Roast The Brownlow has no credibility left

[Duckimus Prime]

But it’s the only individual best player award that Matthews Carey and Ablett won so in my eyes that gives it instant credibility

Any award given to Leigh Matthews that is listed as the best and fairest would have no credibility.

Here's the thing though. The Leigh Matthews Trophy is voted on by people who don't pay attention to how most footballers are going. And its a one off vote at the end of the year. Oh yeah, and according to the AFL PA rules, no Hawthorn player ever voted that Leigh Matthews is the most valuable player in the league.

The AFLCA Award has its votes publicised each week with the running tally being known so its open to biased voting by coaches looking to maximise the chance of their best players winning it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Whateley actually gets heard in amongst the non stop ads on SEN?

I know right, just add central

 

[who_let_the_dogs_out]

System is broken, blow it up and start again. Lost credibility years ago.

 

[The Slitherin' Snake]

Gonna play devil's advocate here...

Viney had 20 touches and 16 tackles and his team was in front by nearly 10 goals with about 19 minutes left in the game.

NW-M had about 25 touches and had kicked 2, but as his team was down by 10 goals, it's not a stretch to say that most of his efforts had had minimal impact on the game.

If he didn't kicked 2 in the final 9 seconds and St Kilda didn't win - would it have been that outrageous for Viney's game to be considered better?


So it just highlights the fact that different people value different things.

Some people may think that having lots of touches but no impact on the outcome of the game is great. Others may consider kicking 2 in a minute to ice the game as being more valuable that anything that occurred in the 99 minutes prior.

FWIW, I think it's a good thing that different people have different perspectives and value different things in footy.

But what bothers me is that umpires (and anyone giving out 3-2-1's for that matter) don't seem to value anything other than ball winning midfielders.

For example, I would have given the Norm Smith to Harris Andrews last year, and I would have had Blicavs in my votes on Friday night.

People would have have thought I was crazy, but I value impact on the game at critical moments very highly. And I'm not even talking about statistical impact. The intangible stuff that Blicavs was doing to negate Meek's influence was immense!

But he did... in one of the greatest clutch performances the sport has seen. So he was clearly the best player on the ground. His team do not win that game with out him

 

[GWT6]

"I'd like to call the forward the Chairman of the AFL commission to raise a toast to the winner Matt Rowell

18

Matt Rowell

Age

24

Ht

180cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.4

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

0.8

1star

T

5.2

5star

CL

3.8

5star

D

17.4

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

0.8

1star

T

5.2

5star

CL

3.8

5star

D

17.4

5star

K

7.6

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

0.8

1star

T

5.2

5star

CL

3.8

5star

"

AFL Chairman "I speak on behalf of everyone in the room on congratulating Nick Daicos on again having an amazing year, well done"

That was what he actually said first up!

WFT was that???

Had to rewind and watch again to make sure I wasn't hallucinating.

 

[iameviljez]

It's a little revisionist - the Brownlow does a good enough job even if it does lead to some anomalous and suspect outcomes

It picks one of the best players, but there are, IMO, fewer years when it picked the best player than when it didn't.

 

[VicBased]

We'll give the cheating corrupt maggot scumpires the benefit of the doubt this time. However, if they find someone to award 40 votes next year to knock off Nick again, well.....me is thinking a conspiracy!

Maybe Nick is just destined to be the Bridesmaid? He also criticises the Umps a lot and they do not like that

 

[greatwhiteshark]

System is broken, blow it up and start again. Lost credibility years ago.

Who has not been a worthy winner?

 

[Skinnyfwdpocket]

Coaches Votes: Biased toward own players.
Media Award: Bias, too many opinions & would take into account off field things and media hype.
PlayersMVP: Recency bias, they only vote at the end of the season, a lot of players admit to not watching a lot of footy.

I honestly think we have too many awards these days and leads to comparisons that are unfair,

The coaches' votes are usually close to the fan's votes, but that's because both have access to the full stats, replays & bias.
The playersMVP usually closely reflects the coaches as its been in the media all year.

Leave the Brownlow how it is, I think this year's votes took into account players impact across the entire game and definitely featured more forwards getting votes not just 3 midfielders every game.

 

[Triniboy]

umpires cannot get on field decisions correct how can we expect them to get voting correct.

 

[Triniboy]

Coaches Votes: Biased toward own players.
Media Award: Bias, too many opinions & would take into account off field things and media hype.
PlayersMVP: Recency bias, they only vote at the end of the season, a lot of players admit to not watching a lot of footy.

I honestly think we have too many awards these days and leads to comparisons that are unfair,

The coaches' votes are usually close to the fan's votes, but that's because both have access to the full stats, replays & bias.
The playersMVP usually closely reflects the coaches as its been in the media all year.

Leave the Brownlow how it is, I think this year's votes took into account players impact across the entire game and definitely featured more forwards getting votes not just 3 midfielders every game.

complete nonsense ... coaches are biased.

 

[who_let_the_dogs_out]

Who has not been a worthy winner?

Cooney over Ablett in 08 was when it started to gp downhill. Priddis. Neale and Cripps' 2nd Brownlow.

 

[beside the seaside]

If you want to make a simple little change to it then have each of the umps put in a 3-2-1. Having them get together to do one 3-2-1 is silly. It's never going to be perfect but at least iron out the outliers etc. It would actually make more sense to have the goal umpires or boundary umpires do the votes as they get to watch the game more whereas the other umpires are so distracted by having to closely watch the game.

 

[fuic08]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks the media should be giving the votes. They are far from the best judges most of the time.

Most of those muppets barely watch 3 games a week

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Cooney over Ablett in 08 was when it started to gp downhill. Priddis. Neale and Cripps' 2nd Brownlow.

Nah mate I disagree. Basically you are asking for who the media thinks should win then has to win.
It's the umpires award. If it was the media award then daicos would have 3 by now.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

umpires cannot get on field decisions correct how can we expect them to get voting correct.

But it is correct according to them, there is no template for this. How are they wrong?

 

[who_let_the_dogs_out]

Nah mate I disagree. Basically you are asking for who the media thinks should win then has to win.
It's the umpires award. If it was the media award then daicos would have 3 by now.

Nope, certainly don't want the media involved. Imagine Cornes or someone of that ilk involved. If it's to remain with the umpires they need to review the game afterwards through video or at least access stats/indicators.

 

[VicBased]

Cooney over Ablett in 08 was when it started to gp downhill. Priddis. Neale and Cripps' 2nd Brownlow.

You do realise that is just your opinion?

 

[who_let_the_dogs_out]

You do realise that is just your opinion?

Yep which is why I gave my opinion.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Nope, certainly don't want the media involved. Imagine Cornes or someone of that ilk involved. If it's to remain with the umpires they need to review the game afterwards through video or at least access stats/indicators.

I think the ore they look at it then the more it will just go on stats. Do you think they should know that player A was sent out to curb the influence of player B? He did that successfully so should get votes?
I think the more they see the worse it will be.

As soon as they enter the rooms they are all handed a 3-2-1 vote card and told to separate and do their own votes. And those 4 cards are then combined by the AFL representative to provide the final Brownlow votes.
It's the only way to get it close to being right.
I don't ever want highest stats win.

 

[flyinghi64]

I don't think anyone really thinks Rowell wasn't a deserved winner, the main thing that is being questioned is certain voting in certain games.
Back in the old days when there was only 1 and 2 umpires and much less statistics taken and available to the average punter it wasn't as easily scrutinized as it is these days.
Now there are 4 umpires, the rules constantly changing or being tweaked and the average punter has access to all types of stat's including fantasy footy.
I am sure there are games when umps get together and have no real idea who was actually the best or most influential and just go with the "safe bet" depending on who is playing, Cripps, Rowell, Daicos etc.

The whole Brownlow medal needs a revamp to bring it up to the times. What they do or change I am not sure but the current system is obviously archaic and not truly reflective of individual performances game to game.

A ruckman gets 50+ hitouts giving his mids first use of the ball, takes 10+ marks including some game saving ones, has several clearances themselves and get's no votes but the mid he fed all game gets the 3.
Or a defender who keeps one of the best forwards goalless in a low scoring game and has 10+ intercepts including several marks that set up goal chains gets overlooked for a mid who had an ok game.
These are not specific examples of actual instances just a fictional example of what does happen.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I don't think anyone really thinks Rowell was a deserved winner, the main thing that is being questioned is certain voting in certain games.
Back in the old days when there was only 1 and 2 umpires and much less statistics taken and available to the average punter it wasn't as easily scrutinized as it is these days.
Now there are 4 umpires, the rules constantly changing or being tweaked and the average punter has access to all types of stat's including fantasy footy.
I am sure there are games when umps get together and have no real idea who was actually the best or most influential and just go with the "safe bet" depending on who is playing, Cripps, Rowell, Daicos etc.

The whole Brownlow medal needs a revamp to bring it up to the times. What they do or change I am not sure but the current system is obviously archaic and not truly reflective of individual performances game to game.

A ruckman gets 50+ hitouts giving his mids first use of the ball, takes 10+ marks including some game saving ones, has several clearances themselves and get's no votes but the mid he fed all game gets the 3.
Or a defender who keeps one of the best forwards goalless in a low scoring game and has 10+ intercepts including several marks that set up goal chains gets overlooked for a mid who had an ok game.
These are not specific examples of actual instances just a fictional example of what does happen.

I think the majority do. He has been a star all year. It's is only because he plays for Gold Coast he does not get the media attention like Golden Boy does.

 

[PiesUserName]

One thing that I am confused about and all I ever hear about here and on social media is that.

1 - Collingwood get the rub of the green every game, the umpires love us (despite finishing in the middle in the free kick ladder)

2 - Nick Daicos is protected by the umpires and they look after him. The AFL's pet.

So do the umpires love Collingwood/Daicos or not?

That said, out of all of Daicos' years so far, this year I thought was his worst so not salty.

The umpires are ridiculed and it is said time and again that they are hopeless. Take it away from them.

 

[jannissary]

I don't think anyone really thinks Rowell was a deserved winner, the main thing that is being questioned is certain voting in certain games.
Back in the old days when there was only 1 and 2 umpires and much less statistics taken and available to the average punter it wasn't as easily scrutinized as it is these days.
Now there are 4 umpires, the rules constantly changing or being tweaked and the average punter has access to all types of stat's including fantasy footy.
I am sure there are games when umps get together and have no real idea who was actually the best or most influential and just go with the "safe bet" depending on who is playing, Cripps, Rowell, Daicos etc.

The whole Brownlow medal needs a revamp to bring it up to the times. What they do or change I am not sure but the current system is obviously archaic and not truly reflective of individual performances game to game.

A ruckman gets 50+ hitouts giving his mids first use of the ball, takes 10+ marks including some game saving ones, has several clearances themselves and get's no votes but the mid he fed all game gets the 3.
Or a defender who keeps one of the best forwards goalless in a low scoring game and has 10+ intercepts including several marks that set up goal chains gets overlooked for a mid who had an ok game.
These are not specific examples of actual instances just a fictional example of what does happen.

please, he was rock solid for the entire season and performed well in most games. he got some cheap votes where he maybe didn't deserve 3, but that happens all the time currently.

 

[Triniboy]

But it is correct according to them, there is no template for this. How are they wrong?

didn't mention wrong ... best they focus on one thing ... umpiring !