StK finished 7th in Brownlow - (special congrats to Port!)

[Enrico_Misso]

Club votes

1 Coll 111
2 Haw 104
3 WCE 93
4 Carl 92
5 Geel 91
6 Syd 79
7 StK 74
8 North 66
9 Ess 60
10 WBD 58
11 Melb 57
12 Freo 49
12 Rich 49
14 Adel 39
15 Brisb 38
15 Gold 38
17 Port 24

[patientladysaint]

Not bad, not bad at all !

[Scollop]

The umps basically got it right team wise...I suppose there's a first for everything.

Probably also the closest I've seen to a true vote of best players for the year for the top 5 to 10 individuals.

Come to think of it - if the voting is representative of the footy knowledge and understanding of our game from the current batch of field umpires then it seems that's a positive.

All we need now is the MRP and the AFL interference to be limited, and of coarse the rules committee to stop changing the fricken game.

[Sainternist]

Interesting statistics.

The only real inconsistency is Geelong finishing 5th.

[hungry for a premiership]

It should be called the "midfielders who play in top teams" medal.

Almost always a midfielder who wins it, RARELY will a CHF win it, only ONE Full forward has won it (plugger), and I don't think a backman has EVER won it.

They really should have a whole new medal/award for backmen, they don't get enough recognition.

[meher baba]

The Brownlow is more of an event for players and their partners than a serious competition IMO. It overates consistent midfield ball-winners and underates impact players. The 3,2,1 vote system is antiquated and makes the whole thing a lottery. The predicted winners often fall far short of the mark and someone nobody thought of usually picks up a mass of votes: eg, Sam Mitchell this time, despite being (IMO) a fairly average player who had a pretty ordinary year.

Swan is a deserving winner because he is a high impact player, but the irony is that he was far better in 2010 thsn in 2011. And, ironically, I thought that Judd was better this year than last year.

And I thought Buddy, although ineligible, was far better than either of them (and so much better than Mitchell it isn't funny).

But, what the heck.

[Schillaci]

Interesting statistics.

The only real inconsistency is Geelong finishing 5th.

Yep.
Gotta be in a winning team to take home Charlie too.

[quidnunc]

Hungry for a premiership:

Verdun Howell - St Kilda - Full Back

[plugger66]

The Brownlow is more of an event for players and their partners than a serious competition IMO. It overates consistent midfield ball-winners and underates impact players. The 3,2,1 vote system is antiquated and makes the whole thing a lottery. The predicted winners often fall far short of the mark and someone nobody thought of usually picks up a mass of votes: eg, Sam Mitchell this time, despite being (IMO) a fairly average player who had a pretty ordinary year.

Swan is a deserving winner because he is a high impact player, but the irony is that he was far better in 2010 thsn in 2011. And, ironically, I thought that Judd was better this year than last year.

And I thought Buddy, although ineligible, was far better than either of them (and so much better than Mitchell it isn't funny).

But, what the heck.

Its only an opinion but I thought Michell had a much better year than Buddy. You say the brownlow is only a mids award but can you tell me the results of all the other awards this year. Pretty sure whatever system they use the mids won all the awards. This is because they set up up all the play now. They are the best and most important players and we need to recruit as many as possible.

[matrix]

well lets just have a whole team of mids running from one end of the ground to the other

really its a crap award as it doesnt take into account every position on the field

[plugger66]

well lets just have a whole team of mids running from one end of the ground to the other

really its a crap award as it doesnt take into account every position on the field

And as I said how were the other awards this year? Blinkers off please. You should harness your anger for good.

[Enrico_Misso]

We could swap NDS for the entire Port list

[Hurricane]

We could swap NDS for the entire Port list

That wouldnt be a fair trade........for us

BANG BANG

[matrix]

who's angry
im stating an opinion
im not exactly going to get angry over a midfielders medal

get a grip
or maybe
stop gripping

[Johnny Member]

The Brownlow is more of an event for players and their partners than a serious competition IMO.

Of course it is!

It's a cool occasion, but it has zero serious merit.


It baffles me how someone gets applause for getting a certain amount of votes!
Or Bruce chimes in and congratulates someone for getting 900 Brownlow Votes for their career!

What relevance does that have? What does that mean? It's literally saying 'well done, 3 guys reckon you played well. But, it's the same 3 guys that 90% of the footy world think are dickheads with no clue about footy'.


Swan's season, nor Swan the player, is any different to what it was yesterday.


But now he'll be considered better than most because 'he won a Brownlow'.




And for the record, any coincidence that last year he was favourite and the umpires ignored him and threw votes at Judd - then this year, they get embarrassed by the public's response last year and suddenly don't vote for Judd and give Swan everything!

Funny bunch those umpires.

[Johnny Member]

The other thing is, that umpires have no idea what each player is actually trying to achieve. They have no idea what the coach has asked that player to do.

So a player could get 30 kicks and each one could go to a spot on the ground where the coach told him not to kick it - but he'd get 3 votes from the umps.

And a player could be asked by his coach to stand in the forward pocket and walk like a chicken for 4 quarters - if he does it the coach would be wrapped with him and consider his game brilliant.

But the umpires wouldn't.



Cool night, and fun to have a bet on - but surely it's just for a laugh these days.

[borderbarry]

It is interesting how the Brownlow has become a midfielders medal in recent years. You only need to look at our Brownlow medal winners since the 2nd World War, to see the pattern.

CHF/Ruckman Brian Gleeson
CHB Neil Roberts
FB Verdun Howell
Mid. Ian Stewart
Mid Ian Stewart
Mid Ross Smith
FF Plugger
Mid Robert Harvey
Mid Robert Harvey

[Moods]

The 3,2,1 vote system is antiquated and makes the whole thing a lottery. The predicted winners often fall far short of the mark and someone nobody thought of usually picks up a mass of votes: eg, Sam Mitchell this time, despite being (IMO) a fairly average player who had a pretty ordinary year.

Swan is a deserving winner because he is a high impact player, but the irony is that he was far better in 2010 thsn in 2011. And, ironically, I thought that Judd was better this year than last year.

And I thought Buddy, although ineligible, was far better than either of them (and so much better than Mitchell it isn't funny).

But, what the heck.

Well most Hawthorn supporters I know expect Mitchell to win their B&F this year. He was also named AA centreman this year, so I reckon you are on your own with your opinion that he had an ordinary year this year AND that he's an ordinary player.

Ppl can rubbish the award all they like, but I actually reckon last nights votes were very accurate of the best players in each team and throughout the comp. Also the votes seemed very accurate for each game. Call it a midfielders award if you like, but virtually very clubs best players play in the midfield. The two AA KP fwds both polled very well.

When was the last time that the MVP was given to a KP player? I think it was roo back in 04. Almost all media awards are won by mids. How many backs feature in those awards?

BTW - Brownlows have been won by backs before. Gavin Wanganeen in 1993 was back pocket all year. Brad Hardie in 1985 was a back pocket player. Ross Glendinning won it from CHB. Kevin Murray won it as a half back flanker.

I reckon the Brownlow is the one true award that ISN'T influenced by the media and outside opinion, which is why it can throw up anomolies occasionally. Three blokes get together, without listening to media all studying stats, and decide who was best player. Quite often media give to the bloke who had the most possessions or the most 'effective' possessions. It's a true indication and a great award I reckon - BUT just another award.

[meher baba]

Deleted

[meher baba]

The 3,2,1 vote system is antiquated and makes the whole thing a lottery. The predicted winners often fall far short of the mark and someone nobody thought of usually picks up a mass of votes: eg, Sam Mitchell this time, despite being (IMO) a fairly average player who had a pretty ordinary year.

Swan is a deserving winner because he is a high impact player, but the irony is that he was far better in 2010 thsn in 2011. And, ironically, I thought that Judd was better this year than last year.

And I thought Buddy, although ineligible, was far better than either of them (and so much better than Mitchell it isn't funny).

But, what the heck.

Well most Hawthorn supporters I know expect Mitchell to win their B&F this year. He was also named AA centreman this year, so I reckon you are on your own with your opinion that he had an ordinary year this year AND that he's an ordinary player.

Ppl can rubbish the award all they like, but I actually reckon last nights votes were very accurate of the best players in each team and throughout the comp. Also the votes seemed very accurate for each game. Call it a midfielders award if you like, but virtually very clubs best players play in the midfield. The two AA KP fwds both polled very well.

When was the last time that the MVP was given to a KP player? I think it was roo back in 04. Almost all media awards are won by mids. How many backs feature in those awards?

BTW - Brownlows have been won by backs before. Gavin Wanganeen in 1993 was back pocket all year. Brad Hardie in 1985 was a back pocket player. Ross Glendinning won it from CHB. Kevin Murray won it as a half back flanker.

I reckon the Brownlow is the one true award that ISN'T influenced by the media and outside opinion, which is why it can throw up anomolies occasionally. Three blokes get together, without listening to media all studying stats, and decide who was best player. Quite often media give to the bloke who had the most possessions or the most 'effective' possessions. It's a true indication and a great award I reckon - BUT just another award.

I might have been a bit harsh in describing Mitchell as an "average" player, but I do not consider him to be in the league of Judd or Swan or Pendlebury. Or, for that matter, Hodge or Buddy.

And I think Buddy had a much better year than Mitchell, if the word "better" means "had an impact on the result of many games" as opposed to "had a consistently high output in terms of stats".

I guess my problem is that I'm not one of those AFL fans who gets at all excited about stats. There is a certain sort of midfielder whose job it is to collect lots of stats, just as forwards are expected to kick goals and defenders to stop them. Dane Swan has always collected a lot of stats, but what has made him a greatly improved player in the last couple of years has been his enhanced ability to move the ball forward quickly and dangerously, including his amazing ability to stay on his feet and keep moving the ball forward in heavy traffic.

Anyway, as they say, opinions are like a particular part of the anatomy.........

[Johnny Member]

Ppl can rubbish the award all they like, but I actually reckon last nights votes were very accurate of the best players in each team and throughout the comp.

But it's not the best player in the comp. It's the player that 3 blokes think was best.

There is no accuracy in opinion. They can't be 'right', and they can't be 'wrong' either.


Which although it's a time honoured affair, the fuss and apparent seriousness of it is quite laughable.


For mine, all a Brownlow Medallist is, is a player that a couple of umpires thought was best on ground! That's it!



And the irony is, that umpires have been telling us for years that they're so focussed on their jobs and concentrating so hard, that they don't even know how much time there is left in the match - yet they can sit down afterwards and work out 'accurately' who the best 3 players were?

Come on.

[bozza1980]

But it's not the best player in the comp. It's the player that 3 blokes think was best.

Unlike every other player of the year award??

There is no accuracy in opinion. They can't be 'right', and they can't be 'wrong' either.

Which although it's a time honoured affair, the fuss and apparent seriousness of it is quite laughable.

Is it just the fuss afforded the Brownlow Medal that you find laughable or the fuss awarded to all B&F/MVP style awards??

And the irony is, that umpires have been telling us for years that they're so focussed on their jobs and concentrating so hard, that they don't even know how much time there is left in the match - yet they can sit down afterwards and work out 'accurately' who the best 3 players were?

Come on.

Are you kididng?? On that logic, the only people that should give votes are time keepers.

Umpires have as much idea as to who the best players on the ground are as everybody else on the planet.

The fact that there might be some discepancies between the winner and the expected winner has more to do with the system that allocates the best player on the ground triple the number of votes as the 3rd best player and awards the 4th best player none.

What I find laughable is the yearly questioning of whether umpires should be the judges, whichever way you cut or dice it, it will always come down to opinion which means there will always be debate.

Just an example of the fact that even highly regarded football experts get it wrong, Leigh Matthews, when voting on the 2008 Norm Smith, couldn't find a vote for Gary Ablett despite the fact that he was arguably best on ground.

It is, what it is.

[Moods]

But it's not the best player in the comp. It's the player that 3 blokes think was best.

Unlike every other player of the year award??

There is no accuracy in opinion. They can't be 'right', and they can't be 'wrong' either.

Which although it's a time honoured affair, the fuss and apparent seriousness of it is quite laughable.

Is it just the fuss afforded the Brownlow Medal that you find laughable or the fuss awarded to all B&F/MVP style awards??

And the irony is, that umpires have been telling us for years that they're so focussed on their jobs and concentrating so hard, that they don't even know how much time there is left in the match - yet they can sit down afterwards and work out 'accurately' who the best 3 players were?

Come on.

Are you kididng?? On that logic, the only people that should give votes are time keepers.

Umpires have as much idea as to who the best players on the ground are as everybody else on the planet.

The fact that there might be some discepancies between the winner and the expected winner has more to do with the system that allocates the best player on the ground triple the number of votes as the 3rd best player and awards the 4th best player none.

What I find laughable is the yearly questioning of whether umpires should be the judges, whichever way you cut or dice it, it will always come down to opinion which means there will always be debate.

Just an example of the fact that even highly regarded football experts get it wrong, Leigh Matthews, when voting on the 2008 Norm Smith, couldn't find a vote for Gary Ablett despite the fact that he was arguably best on ground.

It is, what it is.

Exactly Bozza.

Just out of curiosity Johnny Member. Which award does tell us who the best player in the comp is? As my last line in my original post said - it's just another award. I personally thought that Ablett was easily the best player in the 08 GF, and that whilst Hodge was important, the easiest position on the ground is to play third man up and loose in the backline as Hodge did the majority of that game.

I reckon the umpy's got this years award pretty much spot on - and the fact that they are rarely stuff up votes legitimises the award

[Johnny Member]

Exactly Bozza.

Just out of curiosity Johnny Member. Which award does tell us who the best player in the comp is? As my last line in my original post said - it's just another award. I personally thought that Ablett was easily the best player in the 08 GF, and that whilst Hodge was important, the easiest position on the ground is to play third man up and loose in the backline as Hodge did the majority of that game.

No award does.

I agree, the Brownlow is what it is. And what is it? It's an award that is voted for by 3 dudes each week.

That's all.


what I find laughable is, that now Dane Swan is considered a better player than he was yesterday! And even on here, people are now saying that trading Dal Santo is crazy as he's a 'runner up in the Brownlow'!!

What the hell does that mean? And what difference does it make?!

I find it funny.

I reckon the umpy's got this years award pretty much spot on - and the fact that they are rarely stuff up votes legitimises the award

I wouldn't have a clue.

I don't know what the coaches were asking Swan to do each week, and I don't know whether or not he was actually doing it.


And you must admit, that Judd suddenly stopped getting votes this year, after the backlash the umpires copped last year can't just be a coincidence?

Ablett was raging favourite, and missed out. Then the following year he was getting votes for just turning up.

Swan was raging favourite last year, and missed out. Then suddenly this year he polls in just about every game!


The umpires are clearly influenced.


But I don't think it matters. In the end, it's just the opinion of 3 blokes. No different to the media awards.

In reality, the only one that has any merit is the Coaches Award. They're the ones giving these guys the directions, and giving them votes based on what they're actually supposed to be doing out their on the field.

[Moods]

I reckon the umpy's got this years award pretty much spot on - and the fact that they are rarely stuff up votes legitimises the award

I wouldn't have a clue.

I don't know what the coaches were asking Swan to do each week, and I don't know whether or not he was actually doing it.


And you must admit, that Judd suddenly stopped getting votes this year, after the backlash the umpires copped last year can't just be a coincidence?

Ablett was raging favourite, and missed out. Then the following year he was getting votes for just turning up.

Swan was raging favourite last year, and missed out. Then suddenly this year he polls in just about every game!


The umpires are clearly influenced.


But I don't think it matters. In the end, it's just the opinion of 3 blokes. No different to the media awards.

In reality, the only one that has any merit is the Coaches Award. They're the ones giving these guys the directions, and giving them votes based on what they're actually supposed to be doing out their on the field.

I reckon we can decipher whether Swan (or anyone else) is doing what the coach asks by the Best and Fairest voting. If Swan wins or comes damn close to winning the B&F then I reckon it's a given he's been following coaches instructions.

I agree that too much emphasis is placed on the Brownlow. It doesn't mean what some take it to mean - that the winner is the premier player in the competition. It's not a meaningless award either though.