Should Brownlow be determined by umpires?

[_jrtp09_]

NO. They’re incompetent, perceived as corrupt and certainly professionally inconsistent.


Get umpires to focus on doing their job properly - umpiring.

And form a panel of ex-AFL players and coaches to decide the Brownlow, people who can identify a Brownlow medalist from the entire list.

If the umpires association resort to sooking over this decision, give them an alternative award and call it The Midfielders Award.

 

[Juddernaut08]

NO. They’re incompetent, perceived as corrupt and certainly professionally inconsistent.


Get umpires to focus on doing their job properly - umpiring.

And form a panel of ex-AFL players and coaches to decide the Brownlow, people who can identify a Brownlow medalist from the entire list.

If the umpires association resort to sooking over this decision, give them an alternative award and call it The Midfielders Award.

The teacher's pet award.

 

[clivenator26]

Yes because that is what the Brownlow is, what people need to do is stop putting so much stock into the result. It's an award voted by umpires not the coaches, not the media, not peers. If think the AFLPA and media awards can be more group think awards. It has history on the side but people who think like a 6 year old and say player x is better because of Brownlow votes are very simple individuals, or questioning why defenders don't pol - only 3 guys can get votes each game and 3 guys might have had the same impact but one guy gets 3 and one guy gets 1.

 

[QuietB]

This is what confuses people though and what people don't like about it. You can argue that it's what makes the Brownlow unique.. but it's just stupid. How can a guy be awarded as the "best" player in the league, in a team of nobodies, in a bunch of meaningless games. Of course he can play to his best, because being down by 30 points.. the other team takes the foot off the gas and let's them run free, no pressure... rack up 30 disposals, kick a couple of goals, no tag, just running free. It is the Best and Fairest. Someone in a garbage ass team that can't win cannot be the best player imo as they are playing under no pressure most of the time.

So Bob Skilton should never have won one let alone three.

Team sports are littered with superstars who never win championships. Bo Jackson, Mike Trout, Gary Ablett Snr - it is not their fault their teams never won. But they are all greats

 

[_jrtp09_]

The teacher's pet award.

Brilliant.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The thing with "game by game" awards is that it caps the weighting a contribution can have from one game.

Fyfe got 24 disposals for 3 votes.

Jeremy Cameron had a game of 30 disposals, 7 goals. That should be worth more than Fyfe's but it's not.

Same as Cripps who had 38 disposals, 4 goals (or the other game where he almost broke the Clearances record).

Same as Ben Brown kicking 10 goals.

The Leigh Mathews MVP allows the extremely good games to be given more weighting in the mind of each judge. It's more inexact but looking at the history of the winners, it consistently reads as the best players...and throws up less WTF outcomes like Priddis and Woewoedin.

Agreed. If we're talking best overall through the year, there's no reason every game must have the same weighting.

Still, the Leigh Matthews MVP has its flaws too. The players have less "expertise" to make the decision because they only get to see the player against them, and base the decision about a limited sample size. It also seems to be a lot about who is the most popular bloke.

Cripps is obviously very well liked amongst the players and that probably played into it with winning by so much. Someone like Toby Greene would be hard to see ever winning it for example.

Is that such a bad thing? I don't want grubs like Greene winning the premier award anyway unless it's absolutely inarguable that he was best. If you're hated by your peers for the person you are (as opposed to envy) I don't see how it cheapens the award.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

It's an umpires' award. Who else is going to give the votes? The problem we have with the Brownlow is the prestige it has gathered over the years, which is ridiculous to have such a high honour in what is a team sport. I am also opposed to Norm Smith Medals in Grand Final day, how ridiculous is that?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Yes because that is what the Brownlow is, what people need to do is stop putting so much stock into the result. It's an award voted by umpires not the coaches, not the media, not peers. If think the AFLPA and media awards can be more group think awards. It has history on the side but people who think like a 6 year old and say player x is better because of Brownlow votes are very simple individuals, or questioning why defenders don't pol - only 3 guys can get votes each game and 3 guys might have had the same impact but one guy gets 3 and one guy gets 1.

Got in one. It's just a joke the way people carry on about what is an umpires' award, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

umpires cant even officiate the game correctly, how we think they are able to pick the 3 best players on the ground if beyond me.

 

[Coaster2012]

That's the brownlow. If you want someone else to give the points, call it something else.

 

[Coaster2012]

I honestly don't understand why the Brownlow remains the premier award and event, besides the history. The Leigh Matthews Trophy recognises the better player in a lot of years, and I think players are a better judge than umpires. And Brownlow was some suit from a century ago anyway, he was the 19th century Gil rather than a true champion of the game at all levels like Matthews was. The premier award should be named after Matthews instead.

It is because people think it is. You can't just manufacture prestige. Sure, there are probably other awards that are more suited for the best player, but until people think otherwise, Brownlow remains the top.

 

[Andrew Mc]

People seem to forget it's "Fairest and Best". It's not always going to be the "best" player in any given year. Leave it as it is.

 

[FRUMPY]

Should the umpires award be awarded by someone other than the umpires? am I hearing the question correct?

 

[Macpotata]

Agree with those re Judd and Swan.

Fyfe in 2015 got votes where he shouldn't have too. Priddis should have went b2b, but they gave it to Fyfe because of that suspension in 2014.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Should the umpires award be awarded by someone other than the umpires? am I hearing the question correct?

Every umpire should get a ribbon.

 

[Macpotata]

People seem to forget it's "Fairest and Best". It's not always going to be the "best" player in any given year. Leave it as it is.

Indeed. You get 3 votes if you help your opponent get back up off the deck after you knock him down.




Very commendable.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

It is because people think it is. You can't just manufacture prestige. Sure, there are probably other awards that are more suited for the best player, but until people think otherwise, Brownlow remains the top.

People are dumb.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Being determined by umpires is kind of what gives it meaning.

 

[GroggSquad]

It's a BS award. I used to think it had integrity... until 2010/2011.

2010 - Judd wins in a shock result at $21 with a high count too of 30 votes.. so no fluke. Swan was a heavy favorite this year at $2.24.

2011 - Judd is favorite at $2.10, and Swan is $7.34.

The opposite happens both years.. how?

Judd gets the award in 2010. I remember people laughing and saying The Brownlow is a joke with Judd winning it over Swan and Ablett - the joke was still going the following year. Then the next year Swan wins it with the most ever votes of 34, and his 2011 season was not as good as his 2010. My theory on this is that all the criticism of the award from the Judd win, got inside the umpires heads all year.. and everytime they saw Swan, a little thing in the back of their heads told them to give him the votes, out of fear of further criticism. So Swan should have won in 2010, Judd should have won in 2011.. but we get the reverse due to a balls up and then an over correction the following year.

It wouldn't suprise me if this same thing happens next year. Fyfe is a good player, but the criticism will be there that there were at least 5 players in the league better than him all year. If that gets in the umpires head, they'll focus on one guy (whoever is the best player) and that guy will win in a landslide like Swan. It could be Fyfe, but I doubt it.. all depends on the crap that is spat out in social media over the next few months about the win.

Judd didn't deserve it either year.

Swan should have won in 2010 and Pendles should have won in 2011. The Swan over correction as you mentioned hurt Pendles.

 

[Mcarcherey]

there are already many awards given in this fashion. if it were panel driven it would be an obvious winner every year and few would care like all the other media awards

the underlying assumption here is that more than few care about the brownlow....they don't, only the media does because it rakes in more money than the other awards.

 

[Mcarcherey]

Being determined by umpires is kind of what gives it meaning.

and thus makes it meaningless.

 

[OhhDeledio]

it shouldnt be held in as high regard that it is. its the worst award of the big 3 ones.

 

[BarbieITFC]

Close games - yes

30 point blow outs - no

As I previously stated, the reason being is that they can play to their potential as the team in front doesn't care about them. So allowing BOG in big losses to the losing team.. creates a conundrum. The game is dusted early, so what makes them BOG? what did they do to help their team? they prevented a 100 point loss? but lost by only 30?

It would be equivalent to you playing a 1 on 1 basketball match with Michael Jordan. and first to 20 wins. When he is up by 19-0, do you think he is going to go hard on you? If you score some easy baskets when he is just clowning around at the end, does that make you BOG?

It's an award for individuals, not teams. My Son's Yr 9 hockey team lost their grand final last weekend 5-1. They were smashed. Despite this, the best player on the pitch (as determined by the two coaches) was the holding midfield player on my son's team. He was head and shoulders above the other 21 players. Unfortunately, the other ten players in the team - including my son - were garbage.

Very few Richmond fans disputed Fyfe's 3 Brownlow votes last year when they smashed us by 60+ - even Hardwick said it had been a privilege to watch Fyfe play - and he gave him the 5 coaches votes.

There was some grumbling at the time of the count, but I don't think many fans look back on GAJ's win in 2013 as undeserved - even though GC only won 8 games.

Fyfe - a deadset great of the game; Fremantle 2016-19 - instantly forgettable.

 

[Juddernaut08]

Agreed. If we're talking best overall through the year, there's no reason every game must have the same weighting.


Is that such a bad thing? I don't want grubs like Greene winning the premier award anyway unless it's absolutely inarguable that he was best. If you're hated by your peers for the person you are (as opposed to envy) I don't see how it cheapens the award.

I guess Greene isn't the best example as he's probably not at the very top level.

Bus say Ablett was super hated though for leaving Geelong and was getting snubbed because of it? It'd cheapen the award IMO.

 

[The Swert]

It's a BS award. I used to think it had integrity... until 2010/2011.

2010 - Judd wins in a shock result at $21 with a high count too of 30 votes.. so no fluke. Swan was a heavy favorite this year at $2.24.

2011 - Judd is favorite at $2.10, and Swan is $7.34.

The opposite happens both years.. how?

Judd gets the award in 2010. I remember people laughing and saying The Brownlow is a joke with Judd winning it over Swan and Ablett - the joke was still going the following year. Then the next year Swan wins it with the most ever votes of 34, and his 2011 season was not as good as his 2010. My theory on this is that all the criticism of the award from the Judd win, got inside the umpires heads all year.. and everytime they saw Swan, a little thing in the back of their heads told them to give him the votes, out of fear of further criticism. So Swan should have won in 2010, Judd should have won in 2011.. but we get the reverse due to a balls up and then an over correction the following year.

It wouldn't suprise me if this same thing happens next year. Fyfe is a good player, but the criticism will be there that there were at least 5 players in the league better than him all year. If that gets in the umpires head, they'll focus on one guy (whoever is the best player) and that guy will win in a landslide like Swan. It could be Fyfe, but I doubt it.. all depends on the crap that is spat out in social media over the next few months about the win.

That's not something that just started recently.

You don't think Diesel won in 1994 because they were guilty that he didn't win in 1993?

Always has been flaws, always will be. That doesn't change its tradition or value.