Roast Problem with the Gary Ayres medal for best finals player.

[Pocket Terrace]

Criteria for the award is flawed. There is a long list of stupid awards in the AFL and this is probably another. For such a team sport, the industry spends far too much time pumping up individuals.

 

[Pocket Terrace]

Macrae winning will not be remembered. This will be remembered.
View attachment 1247619

Haha yep. In lockdown and going 20 to the dozen on bigfooty about a stupid award. Epic memories for you mate.

 

[demondavey]

Haha yep. In lockdown and going 20 to the dozen on bigfooty about a stupid award. Epic memories for you mate.

It doesn’t matter about lockdown. It doesn’t discount the fact that 2021 has the MFC name on it. You’re simply assuming that everyone has to jump around like a clown with everyone else to enjoy it. You can enjoy the win however you want.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

It’s a pointless award. Serves no purpose whatsoever.

one too many medals imo

Two points.

- Macrae would be embarrassed to win this after his effort the grand final
- Melbourne players would zero care factor about it

Meaningless award

Honestly what’s even the point of this award and who actually cares? I doubt Macrae will look back at the end of his career and think jeez that was a special moment in 2021 when I won that!

It generally goes to either;
A) A player that won a premiership medal so who cares anyway about this,
B) A player that loses the GF so they’d rather not always be reminded about loosing a GF

Just ditch the award all together

It has no merit. It’s rubbish.

I can understand the criticisms of the award but feel it has some merit (albeit could be structured a bit better).

For example, it allows us to go back and accurately assess the performance of players in finals - not necessarily by winner but by votes received. It also can serve as a good comparative analysis tool to see in years to come which players consistently stood up in finals (i.e. Player A picked up 98 Ayers medal votes over his career, 3rd best all time. Player B picked up only 2. Whilst Player B was a great player, he failed to stand up when it matters most whilst Player A was consistently amongst the best, etc). This has even more importance for key position players, where stats rarely tell the story.

To be honest, I wish it was around earlier. A good example from my own club (to remove bias) is Sam Mitchell and Luke Hodge. Most people regard Luke Hodge as one of the best finals performers of all time with his 2 Norm Smiths. Even when Hawthorn supporters are asked who they prefer, they often say "Mitchell for H&A, Hodge for finals". What most don't realise is that Sam Mitchell is one of the greatest finals performers of all time. He has the highest possession average of any finals player ever and was an elite user. He has the most possessions in a final series too. He got 29+ disposals in 18 of his 26 finals, being best on ground (or very close to it) in nearly all of those 18. He copped the hard tags throughout (Ling, Crowley, etc), finished runner up in 2 Norm Smiths and if I'm being honest, is easily the best finals player I've seen at Hawthorn. Had the medal been around, I think he would have won it 3-4 times in our dominant era and have a LOT of votes which would improve his 'standing' in the game.

I would love to have seen it even more for the players of yesteryear. Particularly less heralded players that may have been especially important in finals.

We'll have that opportunity in the future now that there is a voting system for finals that is not restricted to the Grand Final.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Total Ayres votes

Votes	Player	Finals
79	Martin, Dustin	12
34	Macrae, Jack	10
30	Duncan, Mitch	14
29	Shuey, Luke	9
28	Kennedy, Josh P.	7
28	Dangerfield, Patrick	16
27	Houli, Bachar	12
26	Sidebottom, Steele	6
26	Adams, Taylor	8
26	Whitfield, Lachie	12
25	Heeney, Isaac	8
25	Selwood, Joel	16
23	Petracca, Christian	6
23	Oliver, Clayton	6
23	Daniel, Caleb	9
22	Edwards, Shane	12
21	Ward, Callan	9
20	Greene, Toby	11
20	Cameron, Charlie	11
19	Coniglio, Stephen	9
19	Bontempelli, Marcus	10
19	Hawkins, Tom	15

Everyone in the top 12 has played a GF but only three have won one, which is interesting.

It’s a loser’s/Dusty’s award

 

[RichLeMonde]

Agreed. It’s a token award that’s rubbish. Who even remembers that Martin has won 3 compared to the 3 norm smiths he has won? Are people going to remember Macrae winning it when Petracca won the Norm?

It’s comprehensively flawed. The reason Macrae got so many votes is because he played 4 finals. Whereas a player could play a blinder in a QF and get 10 and then play a blinder in a PF and get 10 but his team loses in overtime. He only plays two games but plays better in those two games than the guy who plays four finals and they are not at the same level of performance.

Bullshit award. Badly thought through. Next they’ll have a Darren Jarman medal for the best performance in a quarter of a final, or the Dom Sheed medal for the best under pressure goal in a finals game.

It’s a sh*t gimmick that I’d sell on eBay straight after mad Monday.

As it stands it is actually an embarrassment that a professional sport would have an award that is so hopelessly compromised.

If people can’t understand that polling votes in 3 games out of 4 played is not comparable to polling in 3 games out of 3 played then it’s not worth arguing with them.

If the award is to be kept and made fair it unfortunately needs to be made more complicated.

Should probably be:
- only grand finalists eligible
- must have played at least 3 games
- awarded on average votes/game

That would eliminate:
- guys who played 3 finals but missed the granny, since their level of competition was lower, and so it’s not fair to compare them directly to guys who made the GF
- guys who only played 1 or 2 finals and had a whopping average

Would also mean guys like McCrae who played 4 wouldn’t get an unfair advantage over guys like Trac who played only 3 and polled in every game.

As it stands it’s laughable

 

[Soggy2112]

I’m all for the award, outside of the Norm Smith there’s nothing that recognises the players that stand up in finals. I think give it 10 years and it will be viewed highly, probably not on the same level as Brownlow/Coleman/Norm Smith but it’ll have significant merit.

It should be tweaked though, I have two ideas:

Idea 1 - Each finals coach nominates their best 3 players from their own club, coaches all vote 5-4-3-2-1 from that group based on performance across the whole finals.

Idea 2 - Current system but with double points for PF and GF since the context and quality of opposition is greater in these two games.

Everyone in the top 12 has played a GF but only three have won one, which is interesting.

It’s a loser’s/Dusty’s award

Probably indicates the flaws in the system. Both Macrae and Sidebottom didn’t play all that well in the GF but benefitted from losing QF/coming from the EF.

Josh Kennedy’s is more of an anomaly though as without checking the votes I’m assuming he polled quite highly in the GF and was probably a deserving winner.

 

[danster168]

It's not Macrae's fault but obviously the system is flawed. Are people just winding me up by saying that Macrae's best 3 was better than Petracca's 3? Or are we just conveniently skipping over the fact that he's played an extra game? An extra game against the worst team in the finals I might add. A very odd scenario.

I place as much importance on this medal as going down to pick-a-part junk yard and picking up some scrap metal and putting it around someone's neck.

 

[Samdogg]

We get it. A particular Bulldogs supporter wants to reaffirm its relevance as a WB player won it. It’s a rubbish award with no logic to it. The only people defending it are WB supporters.

No, you're just upset a Melbourne player didn't get to scoop up every single award.

 

[Samdogg]

It's not Macrae's fault but obviously the system is flawed. Are people just winding me up by saying that Macrae's best 3 was better than Petracca's 3? Or are we just conveniently skipping over the fact that he's played an extra game? An extra game against the worst team in the finals I might add. A very odd scenario.

I place as much importance on this medal as going down to pick-a-part junk yard and picking up some scrap metal and putting it around someone's neck.

You can whine all you want, Macrae's best three games were still rated better, as he didn't poll in the Grand Final.

I still don't see any of you complaining about the Brownlow and Oliver Wines record-equaling vote tally.

 

[danster168]

You can whine all you want, Macrae's best three games were still rated better, as he didn't poll in the Grand Final.

I still don't see any of you complaining about the Brownlow and Oliver Wines record-equaling vote tally.

Lol.it's flawed logic. Macrae had the best 3 games but he also had the worst 3 games using that line of thinking.

Why would anyone complain about the Brownlow? Every player has a chance of playing all 22 games. The Gary Ayres 'award' rewards teams that couldn't crack the top 4.

 

[Samdogg]

Lol.it's flawed logic. Macrae had the best 3 games but he also had the worst 3 games using that line of thinking.

Now THIS is flawed logic.
You might want to go back to primary school.

 

[danster168]

Now THIS is flawed logic.
You might want to go back to primary school.

huh? it's using your logic. You ignore the fact that Macrae polled a 0 in the grand final and just cherry pick the first 3 games.

 

[demondavey]

It's not Macrae's fault but obviously the system is flawed. Are people just winding me up by saying that Macrae's best 3 was better than Petracca's 3? Or are we just conveniently skipping over the fact that he's played an extra game? An extra game against the worst team in the finals I might add. A very odd scenario.

I place as much importance on this medal as going down to pick-a-part junk yard and picking up some scrap metal and putting it around someone's neck.

Trying telling that to WB supporters even though it makes perfect sense

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

No one’s even bothered to update Macrae’s Wikipedia page to say that he won it.

 

[demondavey]

No, you're just upset a Melbourne player didn't get to scoop up every single award.

Yes, that’s correct. I am upset. I am upset that we didn’t scoop up every single ‘individual’ award.

 

[danster168]

No one’s even bothered to update Macrae’s Wikipedia page to say that he won it.

because he didn't win it. Gary Ayres lost it. lol

 

[Samdogg]

huh? it's using your logic. You ignore the fact that Macrae polled a 0 in the grand final and just cherry pick the first 3 games.

You're the one having a whinge saying " Are people just winding me up by saying that Macrae's best 3 was better than Petracca's 3 ?"
and that's exactly what happened; Macrae's best three games were rated ahead of Petracca, Oliver and Gawn's three games. Nothing you say will change that.

 

[Samdogg]

No one’s even bothered to update Macrae’s Wikipedia page to say that he won it.

The fact that you checked tells me you're bothered by it

 

[demondavey]

You can whine all you want, Macrae's best three games were still rated better, as he didn't poll in the Grand Final.

I still don't see any of you complaining about the Brownlow and Oliver Wines record-equaling vote tally.

What’s your point on this? Seriously, wines is a midfielder that won the Brownlow. What is the issue here you seem to continue referring to?

 

[demondavey]

The fact that you checked tells me you're bothered by it

Why would he be bothered by it? Discussion re the player is being had so he goes to said players profile to look at it. Big deal.

 

[pablo668]

I think that if it's going to be the Gary Ayres medal, it should go to the player who looks the most like Gary Ayres, especially the hair.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

The fact that you checked tells me you're bothered by it

Yeah it's all I've been able to think about since Saturday ):

 

[adammania9]

I don't understand why you're so keen to troll a club that played in a Grand Final while yours is in the dumpster. Seems a bit puzzling.

I support the club who has played in most losing grand finals. Trust me geezer, they're not as good as you think they might be. If you're not first, you're last.

 

[Samdogg]

Lol I support the club who has played in most losing grand finals. Trust me geezer, they're not as good as you think they might be. If you're not first, you're last.

Once again, I'm still much happier with where my club's at than yours. I reckon most people would be too.