anyone starts having a go at the winner of the Brownlow you go through and watch every game and then have a guess at who the winner of the Brownlow will be, it's surprisingly ahttp://www.bigfooty.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=19155158ccurate!

I love how everyone doesn't follow the Brownlow closely throughout the year and then when they don't agree with the winner they scream outrage.

There was thousands and thousands of posts on this forum about week to week results and who should poll, etc.

All of the people who followed the Brownlow closely each week got everything pretty much spot on. Judd polled slightly better than most expected but most people had Judd/Ablett first and 2nd. Swan also polled about where most had him.

It's no surprise that just about everyone who was involved with the Brownlow threads throughout the year cleaned up the TAB last night and the people complaining about the result are the ones who don't follow it at all until the night.

Not only was the result not outrageous, it was closer to expected than unexpected.

 

[Monkey King]

Yes he did, he elbowed Pavlich in the face, should have been ineligible.

Incidental contact from knees and elbows resulting in stitches happens nearly every game. Descend your testimonials and move on!

 

[Jade]

LOL the Brownlow is same as it's always been. So the favourite didn't win. Have a sook FFS. Maybe you should browse back the 1974 result before making ignorant comments like this one.

I'll just quote a couple of neutral posters at this point. I really think next year you should occupy the thread they refer to. You'll probably be blessed with a far greater insight into the award and its winners than you currently have.

Listen up mate, I don't give a quiet toss whether Judd was destined to finish in the top five - I would have bet the house on it as well. I never said Judd wouldn't poll well. The flawed method of voting is the exact reason WHY Judd polled - and that is what I have a problem with.

The very fact that general consensus dictates that Judd would not have been amongst the top five players of 2010 shows that if the intent of the Brownlow is to award it to the fairest and best player in the league, then the existing system failed dismally to do so.

 

[Monkey King]

Listen up mate, I don't give a quiet toss whether Judd was destined to finish in the top five - I would have bet the house on it as well. I never said Judd wouldn't poll well. The flawed method of voting is the exact reason WHY Judd polled - and that is what I have a problem with.

You made a statement beginning with "it used to be that". And that's just plain wrong IMO. The award has the same inconsistencies it's always had. Greig (70's), Couch (80's), Wangers (90's), Goodes (00's) - none the best by consensus in their Brownlow years, but all deserving winners because they had great seasons, as did Judd.

One major difference though, is there's now internet forums for the disgruntled to vent on when they're upset with the winner.

Re: bolded. Another hindsight hero. Show me where you said this pre-Brownlow? Sorry, but I give more credence to the insight of those on the Brownlow thread than the post-count complainants.

The very fact that general consensus dictates that Judd would not have been amongst the top five players of 2010

And yet his Top 5 finish in the Coaches Award contradicts your claimed general consensus - and among genuine football watchers, I haven't even seen that anyway. Any top 5 player is always a fair chance at the Brownlow and a deserving winner. Claiming otherwise IMO is foolhardy.

 

[TownleyTime]

IMV the Norm Smith, Coaches MVP & Players MVP have a lot more credence than the Brownlow these days.

 

[Jade]

You made a statement beginning with "it used to be that". And that's just plain wrong IMO. The award has the same inconsistencies it's always had. Greig (70's), Couch (80's), Wangers (90's), Goodes (00's) - none the best by consensus in their Brownlow years, but all deserving winners because they had great seasons, as did Judd.

Perhaps i'll change the "it used to be" part of the statement to something along the lines of "it should be", because I agree inconsistencies have existed previously.

But by the sound of the above, you are in fact agreeing with me that Judd was not the seasons best player.

One major difference though, is there's now internet forums for the disgruntled to vent on when they're upset with the winner.

And those forums went into meltdown, which would suggest to me that I am obviously not alone in thinking that Judd was NOT a deserving winner of the Brownlow Medal in 2010.

Re: bolded. Another hindsight hero. Show me where you said this pre-Brownlow? Sorry, but I give more credence to the insight of those on the Brownlow thread than the post-count complainants.

I don't believe I made any comment on Judd's polling prior to the Brownlow - I suppose you'll just have to trust that I would have considered Judd a near certainty to poll in the top 5.

And yet his Top 5 finish in the Coaches Award contradicts your claimed general consensus - and among genuine football watchers, I haven't even seen that anyway. Any top 5 player is always a fair chance at the Brownlow and a deserving winner. Claiming otherwise IMO is foolhardy.

And he did not finish in the top five in the AFLPA MVP. And again, I'm not saying that Judd had no chance to win the Brownlow. What I am saying is that the process that allows a player to win this award when he is clearly not the best in the league is flawed. Ie. The voting process needs to chnage so that the most prestigious individual award in the game more accurately represents the accolade it bestows.

 

[Monkey King]

IMV the Norm Smith, Coaches MVP & Players MVP have a lot more credence than the Brownlow these days.

I think the MVP and Coaches award are rightly gaining more cred every passing year and I rate the Coaches award more highly than the MVP for sure. I don't think they'll ever replace the Brownlow, but they'll help shape the awards landscape nicely and will have their own place of inportance. In years to come, I think winning all three in the same year is going to be a recognized achievement in itself.

In regards to the Norm Smith, I wouldn't mind exploring the idea of a Finals MVP as well. With such emphasis on the importance of finals performances, it would be nice to have votes across all games.