brownlow..

[hawk_88]

Why should our highest individual award be an "umpires award"

In theory they are the least biased set of individuals that could possibly judge it. It is subjective, there is no two ways about it. The umpires have a certain perspective and are most often looking for free kicks that effective disposal. They will however notice someone who is under their nose often earing their own ball (hence Watson polling so high, I feel he deserved it but most didn't). They also don't have the hindsight of replays, expert (or not so expert) comentary and reviews, stats etc.

However you have to consider the nature of the voting as well. 3, 2, 1 for each game. It is your impact on individual games relative to the other combatants in that game. It isn't most consistent or anything of that nature. If you were the 4th best player every match you played you would proabably be considered the "best" however you wouldn't even poll a vote. If you play in a team with very even high quality performances, you aren't going to get the votes you would have gotten at a team where you are the best by quite a margin.

If you have a better system I would love to hear it but I can almost guarantee you wont.

[valkorum]

I am not questioning Judd's ability - I have said previously he is a great player and will be remembered that way.  I am saying that the way they hand out the votes is in question. 

Judd got 3 votes when they got thumped by 50 points. 

If you have a better system I would love to hear it but I can almost guarantee you wont.

They should make it that the 3 votes must go to a player on the winning team.   

I was suprised Barlow didn't get more votes. Surely he had a massive effect on more games than that? ???.

That is because they didnt know who he was - a nobody.  I guarentee if Judd or Ablett got 33 touches and 2 goals then they would have got the 3 votes.

[Justin Bieber]

You are right. Becoming a name game. Goodes always polls well. Ablett polls well (for a reason though :P).

I was suprised Boyd polled as well as he did. Usually never polls so good. Maybe because of his stand out last year ::).

[hawk_88]

If you have a better system I would love to hear it but I can almost guarantee you wont.

They should make it that the 3 votes must go to a player on the winning team.   

Why? What if they weren't the best player on the ground? Lets say that in the match that Le Cras scored 12 goals the bombers actually won. Is he then not deserving of 3 points?

The Brownlow is an individual award awarded for individual performances.

This still doesn't solve your issue with the umpires voting. What do you propose?

[ossie85]

People should be able to get maximum votes on a losing team. Like Hawka said!

I wouldn't mind if the coach nominated 3 players they thought were best on ground for their team, and the umpires choose the best 3 from the 6 in total nominated

[hawk_88]

The problem with that is how long do you give the coaches and from that how long do the umps have to wait? What could cloud their judgement in that time?

Coaches often take a while submit their votes for the coaches award. The opinion of coaches is also often clouded by how a player played their role for the team, not their performance in isolation which is what the Brownlow rewards.

I agree with what you said earlier. We have 4 awards awarded by 4 different groups. Of those groups, the umpires are the officers of the AFL (and therefore neutral) so the umpires award is the official AFL award.


Just going back to Swan specifically, from memory he polled in as many matches if not one more than Judd. Judd was just the consistently the best player at the Blues. Swan wasn't ignored, he was in a crowd of good performances whereas Judd stood alone.

[bunyip]

What if they change the scoring system from 3 2 1 for any player to 1 point for a backman 1 for a center including followers and 1 for a forward.

[hawk_88]

What if they change the scoring system from 3 2 1 for any player to 1 point for a backman 1 for a center including followers and 1 for a forward.

Define a backman, forward center player. What if you are a utility and play both forward and back in the same game i.e. Brown and Murphy . Sections are too hard to define.

I love the concept though as it rewards the forwards and defenders more, but there is too much grey and not enough black and white for it to work.

[bunyip]

They would have to be designated as per their position in the selected team in the paper

[bunyip]

There are 3 umpires so each one could DO a position

[Hawka]

HP i reckon barlow didnt get more cos the umpires didn notice him in the early rnds was shocked wen he didnt get a vote in rnd 1 good arcticle by mike sheahan http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/umpires-stick-to-pets/story-e6frf9ox-1225927539177
Just sayin the usuals get the votes and players like lake and j.riewoldt stuggle

[Justin Bieber]

He said these guys stand out:Chris Judd, Joel Selwood, Adam Goodes, Matthew Boyd, Jimmy Bartel, Lenny Hayes, Scott Pendlebury, Jobe Watson, Scott Thompson and Matt Priddis.

I don't agree with those two. Cooney usually gets the spotlight when playing. Priddis has never been a well known player outside of WA (no offence to him since I like watching him play).

Umpires of course usually go by names. Good to get that out there at least ::). If anybody saw those games, clearly Barlow deserved more than that ???. If you were on the field, it would just be clearer ::). He was everywhere :P.

[Hawka]

priddis polls well for the postion of his team on the ladder... but all  middies except for sometimes goodes

[hawk_88]

There are 3 umpires so each one could DO a position

Umpires rotate over the ground throughout the match, wouldn't be able to see a set of players for the entire match to make that judgement.

[Kazahkstan]

Anyone catch Twigley's comment when being interviewed?

"[...] and Coxy putting it down your throat every week[...]"

XD