I’ve got no problem with weighting the Grand Final but the voting system is a bit strange in that if a team wins the flag or plays in the GF from losing a Qualifying Final/winning from Elimination Final they have a massive leg up on a team that only plays 3 games to get there. For example, Jeremy Cameron could be best on ground in all 3 games Geelong played (35 votes) but if Collingwood had won through to the GF, he potentially could still have been pipped by De Goey if he polled 8 votes, 10 votes, 10 votes and at least 5 votes (weighted 1.5x) for the GF. Perhaps it should be divided by games played if there is a player who plays 4 games?
MVP Coaches votes - Finals
- Thread starter thebaldfacts
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Forethought
Team Captain
- Aug 10, 2015
- 359
- 525
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Hi Jen you missed Parker who is sitting on 13 ATM
- Aug 24, 2009
- 743
- 1,674
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Thread starter
- #28
Without seeing the coaches votes, looks like Danger is home. Will probably get 8 or 9 votes which will take him past Crisp.
Weighting the votes 1.5 is a dumb system that didn't need to be brought in.
Individual players shouldn't benefit from it because their team made a grand final. They already get the extra benefit of getting to play in a grand final. The whole point of it is that it's even and you don't need to make a GF to win it. They don't give extra Brownlow votes if you made the top 8.
The idea of getting 7.5 votes instead of 5 is silly, and makes no logical sense by every definition of "vote".
However, without the loading, Danger will be a worthy winner even if he would've polled less than Crisp without it. Tremendous finals series.
I think the votes will look something like this, based on if I was to rank players and award the 30 votes to who I felt deserved them.
10 Smith (15)
8 Dangerfield (12)
5 Hawkins (7.5)
3 Stengle (4.5)
2 Selwood (3)
1 Warner (1.5)
1 De Koning (1.5)
This would result in an example 5-4-3-2-1 combination of:
5 Smith
4 Dangerfield
3 Hawkins
2 Selwood
1 Warner
5 Smith
4 Dangerfield
3 Stengle
2 Hawkins
1 De Koning
Individual players shouldn't benefit from it because their team made a grand final. They already get the extra benefit of getting to play in a grand final. The whole point of it is that it's even and you don't need to make a GF to win it. They don't give extra Brownlow votes if you made the top 8.
The idea of getting 7.5 votes instead of 5 is silly, and makes no logical sense by every definition of "vote".
However, without the loading, Danger will be a worthy winner even if he would've polled less than Crisp without it. Tremendous finals series.
I think the votes will look something like this, based on if I was to rank players and award the 30 votes to who I felt deserved them.
10 Smith (15)
8 Dangerfield (12)
5 Hawkins (7.5)
3 Stengle (4.5)
2 Selwood (3)
1 Warner (1.5)
1 De Koning (1.5)
This would result in an example 5-4-3-2-1 combination of:
5 Smith
4 Dangerfield
3 Hawkins
2 Selwood
1 Warner
5 Smith
4 Dangerfield
3 Stengle
2 Hawkins
1 De Koning
Yep only needs 4 votes with the new 1.5 loading to tie. Reckon he's a lock for 6 real votes minimum, probably 8, which would actually give him between 9 and 12 after multiplying 1.5x, resulting in a runaway winner.
- Aug 24, 2009
- 743
- 1,674
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Thread starter
- #31
Agree that the 1.5 weighing is absurd. In many respects the GF can be a much lesser game than the games that preceded it. Getting a 1.5 loading for a training run like Saturday is hard to understand. As long as it doesn't change the result, then that doesn't compound the poor decision.
Maybe the info from Zerohanger is wrong.
Unfortunately its not wrong because it also says it on the AFL Coaches Association site too.
Tarkyn_24
Okeydoke7 is [redacted]
- Dec 23, 2006
- 52,010
- 73,067
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I’ll be in the unpopular minority here but I absolutely agree with the decision to add a multiplier to votes for the most important game of the year. Especially given a winning qualifying finals deprives players the opportunity to play the additional game, likely the easiest (by virtue of playing a 5-8 side) in the following week.
The Brownlow discussion alluded to in this thread is incongruent because for the Brownlow every side plays the same number of matches.
Ultimately, Danger who will likely win will be a very deserving winner from the only side that went through the finals series undefeated. No way known that that isn’t the just result
The Brownlow discussion alluded to in this thread is incongruent because for the Brownlow every side plays the same number of matches.
Ultimately, Danger who will likely win will be a very deserving winner from the only side that went through the finals series undefeated. No way known that that isn’t the just result
- Aug 24, 2009
- 743
- 1,674
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Thread starter
- #34
As expected Danger wins the coaches award.
Well done to Crisp who finished second and Jordy who finished equal third.
Grand Final Coaches votes
15 - Isaac Smith (GEEL)
12 - Patrick Dangerfield (GEEL)
9 - Tom Hawkins (GEEL)
6 - Tyson Stengle (GEEL)
1.5 - Mark Blicavs (GEEL)
1.5 - Sam De Koning (GEEL)
*Grand Final votes receive a loading of 1.5 times the usual count.
Final 2022 Gary Ayres Award leaderboardVOTESPLAYERCLUB22Patrick DangerfieldGEEL16Jack CrispCOLL15Jordan De GoeyCOLL15Lachie NealeBL15Isaac SmithGEEL14Tom HawkinsGEEL13Luke ParkerSYD12Caleb SerongFRE11Callum MillsSYD11Darcy MooreCOLL11Scott PendleburyCOLL10Steven May
Well done to Crisp who finished second and Jordy who finished equal third.
Grand Final Coaches votes
15 - Isaac Smith (GEEL)
12 - Patrick Dangerfield (GEEL)
9 - Tom Hawkins (GEEL)
6 - Tyson Stengle (GEEL)
1.5 - Mark Blicavs (GEEL)
1.5 - Sam De Koning (GEEL)
*Grand Final votes receive a loading of 1.5 times the usual count.
Final 2022 Gary Ayres Award leaderboardVOTESPLAYERCLUB22Patrick DangerfieldGEEL16Jack CrispCOLL15Jordan De GoeyCOLL15Lachie NealeBL15Isaac SmithGEEL14Tom HawkinsGEEL13Luke ParkerSYD12Caleb SerongFRE11Callum MillsSYD11Darcy MooreCOLL11Scott PendleburyCOLL10Steven May
- Aug 24, 2009
- 743
- 1,674
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Thread starter
- #35
Looks like coaches agreed to a large extent:
5 Smith
4 Danger
3 Hawkins
2 Stengle
1 Blicavs/ DeKoning
5 Smith
4 Danger
3 Hawkins
2 Stengle
1 Blicavs/ DeKoning
