AFLCA voting

[Mr Meow]

I'm a pies supporter and agree with the votes. Jezza, Daicos and Danger were easily the best 3 players on the ground, expect to see all 3 feature in the brownlow voting on the night as well. Nothing to see here

Collingwood won not because their best 4 players were better than Geelong's best. But because the next 18 were absolutely better than Geelong's next 18. Sometimes people don't understand that premise, which is admittedly made worse by losing teams players struggling to feature even in scenarios similar to this one.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Expected a thread like this last season when Newcombe doubled Daicos' votes, despite Daicos winning the rising star easily.

Just looking at that top 20 for this season and it's a far better snapshot than what the Brownlow will ultimately end up looking like.

Dan Houston

5

Dan Houston

Age

26

Ht

186cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.2

5star

K

11.8

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

3.0

5star

MG

289.2

4star

D

17.6

4star

K

11.6

4star

HB

6.0

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

3.4

4star

MG

319.9

5star

D

16.6

4star

K

12.4

5star

HB

4.2

4star

M

7.0

5star

T

2.6

4star

MG

279.8

5star

thoroughly deserving of his standing, but I'm not sure how that will translate on Brownlow night for example.

 

[Kappa]

This is a new low in whining. If you want to get serious Cameron was hands down the best player on the ground and Mcrae's votes should be null and void after making such a humiliating blunder.

It depends whether u count the umpires mistakenly gifting several goals to Cameron that should've been disallowed as him playing well.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Macrae gave Danger, Atkins and Cameron top 3 votes, not Scott

 

[Noidnadroj]

This is just as much a shambles as the Brownlow medal.

People place a higher value on this than the Brownlow just because umpires give votes to midfielders, yet I regularly see coaches giving votes to their own players after a loss, clearly being sour about the game’s results.

Outside the first quarter, Friday night’s game was pretty much all Collingwood. Margin even blowing out to almost 5 goals before a few junktime goals by the Cats when the game was iced. Effectively a 50 point turnaround from midway through the first quarter to midway through the last.

Someone explain to me how Scott then gives his top 3 players on the ground to Cats players.

View attachment 1773975
View attachment 1773977

Mind you, Cameron’s 7 goals consisted of 2 being spoonfed by the umpires and 1 over the top handball from Henry.

From a neutral perspective, Henry kicked 4 and set up one of Cameron’s, so feel his output was just as crucial, yet he got zero votes.

I bring this up as it is not a one off occurrence and have previously seen coaches give votes to their own players first despite losing, which takes away from the credibility of the AFLCA being more ‘accurate’ than the Brownlow medal as so many like to claim it to be.

Did Chris Scott really only give Josh Daicos 1 x vote? That’s a joke …. he was clearly Collingwood’s best player in a game they largely dominated with Geelong only remaining competitive thanks to a few genuine umpiring howlers gifting goals. Wouldn’t be like a Scott twin to give votes while sucking on a lemon though, would it …??


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Noidnadroj]

I'm a pies supporter and agree with the votes. Jezza, Daicos and Danger were easily the best 3 players on the ground, expect to see all 3 feature in the brownlow voting on the night as well. Nothing to see here

Nah … issue is not that Josh Daicos got 6 votes … issue is Chris Scott gave him 1 vote… Daicos was easily in the best 3 players on the ground.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

This is just as much a shambles as the Brownlow medal.

People place a higher value on this than the Brownlow just because umpires give votes to midfielders, yet I regularly see coaches giving votes to their own players after a loss, clearly being sour about the game’s results.

Outside the first quarter, Friday night’s game was pretty much all Collingwood. Margin even blowing out to almost 5 goals before a few junktime goals by the Cats when the game was iced. Effectively a 50 point turnaround from midway through the first quarter to midway through the last.

Someone explain to me how Scott then gives his top 3 players on the ground to Cats players.

View attachment 1773975
View attachment 1773977

Mind you, Cameron’s 7 goals consisted of 2 being spoonfed by the umpires and 1 over the top handball from Henry.

From a neutral perspective, Henry kicked 4 and set up one of Cameron’s, so feel his output was just as crucial, yet he got zero votes.

I bring this up as it is not a one off occurrence and have previously seen coaches give votes to their own players first despite losing, which takes away from the credibility of the AFLCA being more ‘accurate’ than the Brownlow medal as so many like to claim it to be.

Here are the top objective Champion Data player ratings for the game. They are not biased, but of course as has been said by at least one other poster, every system of voting or rating players will have flaws. Geelong had the 4 objectively highest rated players on the ground.



As we see here they also had 7 of the lowest 10 rated players in the game. 6 of the lowest 8 if you omitted Rohan and Moore who were subbed out.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Nah … issue is not that Josh Daicos got 6 votes … issue is Chris Scott gave him 1 vote… Daicos was easily in the best 3 players on the ground.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

No one knows which coach voted for which player.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Not related, but an interesting stat, 16 of the 22 winners have been 25 or younger.

Buckley being the oldest winner at 30 and Goodwin second oldest at 29.

8 winners are 23 and younger.

Almost like a reward for players having their breakout season, and less about the superstars consistently performing.

There an encouragement award feel to some of the coaches voting.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Could say the same about McRae.

How was 17 touches from Noble better than 26, 11 I50, 9 clearances from Dangerfield.

Both Frampton and Murphy spent time on Cameron yet Murphy is in his votes.. If not for the work on Cameron it must be the massive task of stopping 3rd gamer Neale.

Who did Noble play on? If it was Miers who’d been in red hot form then maybe that’s why? Miers had 12 touches and no score, with zero influence after a couple of goal assists early. Or maybe he was on Stengle who scored 1 goal?

But on the surface Noble and Murphy were not better than Danger.

For me it was:

Cameron / Daicos (take your pick … clearly best 2)
Danger
Atkins
Mihocek




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Noidnadroj]

No one knows which coach voted for which player.

Oh, fair enough. I thought from the OP we did know… I know you can generally work out the breakdown, but I thought we somehow knew who gave what. If it’s just guesswork then I take it all back. I think there’s often a good chance losing coaches vote for oppo players because they’re peeved at their own players for not taking their opportunities. Eg Cameron could’ve kicked 10 and Geelong probably win - so maybe Scott gave Daicos the 5 as he felt despite dominating Jezza sort of cost them with a lot of misses .?? Who knows, but I wouldn’t just assume coaches always favour their own players.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Mr Meow]

Who did Noble play on? If it was Miers who’d been in red hot form then maybe that’s why? Miers had 12 touches and no score, with zero influence after a couple of goal assists early. Or maybe he was on Stengle who scored 1 goal?

But on the surface Noble and Murphy were not better than Danger.

For me it was:

Cameron / Daicos (take your pick … clearly best 2)
Danger
Atkins
Mihocek




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

So despite the flawed individual breakdown (because I agree that both coaches should have picked your top 2 in those positions), it still more or less worked out to be what it should've been on aggregate - as far as ranking the top 5 or so. Making the OP's screeching a little unnecessary. I wouldn't have batted an eyelid of Daicos was on 9 and Cameron on 6. Brownlow night may see Daicos BOG.

But you can absolutely have losing sides carried by a few players while the opposition won through a greater spread of contributions. Collingwood had more overall winners. It doesn't mean their best players HAD to be ranked higher too.

 

[Lingsface]

This is just as much a shambles as the Brownlow medal.

People place a higher value on this than the Brownlow just because umpires give votes to midfielders, yet I regularly see coaches giving votes to their own players after a loss, clearly being sour about the game’s results.

Outside the first quarter, Friday night’s game was pretty much all Collingwood. Margin even blowing out to almost 5 goals before a few junktime goals by the Cats when the game was iced. Effectively a 50 point turnaround from midway through the first quarter to midway through the last.

Someone explain to me how Scott then gives his top 3 players on the ground to Cats players.

View attachment 1773975
View attachment 1773977

Mind you, Cameron’s 7 goals consisted of 2 being spoonfed by the umpires and 1 over the top handball from Henry.

From a neutral perspective, Henry kicked 4 and set up one of Cameron’s, so feel his output was just as crucial, yet he got zero votes.

I bring this up as it is not a one off occurrence and have previously seen coaches give votes to their own players first despite losing, which takes away from the credibility of the AFLCA being more ‘accurate’ than the Brownlow medal as so many like to claim it to be.

Goes to show having more contributors wins games of football we had 5 play great games the rest were pretty terrible, you had 22 players play to a decent level.

 

[PieLebo87]

Someone's angry.

So much fluff about Cameron... McCrae had him as 2nd best on ground.
Both coaches had Dangerfield in the best 5 players.

Have had times in the last season or so where I've thought Longmuir votes for his players generously. I'm sure all coaches do it to some degree.
Two rounds to go and the voting seems to have a reasonably good understanding of who has been the best players in 2023.

99	Nick Daicos	COLL
92	Zak Butters	PORT
90	Christian Petracca	MELB
87	Marcus Bontempelli	WB
80	Connor Rozee	PORT
74	Toby Greene	GWS
73	Zach Merrett	ESS
73	Lachie Neale	BL
71	Noah Anderson	GCFC
71	Jordan Dawson	ADEL

Why does it have to be emotive if someone voices an opinion you don’t like? I’m making an observation, I’m not angry.

So you agree with Scott that the 3 best players on the ground were Geelong players?

You agree that despite Cameron getting 2 fairly soft goals + 1 over the top is so much better than Henry’s 4 goals + 1 gimmy he gave Cameron to warrant he gets zero from the coach vs Cameron’s 5/5?

 

[PieLebo87]

You just know these threads are started by supporters of clubs who can't fathom that the opposition coach has a different opinion to couch-potato experts.

What a s**t-stirring response.

You’re so brave with your opinion.

 

[PieLebo87]

I'm a pies supporter and agree with the votes. Jezza, Daicos and Danger were easily the best 3 players on the ground, expect to see all 3 feature in the brownlow voting on the night as well. Nothing to see here

You’re all good with the Geelong coach claiming his top 3 players on the ground were all Geelong players? Cool.

 

[PieLebo87]

Somewhat revisionist.
Geelong were clearly the better side for the first quarter, and bar two goals completely against the run of play in the last as well.

Collingwood were ‘better’ when they were on top but that’s somewhat different to what you claimed.

Collingwood was clearly better for majority of the game outside the last 20 minutes of the first quarter. A few junk time (umpire assisted) goals late in the game doesn’t make this game anywhere near as even as you’d like to believe.

Pies absolutely had Geelong’s measure for majority of the game outside that 20 minute spurt where you piled on 5 goals.

 

[PieLebo87]

Could say the same about McRae.

How was 17 touches from Noble better than 26, 11 I50, 9 clearances from Dangerfield.

Both Frampton and Murphy spent time on Cameron yet Murphy is in his votes.. If not for the work on Cameron it must be the massive task of stopping 3rd gamer Neale.

Two wrongs make a right?

Why not just acknowledge Scott was clearly taking the piss. He ain’t the first coach to do it, so I’m not singling him out, but at least acknowledge its flawed and Scott has continued the trend.

 

[bzparkes]

What a s**t-stirring response.

You’re so brave with your opinion.

Not like your coach was very brave, giving Cameron 4 votes.

Get over yourself.

 

[PieLebo87]

This is a new low in whining. If you want to get serious Cameron was hands down the best player on the ground and Mcrae's votes should be null and void after making such a humiliating blunder.

Why are so many Geelong supporters so defensive and one eyed?

Such an insecure bunch you lot.

 

[PieLebo87]

Not like your coach was very brave, giving Cameron 4 votes.

Get over yourself.

Clearly reading isn’t a strong suit. One part of my post relates to Cameron.

Too much info for you to comprehend, it’s all good.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Why does it have to be emotive if someone voices an opinion you don’t like? I’m making an observation, I’m not angry.

So you agree with Scott that the 3 best players on the ground were Geelong players?

You agree that despite Cameron getting 2 fairly soft goals + 1 over the top is so much better than Henry’s 4 goals + 1 gimmy he gave Cameron to warrant he gets zero from the coach vs Cameron’s 5/5?

I agree Cameron was BOG. He got 1 unwarranted goal. The mark has been shown on reverse angle (by the AFL) to have been on the line and thus a perfectly legit goal.

As for Atkins 4 votes v Daicos. Splitting hairs. One was your best midfielder, the other was ours.

To that end I was making two points. 1. We could quite as easily point to McRae’s selections which are just as questionable as you think Scott’s are.

Murphy and Noble best 5 on the night. Where’s the vote for Mihocek or Pendlebury?

Your original comment was revisionist, junk time goals? Nonsense.

Was just over 20 points at 3QT and 10 minutes into the last quarter was a single digit margin and we were storming. Crucial mistakes in D50 then gave up 3 easy goals in about 5 minutes for the margin to extend to about 30 before we clawed back late to lose by 8. There weren’t many “junk time” goals at all.

So no I don’t think Scott is taking the piss. No more than McRae is.

Two wrongs make a right?

Why not just acknowledge Scott was clearly taking the piss. He ain’t the first coach to do it, so I’m not singling him out, but at least acknowledge its flawed and Scott has continued the trend.

nothing to acknowledge other than depending on your perspective both sets of votes could be seen as off the mark.

Noble ahead of Dangerfield. Murphy when Geelong’s two KPF’s kicked 11 goals combined.

IMO both coaches have made choices here that are questionable so not sure why your OP singled out one.

 

[PieLebo87]

I agree Cameron was BOG. He got 1 unwarranted goal. The mark has been shown on reverse angle (by the AFL) to have been on the line and thus a perfectly legit goal.

I think Henry would feel stiff to not get a single vote in this case. Effectively contributed towards 5 direct goals. (At least off the top of my head) and Cameron was fed a cheapie by both Henry and Close.

I’m probably doing the same - splitting at hairs, but can’t understand the disparity in voting.

As for Atkins 4 votes v Daicos. Splitting hairs. One was your best midfielder, the other was ours.

Don’t disagree.

To that end I was making two points. 1. We could quite as easily point to McRae’s selections which are just as questionable as you think Scott’s are.

Murphy and Noble best 5 on the night. Where’s the vote for Mihocek or Pendlebury?

My point exactly around the AFLCA voting being just as flawed as the Brownlow, yet people seem to treat it as more impartial/‘respectable’.

Your original comment was revisionist, junk time goals? Nonsense.

Was just over 20 points at 3QT and 10 minutes into the last quarter was a single digit margin and we were storming. Crucial mistakes in D50 then gave up 3 easy goals in about 5 minutes for the margin to extend to about 30 before we clawed back late to lose by 8. There weren’t many “junk time” goals at all.

Pies played far greater than the Cats for majority of the night. Geelong’s best spurts were far more clinical than the Pies best - 20 min late in the first. Your last 3 goals are junktime for mine. Pies had put the game to bed at that stage. It was 20 min into the last quarter and margin had gotten to 5 goals.

So no I don’t think Scott is taking the piss. No more than McRae is.

nothing to acknowledge other than depending on your perspective both sets of votes could be seen as off the mark.

Noble ahead of Dangerfield. Murphy when Geelong’s two KPF’s kicked 11 goals combined.

IMO both coaches have made choices here that are questionable so not sure why your OP singled out one.

Practically my point in this thread that the AFLCA isn’t as impartial as people like to believe.

I’ve actually noticed it all year when looking at votes (taken a greater interest in it to see how Daicos goes) and have raised my eyebrow more than once.

It’s not just Fly or Scott - it’s a lot of coaches that just don’t seem to take it as seriously as people think.

This thread/Friday night’s game was the straw that broke the camels back.

 

[Mr Meow]

I think Henry would feel stiff to not get a single vote in this case. Effectively contributed towards 5 direct goals. (At least off the top of my head) and Cameron was fed a cheapie by both Henry and Close.

I’m probably doing the same - splitting at hairs, but can’t understand the disparity in voting.



Don’t disagree.



My point exactly around the AFLCA voting being just as flawed as the Brownlow, yet people seem to treat it as more impartial/‘respectable’.



Pies played far greater than the Cats for majority of the night. Geelong’s best spurts were far more clinical than the Pies best - 20 min late in the first. Your last 3 goals are junktime for mine. Pies had put the game to bed at that stage. It was 20 min into the last quarter and margin had gotten to 5 goals.



Practically my point in this thread that the AFLCA isn’t as impartial as people like to believe.

I’ve actually noticed it all year when looking at votes (taken a greater interest in it to see how Daicos goes) and have raised my eyebrow more than once.

It’s not just Fly or Scott - it’s a lot of coaches that just don’t seem to take it as seriously as people think.

This thread/Friday night’s game was the straw that broke the camels back.

No award is perfect. It's fine if you think the Brownlow is a more likely indicator of the best player, or indeed if no awards can be trusted at all (Richmond supporter mentality except for Ayres/NS). Generally a confluence among different judges is a pretty good marker.

In one off games of course there are curious results but at least with coaches you get two opinions and 5 players each. I'd say, despite a similar midfielder bias to the Brownlow, that the top 20 for CA standings at the end of each season is generally pretty accurate.

It'd be a shame to discredit it though - good Collingwood players have rightly gotten recognition from polling well in it over the years.

 

[PieLebo87]

No award is perfect. It's fine if you think the Brownlow is a more likely indicator of the best player, or indeed if no awards can be trusted at all (Richmond supporter mentality except for Ayres/NS). Generally a confluence among different judges is a pretty good marker.

I’m with you. By no means am I suggesting the Brownlow is a more accurate indicator.

If anything, what riles me up is that it’s people who seem to believe the AFLCA MVP is.

In one off games of course there are curious results but at least with coaches you get two opinions and 5 players each. I'd say, despite a similar midfielder bias to the Brownlow, that the top 20 for CA standings at the end of each season is generally pretty accurate.

Scott and Fly aren’t the first coaches. As mentioned to the previous poster, I’ve noticed some silly voting get done by coaches all season, and created the thread after this game.

It'd be a shame to discredit it though - good Collingwood players have rightly gotten recognition from polling well in it over the years.

Proves I have no bias, as Buckley has won this award, but paying closer attention to the voting this year, I’ve raised my eyebrow at it a few times, which makes me question the credibility of it.