I think the current system in which the Brownlow Medal is decided is unfair.
It makes it easier for a player like Buckley to win a Brownlow Medal because he has very little competition from the Magpies.
Carey and Bell on the other hand have each other and a number of other quality players such as Clayton, Colbert, McKernan, Martyn, Blakey to compete with for votes.
Kouta has Camporeale, Bradley, Ratten, Allan, Whitnall, Silvagni to compete with.
Hird and Mercuri have Misiti, Lloyd, Fletcher, Long, Caracella, Blumfield and Lucas to compete with.
I think the best way to do the Brownlow Medal is to not have any limit on how many players can score Brownlow Votes in a match. If a player plays a good match they should be rewarded with a Brownlow Vote. A maximum for each of 5 votes is possible for 1 match.
I'll show you an example;
In a game between the Kangaroos and Essendon these are the Brownlow Votes:
5 - Hird
4 - Carey, Lucas
3 - Bell
2 - McKernan, Martyn, Colbert, Barnes, Misiti
1 - Ramauskas, Caracella, Clayton.
And in another match no one plays a really great game and no-one ends up with 5 points;
West Coast v Sydney;
3 - Jakovich
2 - Morrison, Stafford
1 - Kelly, Rintoul, Cousins.
You can see there that Hird has played much better than Jakovich, however under the current Brownlow System they will both end up with 3 votes.
Carey and Lucas have played better matches than Jakovich but Jakovich ends with more Bronwlow Votes under the current system. Now nobody can say that is fair.
The problem with this is umpires that are leaniant and give a lot of votes for 1 match, whereas other don't give many votes. The simple solution to this is to have a panel of officials vote on every match. If this system was in place from the beggining, Carey would almost certainly have Brownlow Medal in his cabinet, while Shane Crawford would be very lucky to still have his from last year.
If that system is the one that they used then players dont have the excuse that they had to many other good players to compete with for votes because the umpires/officials can award as many votes as they wish.
If they thought that the game was that high standard then every player could recieve a Brownlow Vote. Although i doubt that would happen.
This year i think this is these have been the best 10 players;
1 - Kouta
2 - Bell
3 - Camporeale
4 - Buckley
5 - Hird
6 - Carey
7 - Fletcher
8 - Ricciuto
9 - King
10 - Lloyd
However Buckley will almost undoubtley win the Brownlow Medal because there is no other competition from Magpie players (The magpies would be lucky to have another player in the best 50).
It makes it easier for a player like Buckley to win a Brownlow Medal because he has very little competition from the Magpies.
Carey and Bell on the other hand have each other and a number of other quality players such as Clayton, Colbert, McKernan, Martyn, Blakey to compete with for votes.
Kouta has Camporeale, Bradley, Ratten, Allan, Whitnall, Silvagni to compete with.
Hird and Mercuri have Misiti, Lloyd, Fletcher, Long, Caracella, Blumfield and Lucas to compete with.
I think the best way to do the Brownlow Medal is to not have any limit on how many players can score Brownlow Votes in a match. If a player plays a good match they should be rewarded with a Brownlow Vote. A maximum for each of 5 votes is possible for 1 match.
I'll show you an example;
In a game between the Kangaroos and Essendon these are the Brownlow Votes:
5 - Hird
4 - Carey, Lucas
3 - Bell
2 - McKernan, Martyn, Colbert, Barnes, Misiti
1 - Ramauskas, Caracella, Clayton.
And in another match no one plays a really great game and no-one ends up with 5 points;
West Coast v Sydney;
3 - Jakovich
2 - Morrison, Stafford
1 - Kelly, Rintoul, Cousins.
You can see there that Hird has played much better than Jakovich, however under the current Brownlow System they will both end up with 3 votes.
Carey and Lucas have played better matches than Jakovich but Jakovich ends with more Bronwlow Votes under the current system. Now nobody can say that is fair.
The problem with this is umpires that are leaniant and give a lot of votes for 1 match, whereas other don't give many votes. The simple solution to this is to have a panel of officials vote on every match. If this system was in place from the beggining, Carey would almost certainly have Brownlow Medal in his cabinet, while Shane Crawford would be very lucky to still have his from last year.
If that system is the one that they used then players dont have the excuse that they had to many other good players to compete with for votes because the umpires/officials can award as many votes as they wish.
If they thought that the game was that high standard then every player could recieve a Brownlow Vote. Although i doubt that would happen.
This year i think this is these have been the best 10 players;
1 - Kouta
2 - Bell
3 - Camporeale
4 - Buckley
5 - Hird
6 - Carey
7 - Fletcher
8 - Ricciuto
9 - King
10 - Lloyd
However Buckley will almost undoubtley win the Brownlow Medal because there is no other competition from Magpie players (The magpies would be lucky to have another player in the best 50).
