Umpires have a closer view and a more impartial point then we ever will.
Every Brownlow winner has been deserving as it is based on that individual game and not a winner of the round. Its a great system, and is hence why Goodes has won 2. When a Port player wins one, come talk to me.
It would be even worse if the brownlow was judged by the public, just look at the shockers that have won goal of the year for example. Great goals, but best?
Opposition coaches or opposition players are a better judge than umpires, hence why in my opinion these awards are more meaningful - they just don't have the history, glitz and glamour that the brownlow has. Umpires impartial? Is that why a key forward never wins one in contemporary football? Everyone knows that umpires are partial against those that backchat. I don't see the point of comparing umpires to the football public. That's like saying kyle sandilands is a better judge of musical talent than a chimp - big deal.
How many AA years has goodes had? How about the guys that have had 6+? Oh wait, goodes has more brownlows than them so he must automatically be better. What about all the superstars and legends that never won a brownlow? Look at the whole picture, not solely an award judged by umpires.
Yes, whoever wins the brownlow deserves it, but how can you outrightly say that the winner is most definitely the best player of that year? In my opinion, the brownlow can be narrowed down to about 5 players each year, and the one that wins deserves it and had the luck of the umpires go his way.
Would anyone argue if Ablett won the brownlow in 07/08/09, given he was the favourite before each count? Ablett would be a deserving triple brownlow medallist, but the umpires didn't see it that way in 07 and 08. Big deal, he was still the best midfielder (or amongst the top handful of best midfielders deserving the award) in each of those years. Just because the umpires didn't see it that way shouldn't change opinion.