World 15 Discussion

[PowerBug]

Easiest way to do a brownlow would be give the top 3 scorers from each match a 3, 2, or 1 votes. And by match I don't mean crows vs port I mean pumas vs armadillos ;)

So Swan:3, Boyd:2, Boak:1 for example? :P

[Ziplock]

Easiest way to do a brownlow would be give the top 3 scorers from each match a 3, 2, or 1 votes. And by match I don't mean crows vs port I mean pumas vs armadillos ;)

duh, way more sense than by team *facepalm*

[meow meow]

Maybe award 3 votes to the player who beat the others in their respective positions by the most.

Deledio scores 130 vs his opponents best backmans score of 100
Ablett scores 150 vs his opponents best midfielders score of 130

Ablett scores more, but Deledio effected the result more due to having a higher difference. 3 votes to Deledio.

It might just become a ruckmans award though.

[PowerBug]

better but too complicated to judge. What if Richmond lost and ABlett kicked the winner for the Suns?

[meow meow]

better but too complicated to judge. What if Richmond lost and ABlett kicked the winner for the Suns?

Jordan McMahon kicked a goal to win the game, and I am sure that he wasn't the best player on the ground, and didn't get 3 votes in that game either. Buckley won a Norm Smith medal in a losing team.

I meant Ablett's score vs his WXV opponents best score.

[c4v3m4n]

I'm thinking 3-2-1 based on highest scorers or most influential players (to be determined by a combination of high scores, most possessions, and goals).

[meow meow]

Here's what I mean. The GF will be the example.

Backs: Waters 93 vs Taylor 69. 24 point difference
Mids: Cross: 117 vs Swallow 102. 15 point difference
Forwards: Zaha 102 vs Sidebottom 95. 7 point difference
Rucks + Int: Kruezer 95 vs Jacobs 67. 28 point difference

3 votes to Kruezer, 2 to Waters, 1 to Cross.

[PowerBug]

Still prefer what CF said meow. Sorry. :(

[meow meow]

Still prefer what CF said meow. Sorry. :(

Haha no need to apologise for having an opinion. If you're happy for it to be a boring midfielders award then that's cool.

[c4v3m4n]

Still prefer what CF said meow. Sorry. :(

Haha no need to apologise for having an opinion. If you're happy for it to be a boring midfielders award then that's cool.

I do agree with that though...

[Purple 77]

I really liked ossies' brownlow idea, where it favours the highest players score in the most important position, if anyone remembers it.

Maybe ossie should go through it again?

[ossie85]

I really liked ossies' brownlow idea, where it favours the highest players score in the most important position, if anyone remembers it.

Maybe ossie should go through it again?

*thinks*

Yeah, it was somewhere....

Basically, it was to do with positions... the best scorer in each position got a vote... will fish it out later, but right now I have a DT Pro draft to do!

[My Chumps]

Here's what I mean. The GF will be the example.

Backs: Waters 93 vs Taylor 69. 24 point difference
Mids: Cross: 117 vs Swallow 102. 15 point difference
Forwards: Zaha 102 vs Sidebottom 95. 7 point difference
Rucks + Int: Kruezer 95 vs Jacobs 67. 28 point difference

3 votes to Kruezer, 2 to Waters, 1 to Cross.

Problem with that is, if two players have absolute blinders on opposing sides, say Ablett scores 180 vs Swans 175, niether would get any votes despite contributing the most points for their respective teams.

[c4v3m4n]

Here's what I mean. The GF will be the example.

Backs: Waters 93 vs Taylor 69. 24 point difference
Mids: Cross: 117 vs Swallow 102. 15 point difference
Forwards: Zaha 102 vs Sidebottom 95. 7 point difference
Rucks + Int: Kruezer 95 vs Jacobs 67. 28 point difference

3 votes to Kruezer, 2 to Waters, 1 to Cross.

Problem with that is, if two players have absolute blinders on opposing sides, say Ablett scores 180 vs Swans 175, niether would get any votes despite contributing the most points for their respective teams.

That's a very valid point MC...

[meow meow]

Is that a problem? Neither of them influenced the end result much. Sure, they played well, but they had little bearing on who actually won the match. They didn't beat their opponent, so how can they be the best player on the ground? My theory is more of a best and fairest type award.