Did Robert Harvey deserve his first Brownlow?

[realdeal]

I know stats dont always tell the full story but the below comparison of vote getting games show clearly Harvs deserved the medal
Chris Grant
Round 2 - 3 votes for 17 possesions and no goals
Round 4 - 3 votes for 10 possesions and no goals
Round 6 - 3 votes for 23 possesions and 1 goal
Round 7 - 3 votes for 29 possesions and 2 goals
Round 13 - 3 votes for 30 possesions and 2 goals
Round 14 - 3 votes for 27 possesions and 4 goals
Round 16 - 1 vote for 20 possesions and 2 goals
Round 20 - 3 votes for 19 possesions and 2 goals
Round 21 - 3 votes for 18 possessions and 3 goals
Round 22 - 2 votes for 25 possesions and 1 goal

Robert Harvey
Round 1 - 2 votes for 32 possesions and 1 goal
Round 6 - 2 votes for 25 possesions and no goals
Round 7 - 3 votes for 38 possesions and no goals
Round 10 - 1 vote for 24 possesions and 1 goal
Round 11 - 3 votes for 35 possesions and 2 goals
Round 15 - 3 votes for 43 possesions and 2 goals
Round 16 - 3 votes for 40 possesions and no goals
Round 18 - 3 votes for 36 possesions and 1 goal
Round 19 - 3 votes for 35 possessions and 2 goals
Round 22 - 3 votes for 40 possesions and no goals

Nice first post j-boy.
I think a more appropriate thread would be "Would Robert Harvey have won 3 or 4 Brownlows if he didn't get injured in some of his prime years?"

[stevie]

Chris Grant
Round 4 - 3 votes for 10 possesions and no goals

What?

And they lost to Melbourne by 2 points.

He didn't deserve to have the most votes.

Even worse, he only had 3 kicks ffs!

Surely the umps in that game got players mixed up? That is absolutely ridiculous!

This reminds me a bit of McKernan missing out in 96, though diff circumstances

[Hurricane]

Once again, the perennial of the criteria for winning the Brownlow - fairest and best or is that best and fairest - has been called into question. This time, it was due to Sam Mitchell's ineligibility. Ironically, in 1997, he would have been eligible had he received a reprimand. Up until the time that the MRP was introduced, a suspension during the H&A away games of the season was required to remove eligibility for the Brownlow. A reprimand or fine was OK.

For those who saw Robert accept the Brownlow in 1997, we know that he thought that it should have gone to Chris Grant and seemed most embarrassed in accepting it. Fortunately, his win the following year removed any questions regarding his worthiness in the eyes of doubters. However, whilst I thought the incident which saw Chris Grant suspended was borderline, they were the rules. What had changed over the years was an unwritten rule of not giving votes to suspended players. In the past, when a player was suspended, he rarely got votes in subsequent games even if he deserved them. This avoided embarrassing situations later in the year. But our friends in the media began to pick up on this practice. So more and more, votes were given to ineligible players.

So, should there be a change back to the old rule i.e. non suspension should deem eligibility or should we stick with what we have or perhaps try something different?

the brownlow is for the best and fairest...or the fairest and best......thugs don't win brownlows....carey was the best...but definitely not in a bulls roar of being the fairest...hence he never won a brownlow...this is the afl ...not a gladiator ring....

+1

FAIREST and best player.

BANG BANG

[markinUSA]

I remember the discussion at the time... the Brownlow says "Fairest" before the word "Best"... and journos were asking at the time if that should be changed. Generally, the public seemed to say no.

And Harves was undoubtedly the fairest and the best.

[sunsaint]

For those who saw Robert accept the Brownlow in 1997, we know that he thought that it should have gone to Chris Grant and seemed most embarrassed in accepting it.

it was a long time ago but if my memory serves me correctly
the incident Grant was suspended for was a fist/forearm to the head of an opponent. Most definitely NOT accidental, and if reported and suspended back then, I reckon he would gone for much longer under todays system.

The Harvey "embarrassment" was not caused by the fact he won it, but rather Grant decided not attend the function & stay home but yet there was a camera crew with him to record his thoughts & reaction throughout the night.
The big insult came during the announcement of the winner, which was pointedly about poor Chris Grant, & when Harvey went up to accept the award, one of the first questions he was asked was about Grant.
He could have been excused for thinking he didnt win it at all

Robert Harvey WAS the B&F for the year.

[Bad Co.]

Grant didn't attend the function because he wasn't invited, as a result of being suspended. I remember distinctly, after the count, the cameras not being allowed into Grant's house "because he was so devastated".

Although it wasn't Grant's fault, I agree with the previous post, that the 'dogs are not gracious in defeat. If their table was booing, then that is pretty sad.
You hear tools like Darcy say "if we'd won the '97 prelim, we believe the Saints were ripe for the picking".
You didn't win though champ, so how were you gonna win the next week.
At least we make, (and sometimes draw) Grand Finals.