A Brownlow hypothetical

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

24 September 2001

"Well, that's it for our Brownlow coverage. Congratulations to Michael Voss on winning his second Brownlow Medal with 26 votes. So close for Jason Johnson and Brett Ratten with 25 each, and the fast finishing 1999 Medallist Shane Crawford with 24 votes."

Flashback to Round 17. Consensus and common sense tells us that Crawford was the best man on the ground yesterday against Carlton. He was, however, reported and therefore ineligible to receive votes in that game.

Monday night comes around, and umpire Dipsheet withdraws the charge. Withdraws it - Crawford doesn't even go up before the tribunal.

In the grand scheme of things, Crawford has done no wrong in the umpires' eyes on the Sunday, and should be entitled to his rightful share of the votes from the game.

Now maybe it'll come to nothing - maybe someone will win by far enough that it doesn't matter. But bear these factors in mind:

• Brownlow Medal betting is a big market, with many millions of dollars wagered on the outcome
• Players stand to earn much more on contracts, endorsements and future media careers if they can append "Brownlow Medallist" to their names
• Crawford is a proven vote-getter who stands out from his teammates
• By my reckoning, Crawford would have between 8 & 12 votes so far this season (without receiving the three he deserved for yesterday). Bear in mind that from this point onwards in 1999, he polled 11 votes against opposition significantly stronger than he will play in the next month.

I agree it hardly ranks on the Grant/McKernan score (or the Jarman score in 1995 - a travesty that no-one remembers - lost by three and got literally robbed of three votes against Collingwood), but the importance of the issue is the way the votes are handed out. Crawford was ineligible yesterday, yet by the same judges' criteria is suddenly eligible again. Too bad the votes are already in the envelope.

As I said, it may come to nothing, but if Cindy is within three votes of the winner on Brownlow night, somebody better come up with some answers.

 

[Chris_23]

Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club


(or the Jarman score in 1995 - a travesty that no-one remembers - lost by three and got literally robbed of three votes against Collingwood)

Typical DCFC, you're just like all those other Hawthorn Sooks!

Yep, he was very stiff that year. How many weeks did he miss for smacking Ross Lyon in Round 1?

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
Flashback to Round 17. Consensus and common sense tells us that Crawford was the best man on the ground yesterday against Carlton. He was, however, reported and therefore ineligible to receive votes in that game.

You sure this is still a rule?

 

[DarkRider]

There is not now, nor has there ever been, such a "rule".
DCFC you are having a lend of yourself.

 

[Daphne]

Well Leigh Matthews thinks that we should ditch the Brownlow as it puts too much pressure on him when picking his team, or when he wants to rest one of his players. He feels that if he rests one of his players that it could cost that player the Brownlow, seeing that so many of his players are getting so many Bronlow votes. I bet if you asked the players what they would rather have Leigh
1. A Brownlow medal
or
2. A chance to play in the Grand Final.

I think I know which one they would pick.

It is amazing what some coaches crap on about sometimes I think they just like the sound of their own voices.

 

[LeKoupa]

Lightning doesn't strike the same place twice.

That's an EXTREME hypothetical.

It was a bloody miracle Cindy Crawford could win one Brownlow.

Two would mean Hell's frozen over, we get a Collingwood-Fremantle Grand Final, Craig Bradley's gone in for a hard ball and Matty Lloyd hasn't cried for a free.

These things just don't happen, DCFC.

 

[Pessimistic]

Re: Lightning doesn't strike the same place twice.

Originally posted by K'Bane
That's an EXTREME hypothetical.

It was a bloody miracle Cindy Crawford could win one Brownlow.

Two would mean Hell's frozen over, we get a Collingwood-Fremantle Grand Final, Craig Bradley's gone in for a hard ball and Matty Lloyd hasn't cried for a free.

These things just don't happen, DCFC.

Once more, for the record, Crawford won EVERY award in 1999, so how come he didn't deserve the brownlow.

... And you forgot to mention Kouta putting two good seasons together.

 

[GOALden Hawk]

DCFC I think that rule about not awarding Brownlow votes to a player who has been reported has been scrapped. But I guess the proof will come on Brownlow night, because it would be literally impossible for Crawford not to receive at least 1 vote from Sunday's game.

Anyway, he still has a lot of votes to make up to get in real Brownlow contention.

ANd Jarman was definitely stiffed in 1995, that season was nearly as good as Crawford's year in 1999, yet he didn't receive a vote after getting 31 possessions against Collingwood.

As for Leigh Matthews, what a pointless comment that was. As if you are going to keep a player on when the game is over to try and get them Brownlow votes! Any coach who had the team's interest at heart would be resting them on the bench.

 

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
.

ANd Jarman was definitely stiffed in 1995, that season was nearly as good as Crawford's year in 1999, yet he didn't receive a vote after getting 31 possessions against Collingwood.

Yes, so was Greg Williams in 93 when he got 40+ possessions against Melbourne and didn't get a vote.

This is not a whinge. My point is, the Brownlow is great b/c of it's quirks being an umpires' award. Leave it alone.

Besides, we now have the players association award which is gaining a high profile and deserved credibility.

 

[GOALden Hawk]

I'm not saying it should be changed. I think the current format is good enough. I think the system the Age uses with the top 5 players given marks out of 10 is a bit fairer and awards consistency - but the Brownlow is the Brownlow and changing it because of one or two quirks just isn't worth it.

 

[Blues2001]

Re: Re: Lightning doesn't strike the same place twice.

Originally posted by Pessimistic


Once more, for the record, Crawford won EVERY award in 1999, so how come he didn't deserve the brownlow.

... And you forgot to mention Kouta putting two good seasons together.

1999-2000 buddy. 1995-96 as well for that matter.

 

[Pessimistic]

Sorry, cheap shot. just highlighting that some of the most acclaimed players have poor years.

But it is Ironic, the lack of a brownlow and chequered tribunal history didn't prevent Lethal form being touted as the best ever. But his point is obvious. I think Crawf was given 'permission' to chase brownlow votes in 1999.

There is a certain 'brownlow chaser' who might just be disadvantaging his team because of it.

 

[Daphne]

Originally posted by Pessimistic

There is a certain 'brownlow chaser' who might just be disadvantaging his team because of it.

Did his coach worry about benching him during a game?

 

[Sly77]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
There is a certain 'brownlow chaser' who might just be disadvantaging his team because of it.

Hee hee you wouldnt be talking about the same player who reportedly counts his possessions during a match would you?

 

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

At the risk of being dubbed an old post dredger, I recycle my post from after the Round 17 Hawthorn vs Carlton game for your consideration.

S Crawford - 0 votes.

A disgrace.

 

[topdon]

Brett Ratten? Where'd he get to. Late plunge on him, and he is nowhere to be seen!!

McLeod's won it now!!

Congratulations Andrew!!!

 

[topdon]

ROUND 20 - 0 VOTES!!!!!! for McLeod!!

 

[Blues2001]

Originally posted by topdon
Brett Ratten? Where'd he get to. Late plunge on him, and he is nowhere to be seen!!

DCFC, Rats was way stiffer than Crawford was. He had a far better year but polled way less votes, though I agree Crawford was good for a vote or two in round 17. Ratten had three best on grounds with most media awards by round 4, in the Brownlow he hadn't even polled a vote! Bloody cost me $5 to Goalden Hawk

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Yep, Crawf not getting a vote for the Round 17 game is an absolute disgrace - forgot about this thread!

The other ones I couldn't believe was John Hay not getting a vote against the Kangaroos in Round 12 and Voss not getting 3 votes against us in Round 13 despite 37 posessions!

But cheers to Darren Hulme for picking 10 votes while Beaumont didn't get any - very handy when I beat Blues 2001 by only 3 votes and he didn't pick Hulme!

 

[TheOne]

What about Lordy's 6 goal haul in round 5 against the Bulldogs.........Not even a single vote??????

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Originally posted by TheOne
What about Lordy's 6 goal haul in round 5 against the Bulldogs.........Not even a single vote??????

Yeah, bit unlucky...but Rehn had to get the 3 that day - and I think a few of Lordy's goals came in 'junk time' (as a lot of them seem to do!)

 

[elt]

Originally posted by TheOne
What about Lordy's 6 goal haul in round 5 against the Bulldogs.........Not even a single vote??????

I actually thought Rawlings was much better in that game. Played very well in defence and then went forward and kicked three goals. 0 Votes.

Oh and btw DCFC you are an old post dredger

 

[elt]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk


Yeah, bit unlucky...but Rehn had to get the 3 that day - and I think a few of Lordy's goals came in 'junk time' (as a lot of them seem to do!)

Rehnny didn't get any votes Goalden one. They voted Barker 3, Chick 2, Brown 1

 

[TheOne]

I guess it was a pretty high scoring game with about 40 odd goals kicked. Barker kicked 5, but rawlings did play well too... I guess there were a lot of good players that day.