Leigh Matthews Trophy: the respect or the disrespect of your peers?

[Geelong_Sicko]

Look at the overall vote tally from the Geelong players' leaderboard and then compare it to the other clubs. You can see that they have must've spread their votes, rather than give Franklin or Harvey the bulk of their top votes. It's as though there are 90 votes missing, but all allocated to players with 8 or less.

They've collectively given each other the nod and the wink and said "Don't go overboard with the Buddy 'n' Boomer votes boys. They might steal it from Gaz. Vote for Max Hudghton, or David Hille, or Daniel Cross, anyone, just not Buddy 'n' Boomer..."

It kind of makes a mockery of the whole award, don't you think?

Why couldn't they be fair about it?

You don't see the North boys or the Hawthorn boys pulling that type of shit.

Yeah, looking at it like that you'd think that the Geelong players definitely were protecting Gaz.

I'm still not clear on whether voting is compulsory or not. Did alot of Geelong players simply abstain, like Doris reckons?

Maybe you should be allowed to vote for your own team-mates - it might cut alot of this uncertainty out.

 

[tribey]

I don't believe the current coaches' award (5-4-3-2-1 votes for each game) will necessarily determine the AFL's best footballer. It's a bit like the Brownlow. It favours midfielders. It favours the stand out players who receive a handful of BOGs and it doesn't properly reward the players who might be 3rd or 4th best on ground. Thier games aren't usually worth half as much as the BOG.

Tredrea won it in 2004 and rightly so. Was easily the most valuable and influential player in the comp that year and thankfully the coaches recognised that where the players (Riewoldt - shitloads more publicity and exposure that year as the Saints carried the banner for Victoria) and umpires (an exciting but far from dominant Judd accelerating away under their noses worth 30 votes?) didn't.

 

[Chewy]

Don't idiots know that quoting a 60 line post to write 1 line looks ridiculous.

I never did understand why people would do that.

Some muppets have actually gone me in the past for editing their post in my quotes

(You know.... editing them to only include the relevant part to my reply)

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

So if hawthorn gave Ablett a heap less votes than expected, and rated Harvey the best, you wouldn't find that curious?

I doubt that.

Obviously lots of players don't think it's as clear cut as you do?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Hawk players were not allowed to vote for Franklin, but to man, they placed Ablett at #1 or #2.
93 votes from Hawthorn players to the Geelong maestro, which means a healthy mixture of 3's and 2's from the just about all of the Hawk players

Am I reading this wrong? Did the Hawks put Ablett 1 or 2, or 3 and 2?

 

[enosis7]

Respect for players and peers is a criterion for the award.
If, as a number of people think, Collingwood players didn't rate Franklin because he was a bad bloke to John Anthony, then that's perfectly acceptable under the criteria for MVP.
Personally, as hard as it is for many Hawks fans to accept, I think Collingwood players might just rate Ablett and Harvey higher. It might also reflect on what kind of player is valued within the type of game Collingwood play. Ablett and Harvey wouldn't certainly be more valuable to us, as we have a genuine weakness in our midfield.

 

[Cockney Rebel]

Considering players play against any opposition player at the most twice how are they qualified to say who the best player for the year is?

It is simply another night out with a few awards.

How anyone in their right mind could say that Porps (great year) McVeigh (same) Hille (same) are in the best 3 players for the year.

 

[cs61]

Obviously lots of players don't think it's as clear cut as you do?

Just the ones where there is a reason for not voting for Buddy, you keep ignoring that fact.

 

[Mr Lizard]

Am I reading this wrong? Did the Hawks put Ablett 1 or 2, or 3 and 2?

Sometimes you seem really stupid, Doris. Usually I notice this when you are providing static in a thread criticising something Geelong-related.

If I was giving out votes on a 3-2-1 basis, my #1 player would get 3 votes. Similarly, my #2 player would get 2 votes, and #3 would get 1 vote.

A lot of rankings as #1 or #2 would lead to a lot of 3 and 2 votes.


Do you understand now, or did you already understand when you posted before?

 

[alberto_cat]

Coaches Award.
Leigh Matthews Trophy.
Brownlow.
Journo-related awards.

I agree, and Ablett has gone back to back in both the top 2.

 

[True Bluebagger]

I know it is probably stupid question, but I was wondering how players decided who to vote for?

Is it for who played well against their team during the year? If a star player had an off day or didn't play in that game, they couldn't vote for him.

Or do they decide from other games they have watched on replay or live?

It would be interesting to know how many players watch all of the other 7 games live in each round.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

If you ask AFL players for their opinions, you have to be prepared to accept the consequences.

How you can expect AFL players to cast opinions on all games when they wouldn't have seen most of them?

The award that kills me is Best Captain. How the hell can a player who only sees an oposition captain once or twice a year in games, and has no idea what they do off the field, pass judgement on who is the best captain? The answer, of course, is they can't.

Let's face it ... these awards are are a stupid concept and just another media created concept to give them something to write about. They mean nothing.

 

[frantelle]

i take it u watched that 9/11 conspiracy theory last nite and thought wat the hell?

however highly u think of franklin, ablett was way ahead (as shown by voting)
its harder to seperate the next run of harvey franklin cooney etc
thats why its like that

the votes showed exactly where i thought each player was

 

[BillBailey]

Why highlight Geelong's voting? Geelong could have given all their votes to Buddy and it wouldn't have made a lick of difference.

 

[Ramere]

The voting for the players' MVP was basically a three horse race with Ablett a clear 1st, Franklin a clear 2nd and Brent Harvey a clear 3rd.

Some people think this award is actually the most prestigious individual award on offer, better than the Brownlow

Well done to Ablett on winning his second in a row, but is the prestige of this award slightly diminished by the voting irregularities which are apparent?

The thing is, if the players themselves don't show this award the proper respect, then why should anyone else care about it?

I never have & probably never will rate this award above the Brownlow or Coaches award for this exact reason. Whilst some players do take it seriously we are talking about footballers here & there are too many who don't.

Someone has previously raised the Buddy/Anthony issue as effecting the Collingwood voting, this is a plausible explanation & would back up the above points perfectly.

 

[Chewy]

Tredrea won it in 2004 and rightly so. Was easily the most valuable and influential player in the comp that year and thankfully the coaches recognised that where the players (Riewoldt - shitloads more publicity and exposure that year as the Saints carried the banner for Victoria) and umpires (an exciting Judd accelerating away under their noses) didn't.

Yeah, yeah... I just think that awarding a set number of votes for each game does not necessarily add up to the Player Of The Year.

I reckon some games are worth more than others.

Not all BOGs are equal.

Imagine if 3 players all play amazing games of football at higher level than anyone has ever seen?

John Smith leads hard all day, takes 20 marks (10 of them Mark Of The Day contenders) and he kicks 20 goals,
Fred Neark, the ruckman wins every hitout, he also gets 15 clearances, lays 15 tackles, and sets up 10 goals with brilliant handballs and passes
Meanwhile for the losers, Milton Motlop (a cousin) plays a lone hand and kicks 12 goals straight from 12 chances, all of them worthy of Goal Of The Year.

The umpires give their votes: 3 - John Smith, 2 - Fred Neark, 1 - Milton Motlop

Each coach gives his votes.
Winner's coach: 5 - Fred Neark, 4 - John Smith, 3 - Milton Motlop, 2 - ...., 1 - ....
Loser's coach: 5 - John Smith, 4 - Milton Motlop, 3 - Fred Neark, 2 - ...., 1 - ....
Combined tally: 9 - John Smith, 8 - Fred Neark, 7 - Milton Motlop, etc

At the same time at the MCG, Geelong thrash Melbourne by 100 points. There are no real stand-outs for the winners. It's the proverbial team effort. Everyone plays well when called upon, none for the full four quarters, no obvious BOG candidates. Their ruck-rover, Larry Hack leads the stats and did the most dirty work, so he receives 3 votes from the umpires and all 10 from the coaches.

Larry Hack got more votes for his good, ordinary game than Milton Motlop got for playing one of the greatest games ever.

I use extreme examples to emphasize my point. Casting votes for each game merely amounts to a Mr Consistency award or a Mr B.O.G. award, hence the dominance of on-ballers in Brownlows and best and fairests.

The actual most valuable footballer could conceivably be someone who is the 4th best player in all 22 games and receives not one Brownlow vote. Maybe a full back like Scarlett?

 

[The 747]

They've collectively given each other the nod and the wink and said "Don't go overboard with the Buddy 'n' Boomer votes boys. They might steal it from Gaz. Vote for Max Hudghton, or David Hille, or Daniel Cross, anyone, just not Buddy 'n' Boomer..."

It kind of makes a mockery of the whole award, don't you think?

Why couldn't they be fair about it?

You don't see the North boys or the Hawthorn boys pulling that type of shit.

This post rates up there as one of the most fanciful. So how do you know these things to be true Chewy? You wonder why posters attack you for your posts and don't take them seriously. Here is a prime example why. You have just literally made something up and posted it like it is a fact.

 

[SnappyHappy]

You pointed out Geelong at the start of the thread but our total votes add up to 118 and Hawthorn's total votes in 193, so you've obviously missed something.

But seriously, get over it. Ablett won. Ablett deserved to win. I'm sort of looking forward to what excuses you bring up after we smash you in the Grand Final. That is, if Hawthorn make it.

 

[Kram]

If you ask AFL players for their opinions, you have to be prepared to accept the consequences.

How you can expect AFL players to cast opinions on all games when they wouldn't have seen most of them?

The award that kills me is Best Captain. How the hell can a player who only sees an oposition captain once or twice a year in games, and has no idea what they do off the field, pass judgement on who is the best captain? The answer, of course, is they can't.

I might be wrong but I thought AFL players had to spend a LOT of time reviewing games of upcoming opponents as part of their preparation. If this is correct plus playing actual games against the them you would thing they should be amongst the most qualified to judge.

 

[Chewy]

I'm still not clear on whether voting is compulsory or not. Did a lot of Geelong players simply abstain, like Doris reckons?

Don't be sucked in by the dopey ways of Doris.

These aren't the total votes, just the leaderboards from each club.

You would assume that across the AFL, just a handful of guys would receive the 3 votes from any of the players.
Then maybe 10-15 players would receive 2 votes.
Probably 25 players would've received at least 1 vote.

It's also possible that players would abstain from voting or even cast an informal vote. e.g. scrawling Nathan Carroll's name in black texta, or "Up yours, Bowden!"

If abstaining from the vote is allowed, then maybe Hawthorn and North players should've abstained. That way Ablett would've received 170 less votes.

Geelong's votes simply don't add up, whether they abstained, or produced a number of donkey votes, who knows?

 

[Chewy]

Geelong fans still fail to understand that this thread is not a whinge about the winner, but an observation that their own players cheapened Ablett's victory.

 

[SnappyHappy]

Geelong fans still fail to understand that this thread is not a whinge about the winner, but an observation that their own players cheapened Ablett's victory.

Geelong's players did not cheapen Ablett's victory. He won by over 300 votes. If you took out Geelong, Carlton and Collingwood's votes Ablett would still win so get over it. He deserved it. Clearly it is a whinge because you wanted Buddy to win but instead of stating that you're just trying to bring down Ablett's win instead.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Geelong's votes simply don't add up, whether they abstained, or produced a number of donkey votes, who knows?

Maybe they have varying ideas as to who the second best player in the competition is?

 

[Chewy]

This post rates up there as one of the most fanciful. So how do you know these things to be true Chewy? You wonder why posters attack you for your posts and don't take them seriously. Here is a prime example why. You have just literally made something up and posted it like it is a fact.

Well come on then, smart guy. Why don't you attempt to provide some explanation for the voting discrepancy?

Have a look at those vote tallies from each club in my OP and give me your plausible explanation for what might've occurred.

This would be far more useful than reading each of my posts in isolation and taking my words out of context. You're just trying to discredit me further without addressing the issue.

As I said in other threads, this is not a court of law. There is no burden of proof. I'm not trying to start baseless rumours, but simply commenting on something, making an observation using all the available evidence and giving my prognosis.

I leave myself wide open by posting more than the rest of you, but you can't even add anything worthy to the topic, can you?

 

[Chewy]

Maybe they have varying ideas as to who the second best player in the competition is?

It's interesting that so many Geelong players have such varied opinions on who the 2nd and 3rd best players were in 2008 when you consider it was fairly unanimous amongst the other 600 players.

That's the whole point, Duh-ris