Roast Problem with the Gary Ayres medal for best finals player.

[scarecrow2k1]

I've disliked the structure for this award since it was introduced in 2017, and my concern has played out this year. Apologies if this has been raised before- I did search but couldn't find discussion of it.
If you're not familiar with the award, it's given to the best finals player, with each coach giving votes on a 5-4-3-2-1 basis after the game, much like they do for the AFLCA player of the year award. Players can get a maximum of 10 votes per game, and whoever gets the most in the finals series is the winner.
My issue with this is that it places players from teams that win their QF at a disadvantage when compared to players that lose their QF, or win through from an EF. The winning QF players have 3 games to poll, and the losing QF/EF team can have 4.

How it's played out so far:
In 2017 and 2019 Dusty won the award playing 3 finals.
In 2018 Steele Sidebottom

22

Steele Sidebottom

Age

33

Ht

184cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

27.4

5star

K

14.1

5star

HB

13.3

5star

M

5.5

5star

T

3.7

5star

CL

3.2

5star

D

24.0

5star

K

12.0

5star

HB

12.0

5star

M

4.5

4star

T

4.3

5star

CL

2.3

4star

D

31.6

5star

K

14.4

5star

HB

17.2

5star

M

4.2

4star

T

4.2

5star

CL

6.0

5star

won from 4 finals, with a significant margin over second place (Sidebottom 23, Adams 18, Redden 17)
In 2020 Dusty won from four finals, but his opposition also had four games to poll. You could say that Port and Brisbane players were disadvantaged, with just two games, but they lost their PF, and as such will probably attract less sympathy.

This year Macrae has won the award, polling 25 votes from 4 games. Petracca polled 23, but from 3 games.
Macrae's received the following votes: 6 (EF), 10 (SF), 9 (PF), 0 (GF).
Petracca received the following votes: 7 (QF), 6 (PF), 10 (GF).

So Petracca has averaged 7.6 votes per game, Macrae 6.25, meaning his average performance was better than Macrae's. I believe this makes him more deserving of the award. I appreciate that awards like the Brownlow or Coleman aren't decided on an average basis, but the impact of 3 games vs 4 is far more significant than a missed game here or there, and it seems odd to give an advantage to players on teams that lose their first final or start lower down the ladder.

I think the award should be changed. An overall average wouldn't be suitable, as it would mean a player could be BOG in a losing EF and finish on 10, winning the award. For QF players, I'd like to see their average score added to replace the missed game from their bye week, placing them on equal footing with other players.
Thoughts?

 

[fpm84]

Geelong's B&F is weighted to only include a player's top 18 (or so) games for the season - so players who miss a game or two though injury aren't disadvantaged compared to a teammate who plays all 22. Tom Stewart missed our two H&A games this season and he will absolutely benefit from this when he romps home the B&F.

Perhaps the Gary Ayres award should only factor in a maximum of three finals per player so players like Macrae this year / Dusty last year don't benefit by virtue of an extra game? If a player like Macrae polled in all 4 finals, maybe only the three higher polling games could be counted in the tally? As you point out, if this was in place this season Petracca would have won due to higher average votes per game.

 

[scarecrow2k1]

Geelong's B&F is weighted to only include a player's top 18 (or so) games for the season - so players who miss a game or two though injury aren't disadvantaged compared to a teammate who plays all 22. Tom Stewart missed our two H&A games this season and he will absolutely benefit from this when he romps home the B&F.

Perhaps the Gary Ayres award should only factor in a maximum of three finals per player so players like Macrae this year / Dusty last year don't benefit by virtue of an extra game? If a player like Macrae polled in all 4 finals, maybe only the three higher polling games could be counted in the tally? As you point out, if this was in place this season Petracca would have won due to higher average votes per game.

I like this criteria for B&Fs, as the scoring systems usually favour players that play a lot of games. I think this for the Gary Ayres medal is better, but still not ideal, as it basically gives a free pass for a poor performance. Macrae would also still win it in this instance, as all it would do is remove his zero.

 

[katana]

why's this an issue? macrae only polled in three games, anyway. he beats petracca even on three games each.

 

[Shane Heard]

It’s a pointless award. Serves no purpose whatsoever.

one too many medals imo

 

[Bald]

Yeah the system is a little bit flawed. At the end of the day though Macrae polled in 3 games and Petracca polled in 3 games.

 

[Rowan18]

Agreed, totally flawed.

I also dont like players winning when they recieve zero for one game, if there is another player that recieved votes acros all games. As you said, Macrae went missing in the GF and in 2018 so did Sidebottom. Doesn't feel right that you can be the player of the finals if you don't turn up for a whole game.

I like the idea of only counting votes in the top 3 games and maybe ruling out a player if they get zero votes in a game (if there are other players the polled in all three games).

 

[00Stinger]

Yeah the system is a little bit flawed. At the end of the day though Macrae polled in 3 games and Petracca polled in 3 games.

That's because Petracca only played 3

So Petracca polled in 100% of finals and Macrae 75%

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

 

[Walter H White]

That's because Petracca only played 3

So Petracca polled in 100% of finals and Macrae 75%

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

Yes, I wouldn't have thought this would be such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[Generation X]

Two points.

- Macrae would be embarrassed to win this after his effort the grand final
- Melbourne players would zero care factor about it

Meaningless award

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

In order to win this award you either need to be named Dusty or play for the losing grand finalist. No harm in a consolation prize.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Honestly what’s even the point of this award and who actually cares? I doubt Macrae will look back at the end of his career and think jeez that was a special moment in 2021 when I won that!

It generally goes to either;
A) A player that won a premiership medal so who cares anyway about this,
B) A player that loses the GF so they’d rather not always be reminded about loosing a GF

Just ditch the award all together

 

[WCErevival]

Should be averaged.

 

[HTPunter]

WAIT WAIT WAIT

Even though Macrae DIDN'T poll in this "advantageous" 4th game, it's still somehow advantageous that he got a 4th game? Even though it didn't give him more votes? Different story if Macrae got a 3 in the GF loss and snuck home a win...

It's for the best player over the course of the final series, which is 4 weeks.

I don't think it needs to be "averaged" out. Do we give it to a player who gets 2x BOG but only plays 2 finals? How is that less flawed?

Over the course of a 4 week final series, Macrae was his teams best in 3 wins.

That's because Petracca only played 3

So Petracca polled in 100% of finals and Macrae 75%

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

So what we are saying is if we take the votes Macrae earned in his 3 finals wins, he still beats Petracca votes earned in his 3 finals wins?

How is this an issue? Lol.

 

[HTPunter]

I've disliked the structure for this award since it was introduced in 2017, and my concern has played out this year. Apologies if this has been raised before- I did search but couldn't find discussion of it.
If you're not familiar with the award, it's given to the best finals player, with each coach giving votes on a 5-4-3-2-1 basis after the game, much like they do for the AFLCA player of the year award. Players can get a maximum of 10 votes per game, and whoever gets the most in the finals series is the winner.
My issue with this is that it places players from teams that win their QF at a disadvantage when compared to players that lose their QF, or win through from an EF. The winning QF players have 3 games to poll, and the losing QF/EF team can have 4.

How it's played out so far:
In 2017 and 2019 Dusty won the award playing 3 finals.
In 2018 Steele Sidebottom won from 4 finals, with a significant margin over second place (Sidebottom 23, Adams 18, Redden 17)
In 2020 Dusty won from four finals, but his opposition also had four games to poll. You could say that Port and Brisbane players were disadvantaged, with just two games, but they lost their PF, and as such will probably attract less sympathy.

This year Macrae has won the award, polling 25 votes from 4 games. Petracca polled 23, but from 3 games.
Macrae's received the following votes: 6 (EF), 10 (SF), 9 (PF), 0 (GF).
Petracca received the following votes: 7 (QF), 6 (PF), 10 (GF).

So Petracca has averaged 7.6 votes per game, Macrae 6.25, meaning his average performance was better than Macrae's. I believe this makes him more deserving of the award. I appreciate that awards like the Brownlow or Coleman aren't decided on an average basis, but the impact of 3 games vs 4 is far more significant than a missed game here or there, and it seems odd to give an advantage to players on teams that lose their first final or start lower down the ladder.

I think the award should be changed. An overall average wouldn't be suitable, as it would mean a player could be BOG in a losing EF and finish on 10, winning the award. For QF players, I'd like to see their average score added to replace the missed game from their bye week, placing them on equal footing with other players.
Thoughts?

So if a player misses the QF, his team wins, and he goes on to dominate the PF & GF, does he then lose to his teammate who polled a 6, 5, 5 in the QF, PF, GF and gets the average of 5.3 added? Or does missing the QF through injury still mean you get the average counted to the semi final week?

2 standout games, match winning in the PF & Norm Smith v the 3 top few but not the best on the ground.
I'd take the first one. But your voting system rewards the 2nd one. Dusty v Houli sort of thing. Everyone takes Dusty.

Flawed suggestion. Next!

 

[WCErevival]

WAIT WAIT WAIT

Even though Macrae DIDN'T poll in this "advantageous" 4th game, it's still somehow advantageous that he got a 4th game? Even though it didn't give him more votes? Different story if Macrae got a 3 in the GF loss and snuck home a win...

It's for the best player over the course of the final series, which is 4 weeks.

I don't think it needs to be "averaged" out. Do we give it to a player who gets 2x BOG but only plays 2 finals? How is that less flawed?

Over the course of a 4 week final series, Macrae was his teams best in 3 wins.



So what we are saying is if we take the votes Macrae earned in his 3 finals wins, he still beats Petracca votes earned in his 3 finals wins?

How is this an issue? Lol.

Its an issue because a team that loses a final gets an extra game to poll votes in. It would be like teams outside the 8 getting an opportunity to poll more Brownlow votes.

 

[00Stinger]

WAIT WAIT WAIT

Even though Macrae DIDN'T poll in this "advantageous" 4th game, it's still somehow advantageous that he got a 4th game? Even though it didn't give him more votes?.

Think of it the other way

Petracca and Oliver to an extent are disadvantaged by playing 1 less game

But hey who really gives a *, it's a bit of a nothing award and the recipient would be a fair bit embaressed to win the best finals player when they didn't fire a shot in the big one


Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

 

[Substance]

It's a good award with a lot more merit than some others. Norm smith is for the grand final, this one is for the finals as a whole. Deal with it. We don't do average for the CPOTY award either.

 

[demondavey]

It’s a pointless award. Serves no purpose whatsoever.

one too many medals imo

Agreed. It’s a token award that’s rubbish. Who even remembers that Martin has won 3 compared to the 3 norm smiths he has won? Are people going to remember Macrae winning it when Petracca won the Norm?

It’s comprehensively flawed. The reason Macrae got so many votes is because he played 4 finals. Whereas a player could play a blinder in a QF and get 10 and then play a blinder in a PF and get 10 but his team loses in overtime. He only plays two games but plays better in those two games than the guy who plays four finals and they are not at the same level of performance.

Bullshit award. Badly thought through. Next they’ll have a Darren Jarman medal for the best performance in a quarter of a final, or the Dom Sheed medal for the best under pressure goal in a finals game.

It’s a s**t gimmick that I’d sell on eBay straight after mad Monday.

 

[demondavey]

Two points.

- Macrae would be embarrassed to win this after his effort the grand final
- Melbourne players would zero care factor about it

Meaningless award

Exactly. Do you think Alex Neal Bullen will be up at night thinking that he was devastated he had a great finals series, won a premiership medal, but didn’t get the GA medal?

It’s such a useless and meaningless award.

 

[demondavey]

It's a good award with a lot more merit than some others. Norm smith is for the grand final, this one is for the finals as a whole. Deal with it. We don't do average for the CPOTY award either.

It has no merit. It’s rubbish.

 

[Substance]

It has no merit. It’s rubbish.

Right so coaches votes have no merit? Got it lmao. Guess you prefer the brownlow?

 

[00Stinger]

Right so coaches votes have no merit? Got it lmao. Guess you prefer the brownlow?

you realise with that example everfy team plays the same amount of games, right?

This is the only medal where eligible players are not playing the same amount of games (barring injury)

 

[demondavey]

Right so coaches votes have no merit? Got it lmao. Guess you prefer the brownlow?

Not really when players can play more games in finals than others. It’s simply unfair. It’s also illogical. It’s not about it being meritorious, it needs to have logic. Which it doesn’t.

The Brownlow is a midfielders award. Tell me Cooney and Woewodin had better seasons in 2008 and 2000 than the best season produced by Franklin or Scarlett or Enright?

 

[demondavey]

Right so coaches votes have no merit? Got it lmao. Guess you prefer the brownlow?

I get it, you want to validate because one of your players won it, but it’s a award that is backed by no logic.