Roast The Brownlow has no credibility left

[bzparkes]

The one that gets away with throwing the ball the most.

18 of the last 18 Brownlow medalists have been top 6 in contested footy.

Player B clearly had no chance, being #22.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

I know umpires locally that say this... But AFL umpires on radio and other media have said this before, it just doesn't get much airtime because it doesn't suit the narrative, and there is this whole mysticism attached to the Dumblow and keeping the votes hidden with the umpires, until it all gets revealed a week before the grand final... Like somehow it gives it more legitimacy

Oh and also the Dumblow award includes only the home and away season, just another stupidity of this award.

Maybe it doesn't get much airtime becuase it's not true for the majority of them?

Whose narrative do you think is getting the majority of airtime here? Because given how relentless the criticism of the brownlow has been since Monday it seems that lots of people would love to roll out the quotes of umpires saying they don't really care about it.

 

[RCAB]

Maybe it doesn't get much airtime becuase it's not true for the majority of them?

Whose narrative do you think is getting the majority of airtime here? Because given how relentless the criticism of the brownlow has been since Monday it seems that lots of people would love to roll out the quotes of umpires saying they don't really care about it.

I don't have bits of media I can just pull for you over decades, but I just told you I've heard it numerous times from AFL umpires and local umpires, that it's not something they think about during the game and would rather not have to do it.

If you still think that I'm liying or misinterpreted it greatly than our conversation is done.

 

[bzparkes]

Look out guys, if you disagree with our resident self-appointed all-knowing god, he'll ignore you.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

I don't have bits of media I can just pull for you over decades, but I just told you I've heard it numerous times from AFL umpires and local umpires, that it's not something they think about during the game and would rather not have to do it.

If you still think that I'm liying or misinterpreted it greatly than our conversation is done.

I'm not saying you're lying I just want you to verify it. If you can't then I'm happy to dismiss it as just a nuffy opinion, or an exaggeration of a couple of comments that you now assume to represent the perspective of all umpires.

 

[RCAB]

Look out guys, if you disagree with our resident self-appointed all-knowing god, he'll ignore you.

Are you on ignore? I disagree with most of what you say.

You act all knowing everyday for decades on this forum.. need a mirror?

 

[a_fighting_fury]

It lost it when Chris Grant was robbed by Ian Collins in 1997 and when Woewodin won in 2000.

The Brownlow will never have credibility while umps are in charge of votes, they can’t even get frees right, let alone pick the best player.

 

[RCAB]

The Brownlow will never have credibility while umps are in charge of votes, they can’t even get frees right, let alone pick the best player.

It never had any credibility to begin with:

• Doesn't include the most important part of the season, the finals
• Uses an arbitrary and rigid 321 voting system
• Umpires have enough on their plate without having to worry about who are the best players in the game (NWM not getting BOG is just a long line of numerous mistakes they've made over the years)
• Umpires aren't watching every player or every part of the game, in fact... they're umpiring. A random fan in the stands probably has a better view of what's happening.

 

[Seeds]

What don't you understand?

The 'controversy' surrounding this years result has been greatly amplified by Collingwood supporters whinging about Daicos not winning it.

It is over the top.

If Daicos did win it, do you really think you and your fellow supporters would still be on here saying the Brownlow has no credibility?

Of course they wouldn't.

It should have no credibility well before this season happened because the problems with it have been around quite a while.There have been a number of winners who should not of won. Sometimes by luck more then design the right winner gets it.

This wasnt this year and thus it is rightly amplified this year because the wrong player won it. So ofcourse if the right player won it it would be less amplifield. But thats kind of the point. This system gave us the wrong winner. As it has a number of times before. Made worse this year that the wrong winner not only won, but won by so much. It wasnt a one off game where he got 3 despite being no where near the best that snuck him over the line. It happened numerous times resulting in a thumping win

 

[bzparkes]

Are you on ignore? I disagree with most of what you say.

You act all knowing everyday for decades on this forum.. need a mirror?

I don't need a mirror but you clearly need a box of tissues.

 

[vinhol]

What a joke of an award this year. Nick Daicos was BOG vs GWS and polled 0 votes despite having 35+ disposals.

The award is losing relevance each year.

Simple Nick needs to get more votes to win by playing better

 

[iameviljez]

It should have no credibility well before this season happened because the problems with it have been around quite a while.There have been a number of winners who should not of won. Sometimes by luck more then design the right winner gets it.

This wasnt this year and thus it is rightly amplified this year because the wrong player won it. So ofcourse if the right player won it it would be less amplifield. But thats kind of the point. This system gave us the wrong winner. As it has a number of times before. Made worse this year that the wrong winner not only won, but won by so much. It wasnt a one off game where he got 3 despite being no where near the best that snuck him over the line. It happened numerous times resulting in a thumping win

Yeah, I agree. There are two types of Brownlow fails IMO:

1) The guy who won just wasn't really in the top echelon for the year (i.e. top five players in the year) - i.e. Priddis, Woewodin, Wanganeen, Wines, Bartel

or

2) A player who is clearly the best player that year doesn't win (Bont, Ablett Jr, Swan, Tredrea, Darcy, Carey).

 

[Seeds]

Yeah, I agree. There are two types of Brownlow fails IMO:

1) The guy who won just wasn't really in the top echelon for the year (i.e. top five players in the year) - i.e. Priddis, Woewodin, Wanganeen, Wines, Bartel

or

2) A player who is clearly the best player that year doesn't win (Bont, Ablett Jr, Swan, Tredrea, Darcy, Carey).

Yep rowells a great player and has the potential to be a worthy brownlow winner. It just shouldnt of been this year. Daicos was the best and smith probably second. Rowell should of been fighting for a top 5 position.

Judds a worthy winner but he should not of won his second one. He wasnt even good enough to get all australian that year.

 

[iameviljez]

Judds a worthy winner but he should not of won his second won. He wasnt even good enough to get all australian that year.

Judd and Swan should have swapped Brownlows between 2010 and 2011

 

[bungalow_bill]

It should have no credibility well before this season happened because the problems with it have been around quite a while.There have been a number of winners who should not of won. Sometimes by luck more then design the right winner gets it.

This wasnt this year and thus it is rightly amplified this year because the wrong player won it. So ofcourse if the right player won it it would be less amplifield. But thats kind of the point. This system gave us the wrong winner. As it has a number of times before. Made worse this year that the wrong winner not only won, but won by so much. It wasnt a one off game where he got 3 despite being no where near the best that snuck him over the line. It happened numerous times resulting in a thumping win

The right player did win it. Rowell is a superstar.

 

[RCAB]

Simple Nick needs to get more votes to win by playing better

Nick was already voted the best player this year.

 

[Seeds]

The right player did win it. Rowell is a superstar.

He may well be but he didnt deserve to win it this year.

 

[iameviljez]

The right player did win it. Rowell is a superstar.

Rowell is excellent, but he's not even the best player in his own team. He's also not in the starting 18 of the AA side.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

It should have no credibility well before this season happened because the problems with it have been around quite a while.There have been a number of winners who should not of won. Sometimes by luck more then design the right winner gets it.

This wasnt this year and thus it is rightly amplified this year because the wrong player won it. So ofcourse if the right player won it it would be less amplifield. But thats kind of the point. This system gave us the wrong winner. As it has a number of times before. Made worse this year that the wrong winner not only won, but won by so much. It wasnt a one off game where he got 3 despite being no where near the best that snuck him over the line. It happened numerous times resulting in a thumping win

Who says Nick Daicos was the most worthy winner of the Brownlow? Certainly not the umpires.
Was it the other awards?
The other voting systems?

Seriously - every approach to selecting the best player will have different outcomes.

For different reasons there could be 5-10 players who could be deemed the best player of 2025, because being the best means so many things.

I personally thought Noah Anderson was the best player of the year in terms of consistency. But if he doesn't get enoguh BOGs according to the umpires he's not going to win it. And that's ok. I'm fine with my opinion being different to the umpires.

 

[Hawksboy72]

My solution to the brownlow is this...after the match the umpires give their votes then on the Monday they all watch the game again with the stats then submit their votes.

 

[iameviljez]

My solution to the brownlow is this...after the match the umpires give their votes then on the Monday they all watch the game again with the stats then submit their votes.

The one difficulty I have with this is that by Monday, all other outlets have published their conclusions, Best lists, etc. IMO the Norm Smith model is best - one rep per media team plus some AFL gronk who was already going to the game.

 

[iameviljez]

Seriously - every approach to selecting the best player will have different outcomes.

Not always. 2010, Swanny won pretty much everything in sight, for example.

 

[RCAB]

I'm fine with my opinion being different to the umpires.

That's not exactly what's happening though.

 

[RCAB]

My solution to the brownlow is this...after the match the umpires give their votes then on the Monday they all watch the game again with the stats then submit their votes.

They have better things to do.. like you know... their job, which is not umpiring.

 

[Carn The Berries]

It never had any credibility to begin with:

• Doesn't include the most important part of the season, the finals
• Uses an arbitrary and rigid 321 voting system
• Umpires have enough on their plate without having to worry about who are the best players in the game (NWM not getting BOG is just a long line of numerous mistakes they've made over the years)
• Umpires aren't watching every player or every part of the game, in fact... they're umpiring. A random fan in the stands probably has a better view of what's happening.

Name one award (league wide or club) that includes finals....

The only one I can think of... Is the Golden Fist on Bounce