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

[Consumed]

Does the Leigh Matthews Trophy recognize the player that does 'the best king hit behind play leaving your opponent with a broken jaw'. Were there any nominee's this year?

No it doesn't.
But I do believe it does recognize the "Go to the biggest chokers in the competition and win them a Premiership". There was only one nominee because the Collingwobbles have had it stitched up for 70 years.

 

[Crow-mo]

What better award can you win than one voted by your peers.

Think about this...
For 365 days this year (being a leap year) we bag the umpires, they can't see whats in front of them and yet for that last Monday before the grand final we care what they think.
The Brownlow is a joke of a award.
the AFLPA & coaches awards are by far the best awards a player can win. Its voted by the only people in the sport that count.

your post is only relevant in theory, not practice.

 

[eddiesmith]

Oh god they still whingeing?

Harvey tears us up every time we play, as does Ablett, of course they will be voted for more highly than Franklin. Talk of Franklins stats against us may be great, but what about the other 2? Ablett is being talked about as a chance for votes when we thumped them by 83 points, Harvey was probably best on ground twice this year as went down to an inferior opposition because of him, of course they should be higher

Most people complain that midfielders win too many awards and forwards dont get enough recognition, would Franklin kick 102 goals for Freo? Probably not, probably wouldnt do it playing for us either

It doesnt have to have anything to do with Franklin being a w***er off the field, it simply means the Pies players value those who win the ball higher than him, plus maybe they stuck to the criteria more than the players at other clubs who just voted for the media hype surrounding Franklin

 

[Pie eyed]

they don't treat it seriously, that has always been the problem.

they tend to follow what the media or everyone else says because its not that important.

the opinions of the players would be very important, if they took them seriously. but that's not what we get.

Ok. So let's suppose your assumption is correct.
The players don't take it seriously and just joke around.

Why is it that a player like Warren Treadrey did not win?

Is a simple coincidence that the bulk of the players jokingly or at best lazily wrote the name Gary Ablett, twice, two years in a row?

I think it is just convenient to claim the players don't take it seriously because they don't write the name you want to see!

And Crow-mo.

Are you putting my Theory on Theory and Practice into Practice in your post???

 

[H2F]

Ok. So let's suppose your assumption is correct.
The players don't take it seriously and just joke around.

Why is it that a player like Warren Treadrey did not win?

Is a simple coincidence that the bulk of the players jokingly or at best lazily wrote the name Gary Ablett, twice, two years in a row?

I think it is just convenient to claim the players don't take it seriously because they don't write the name you want to see!

And Crow-mo.

Are you putting my Theory on Theory and Practice into Practice in your post???

But Franklin is the most valuable player since Ablett Snr and possibly more???

 

[eddiesmith]

When was the last time a player kicking 100 goals in a season won the award?

 

[Mr Lizard]

15 x 2's and 11 x 1's would mean 0 x 3's and also that 14 guys left him out altogether.
That could only mean a conspiracy on the part of the Geelong guys.

Let's say that six of Geelong's players didn't buy into any of the crap and they stuck Buddy on top.
6 x 3's, 7 x 2's and 9 x 1's. That would mean 18 Geelong players leaving him out of their top 3.

You could argue that all of this is just a coincidence, but then how would you explain the double coincidence of Brent Harvey receiving similar treatment in their voting?

That makes it all twice as unlikely

Quoted just so anyone trying to argue the point can have another look.

 

[Rockford]

Quoted just so anyone trying to argue the point can have another look.

There's 118 points worth of Geelong votes in total. That's less than 20 players votes.

 

[Burzum]

When was the last time a player kicking 100 goals in a season won the award?

1993: Gary Ablett
1992: Jason Dunstall
1987: Tony Lockett

 

[Mr Lizard]

There's 118 points worth of Geelong votes in total. That's less than 20 players votes.

That is exactly the point. Half of your list voted for people who didn't even appear on your leaderboard. Who did they vote for as the MVP? Bartel, even though he wasn't nominated? Ryan Lonie? Who else?

 

[Rockford]

That is exactly the point. Half of your list voted for people who didn't even appear on your leaderboard. Who did they vote for as the MVP? Bartel, even though he wasn't nominated? Ryan Lonie? Who else?

Where did the "leaderboard" data come from? Interesting that the Cats leaderboard only goes 6 players deep, other teams go 7 and 8 deep? How is that?

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Each player had a 3-2-1 voting system, so 6 votes per player. Working on average 40 players per list, approximately 240 votes per team. Players who finished in top FIVE included in these figures. % is amount of votes awarded to non-top-5 finishers.

Out of 3840 possible votes (640 players by 6 votes)

1088 Ablett = 28%
717 Franklin = 19%
402 Harvey = 11%
133 Richo = 3%
131 Judd = 3%
1369 All others = 36%

So you would expect most clubs to have approximately 64% of the votes going to one of those 5....on average.

So which teams are furthest away from expected? (64% accuracy the target)

Centralised Voting
Sydney - 78%
Adelaide - 83%

These two teams awarded more than expected to the final five.

Normal Distribution
West Coast - 64%
North Melbourne - 65%
Richmond - 66%
Hawthorn - 67%
Fremantle - 67%
Melbourne - 68%
Bulldog - 69%
St Kilda - 70%
Brisbane - 71%
Port Adelaide - 73%

These teams all fit within what a rounding error would include.


Varied Voting
Essendon - 56%

The bombers had more extras than expected (Minimum TWENTY), spreading votes around quite a bit.

Outside Probability Curve
Collingwood - 47%
Carlton - 51%

These two teams awarded votes to a minimum of THIRTY players each (outside the top 5 - this is if all players got five votes, if they got less there would be more players included).

Beyond the realm of ANY statistical relevance
Geelong - 33%

EDITBased on the '8 vote count', geelong gave votes to a minimum of TWENTY different players.

So it looks like Geelong (with only 80 votes counting) systematically voted to spread the votes around.

The chances of this occuring randomly? About 0.008%, or every 12500 attempts.

Interesting when you look at it that way.

...

Looking at it now, makes you realise how bad Carlton, Collingwood and Geelong were - in terms of being in line with a statistically relevant sample of opinions.

The next step is to look at the breakdown of their votes compared to the rest of the league - where's the biggest discrepency?

Are there any other major discrepencies?

Well I guess there's your answer.

On a 'normalised' table, you would see something like:

Ablett - 980
Franlkin - 880
Harvey - 440

So it doesn't change any result, but is a lot more reflective of the season just gone.

 

[estibador]

Perhaps we should rename it the Eurovision Trophy?

 

[SnappyHappy]

Based on the '5 vote count', geelong gave votes to a minimum of EIGHTY different players.

Im sure you put alot of effort into doing the maths but here's some of my own.

3 players were nominated from each team. There are 16 teams.

That's a total of 48 nominated players, and taking out your own team, a possible 45 players to vote for. Therefore, Geelong couldn't possibly have voted for eighty different players.

 

[Rockford]

Im sure you put alot of effort into doing the maths but here's some of my own.

3 players were nominated from each team. There are 16 teams.

That's a total of 48 nominated players, and taking out your own team, a possible 45 players to vote for. Therefore, Geelong couldn't possibly have voted for eighty different players.

LOL. As a compliment it gets used far too often but here, it really applies: GOLD

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Math at 3am is not smart.

 

[Big Nasty]

1993: Gary Ablett
1992: Jason Dunstall
1987: Tony Lockett

Yeah but how many times did they kick the ton each, only to get the award once.

 

[Mr Lizard]

Math at 3am is not smart.

hahahahahaha


It's still a fairly impressive effort, Simon. They can nitpick over some bleary-eyed details, but they can't really argue the point.


Geelong has cheapened the award given to their own player.

 

[TheTimeCometh]

its just an award.

 

[On the Boyle]

Rather than reading into it that there's this big conspiracy theory that the Cats wanted to stop Buddy from getting it and then Collingwood didn't vote for Buddy because they were upset, maybe we should look at it from a team's perspective:

What does each team need or value most?

I'd say, with the massive season Geelong has had with no real 'Great' full-forward, what would they think is the most valuable to their team? Who would they want most? They do quite well without Buddy, but could they do without a Ablett Jr type player? Hence, if we can't vote Ablett, then we've got to go a boomer or another midfielder of that capability.

Adelaide weren't that high on the Buddy bandwagon either - but again, they're a more midfield and defensive team than most.

Fremantle, by contrast, heavily rely on their big forward and would think that Buddy is far more important than Ablett.

Collingwood players would believe they already have had a 'Buddy' in Rocca, which they've been able to do very well without. Cloke's gone missing in a number of games this year, so Big Full Forwards aren't high on Collingwood's needs or importance.

I think you need to look more at how the team plays, and what they need in their own team rather than a tin-hat conspiracy theory.

Just my thoughts.

 

[LongBomb]

Simon_Nesbit, when you did your sums, did you take into account the fact that Geelong players could not vote for Ablett?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Geelong fans are missing the point, Ablett deserved to win, and instead of going off on a tangent and saying “stop complaining" surely there is a point to be raised looking at the facts from the voting, there does seem to be an agenda with those three clubs.

I don't care that much, Buddy plays for us, Ablett deserved the award, but I can't see how people can't see there could be some truth to watch Chewy is saying rather than just stating general cliche's instead of a response.

Maybe Geelong players just don't rate Buddy as highly as you think they should. He was still the top of Geelong's list.

Maybe Footscray, Richmond, St Kilda and Carlton fans could all start a thread and whine about why the majority of clubs didn't rate Cooney, Richo, Riewoldt and Judd as highly as Geelong players did.

 

[sexyhunk]

Geelong fans are missing the point, Ablett deserved to win, and instead of going off on a tangent and saying “stop complaining" surely there is a point to be raised looking at the facts from the voting, there does seem to be an agenda with those three clubs.

I don't care that much, Buddy plays for us, Ablett deserved the award, but I can't see how people can't see there could be some truth to watch Chewy is saying rather than just stating general cliche's instead of a response.

nah, i think your the one that are missing the point, anyone can come up with "hidden agendas"...fact is if you think the winner deserved winning it, thats end of story.

i can come up with a theory myself, if look at the votes from hawthorn players, unlike geelong players they seemed to have ignore chris judd, i think it could be that they obviously wanted to protect luke hodge, cause there are people still debating whether or not hodge should have been taken ahead of judd.

now do i think that is the case, probably not and quite frankly dont really give a toss. but like the OP, i can come with with my own theory.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Rather than reading into it that there's this big conspiracy theory that the Cats wanted to stop Buddy from getting it and then Collingwood didn't vote for Buddy because they were upset, maybe we should look at it from a team's perspective:

What does each team need or value most?

I'd say, with the massive season Geelong has had with no real 'Great' full-forward, what would they think is the most valuable to their team? Who would they want most? They do quite well without Buddy, but could they do without a Ablett Jr type player? Hence, if we can't vote Ablett, then we've got to go a boomer or another midfielder of that capability.

Adelaide weren't that high on the Buddy bandwagon either - but again, they're a more midfield and defensive team than most.

Fremantle, by contrast, heavily rely on their big forward and would think that Buddy is far more important than Ablett.

Collingwood players would believe they already have had a 'Buddy' in Rocca, which they've been able to do very well without. Cloke's gone missing in a number of games this year, so Big Full Forwards aren't high on Collingwood's needs or importance.

I think you need to look more at how the team plays, and what they need in their own team rather than a tin-hat conspiracy theory.

Just my thoughts.

You hit the nail on the head. Do players vote on who has been the 'Most Valuable' to their respective team, or who would be the 'Most Valuable' if you put them into their own team. I'd say you'd have players looking at it both ways and then inturn voting that way.

Franklin was the highest vote getter from Geelong, but Geelong are already the heaviest scoring team in the league. Carlton have a high kicking forward in Fevola. Experts and Collingwood themselves have been saying all season that they need a gun midfielder. With Collingwood's gun small forwards (Didak, Medhurst and Davis) and Cloke maybe they think Ablett would be more valuable in their team than what Franklin would be and they voted accordingly.

 

[Mr Lizard]

It is a laugh reading all the people try to explain this away.


"Oh but maybe they voted according to who would be more valuable to their team if they were playing away against Fremantle on a wet track, did you think of that?"


"Exactly, Mr Lizard! You've hit the nail on the head there!"