MVP Round 1; Sydney Swans VS Essendon

['51 Bewick]

5. Melksham
4. Cooney
3. Hibberd
2. Hurley
1. Ambrose

 

[Don Won]

5 - Melksham

4 - Hurley

3 - Howlett

2 - Cooney

1 - Heppell

 

[Halftimehero]

5 Heppell
4 Hurley
3 Cooney
2 Melksham
1 Howlett

 

[yaco55]

Coaches votes

8 - Parker
7 - Jack
6 - Kennedy
5 - Hanneberry
2 - Hurley
1 - Franklin
1 - Melksham

How Kennedy and Hanneberry got votes is staggering - Would have their key defenders Richards and Grundy before those two. Essendon players got 3 votes out of 30.

Then again Hodge dominated the game against Geelong and got 2 votes.

 

[VelvetSledge]

Coaches votes

8 - Parker
7 - Jack
6 - Kennedy
5 - Hanneberry
2 - Hurley
1 - Franklin
1 - Melksham

How Kennedy and Hanneberry got votes is staggering - Would have their key defenders Richards and Grundy before those two. Essendon players got 3 votes out of 30.

Then again Hodge dominated the game against Geelong and got 2 votes.

That is a staggering set of votes.

I'm not quite sure to make of that.

 

[akiva]

akiva
kelvin_sheedy
rumply
MarkG
Simboslice

Would you mind adjusting your votes as necessary, please?

Ta.

sorry about that.

5. Hurley
4. Cooney
3. Melksham
2. Goddard
1. Hooker

 

[A. N. Onymous]

Coaches votes

8 - Parker
7 - Jack
6 - Kennedy
5 - Hanneberry
2 - Hurley
1 - Franklin
1 - Melksham

How Kennedy and Hanneberry got votes is staggering - Would have their key defenders Richards and Grundy before those two. Essendon players got 3 votes out of 30.

Then again Hodge dominated the game against Geelong and got 2 votes.

I know Parker got a LOT of the ball on Saturday but a lot of those disposals were contested possesions that were snapped forward and fell into our lap. After he went down Sydney seemed to be more effective and composed with their clearance work and it was a big part of them running over the top of us. No argument on Parkers effort but his impact on the game wasn't worth a BOG in my eyes.

 

[caboose]

Coaches votes

8 - Parker
7 - Jack
6 - Kennedy
5 - Hanneberry
2 - Hurley
1 - Franklin
1 - Melksham

How Kennedy and Hanneberry got votes is staggering - Would have their key defenders Richards and Grundy before those two. Essendon players got 3 votes out of 30.

Then again Hodge dominated the game against Geelong and got 2 votes.

I've tried to make sense of those votes as well, and also struggled. They also get worse the more you think about how Longmire must have voted. I stand to be corrected, but my recollection is that he has tended to give just about all of his votes to Sydney players in this award in the past and it looks to me like he has started this year by doing exactly the same thing again. (Suggesting that Sydney had ALL of the best five players on the ground in that match in a genuinely fair form of voting is pretty much beyond belief to me tbh.)

Anyway, my guess would be they gave the votes as follows:

LONGMIRE:

5 - Hannebery (which is truly bizarre in itself)
4 - Jack
3 - Parker
2 - Kennedy
1 - Franklin

HIRD:

5 - Parker
4 - Kennedy
3 - Jack
2 - Hurley
1 - Melksham

 

[Jade]

5: Hurley - absolutely dominated Franklin. If he plays like that 15 times this year he's AA.
4: Melksham - I'm shocked to be sitting here.
3: Cooney - Tell you what, we seem to have a gift for spotting senior players that can offer value.
2: Heppell - Star.
1: Watson - Star-er.

 

[JDavey]

5. Hurls
4. Melkshake
3. Cooney
2. Heppell
1. Hooker

 

[Dons4Ever]

5. Hurley
4. Cooney
3. Melksham
2. Hooker
1. Howlett

 

[Doss]

I'm glad to see the coaches votes as they are. I could not believe some of the sycophantic rubbish naming Franklin as best on ground, or even best on for Sydney.

 

[Jade]

I'm glad to see the coaches votes as they are. I could not believe some of the sycophantic rubbish naming Franklin as best on ground, or even best on for Sydney.

He seriously suffers from the same affliction as Chris Judd.

When he's shit, he's still best on.......

 

[Don Won]

I'm glad to see the coaches votes as they are. I could not believe some of the sycophantic rubbish naming Franklin as best on ground, or even best on for Sydney.

As well as Hurley played on Franklin, his tackle on JD was a sliding doors moment (YES BARRETT, THAT IS WHAT A SLIDING DOORS MOMENT REALLY IS YOU #$%^!) a goal at that point and the game was ours.

He was certainly not the best on ground all night, but his efforts in the last quarter were the difference.

 

[Doss]

No doubt, but best on ground nor even best on for Sydney he was not.

 

[Don Won]

I guess your right. The order of people that I wish were not on the ground I had 1) Parker 2) Franklin followed by 3) Laidler.

 

[Is Don Is Good]

I've tried to make sense of those votes as well, and also struggled. They also get worse the more you think about how Longmire must have voted. I stand to be corrected, but my recollection is that he has tended to give just about all of his votes to Sydney players in this award in the past and it looks to me like he has started this year by doing exactly the same thing again. (Suggesting that Sydney had ALL of the best five players on the ground in that match in a genuinely fair form of voting is pretty much beyond belief to me tbh.)

How Longmire can say that the best 5 players on the ground were all Sydney in a match dominated by Essendon for 3 quarters is a joke. Shows how stupid this award actually is

 

[yaco55]

The issue is that Essendon players got 3 votes of 30 in a game they dominated for three quarters.

 

[VelvetSledge]

FINAL VOTES FOR ROUND 1:

5. Michael Hurley (224)
4. Jake Melksham (206)
3. Adam Cooney (146)
2. Dyson Heppell (98)
1. Ben Howlett (47)