Swan ripped off!

[Hawks_1976]

I still can't believe how badly Swan polled!

Swan was never going to beat Gazza's 30 votes but he should have had a top five finish. He was very influencial when the Pies won 12/13 during the latter part of the season and was very consistent throughout. 12 votes was a joke.

R15 v WB, 34 possessions and 2 goals...no votes.

R20 v RICH, again 34 possessions and 2 goals, no votes. On this day, Collingwood win by 93 points and Heath Shaw gets 3 votes for 21 possession and a goal. Explain that?

IMO, these were both 3 vote games, taking his tally to 18. A bit more reflective of his season.

And Pendlebury tops the Pies votes by 1! Cost me massively!!

[chris]

The Brownlow is purely the umpires view of the game. So in those games the umpire's collectively did not think Swan's impact on the game deserved a vote. Certainly not a hard luck story though if you sifted through every game, especially if you are just looking at posessions and goals you could find a fair few who lucked out with the umps, just a couple:

Gazza -

Rd 3, 37 posessions and 1 goal which got him 1 vote
Rd 16, 40 posessions and 2 goals for 1 vote

Jolly -

Rd 2, 19 posessions, 3 goals and 42 hitouts for 1 vote
Rd 3, 11 posessions, 2 goals and 46 hitouts no votes

Sammy Mitchell -

Rd 13, 40 posessions, 1 goal no vote

Fevola -

Rd 6, 17 posessions, 8 goals 4 behinds no votes

I think it's more than just posession's and goals, posessions can easily be racked up in junk time and using the old one, two and especially with the amount of handballs these days, impact on a game is more important, effective disposal etc and again brownlow voting is the umpire's opinion

[BradStar]

chris is right, its not only about stats, its about impact, i could 10 disposals in the back 50, in 2 min  just from chipping around, or i can setup 3 goals in a row from 3 kicks? what do you think?

NOTE: that is just an example, those will not earn you votes by itself.