Roast The Brownlow has no credibility left

[Shane Heard]

Did Neale have a 10x better season than Rowan Marshall? Umpires seem to think so.

Sheezel equally shunned.

Sheezel is another one. His season reminds of Wanganeen or Rama playing in the back pocket at 18/19/20 years old and killing it week after week.
The Sheez should’ve had 15 votes at least…

 

[Jeremias]

Did Neale have a 10x better season than Rowan Marshall? Umpires seem to think so.

Sheezel equally shunned.

That's a very simplistic - and not even close to accurate - way of looking at the award.

 

[Shane Heard]

True.

The way to fix it is umpire sequestration.

sequestration..in that umpires should be quarantined for the entire season in a secure facility separated from society until after the count?

I’d go with that…

 

[Shane Heard]

That's a very simplistic - and not even close to accurate - way of looking at the award.

No it’s not simplistic. If Marshall was playing in the 70s when ruckman were valued he’d have 25 votes easy this year.

The kid is an absolute gun.

 

[Shane Heard]

It's still by far the most prestigious individual award. An invitation for life to the biggest annual AFL piss up - who wouldn't want that.

Ben Cousins likes this..

 

[Jeremias]

No it’s not simplistic.

Of course it is. It's also completely inaccurate. Surely this doesn't really need explaining?

If Marshall was playing in the 70s when ruckman were valued he’d have 25 votes easy this year.

OK. Relevance?

The kid is an absolute gun.

Yes, he is excellent. That wasn't really a part of the discussion, though.

 

[Shane Heard]

Why the F would Eddie McGuire feel the need to shoehorn the term ‘Elders’ into his ‘just let a panel of retired players pick the Brownlow’ plan?

Of all people, why would he consider it a good idea to transplant that term and use it in a football context that it’s never before been used in.

The guy is nuts.

He’s a ****ing imbecile who thinks he’s the smartest ideas man in the history of the game and never reads the room ..just like a true narcissist

 

[Shane Heard]

Of course it is. It's also completely inaccurate. Surely this doesn't really need explaining?


OK. Relevance?



Yes, he is excellent. That wasn't really a part of the discussion, though.

Over 10 seasons from 1972 to 1981, six ruckmen won Brownlow Medals.

Dempsey , Moore , Barry Round , Moss etc

Simon Madden Essendon bnf 77’ and 79’

 

[MacMum]

For as long as I can remember the Brownlow has thrown up surprise winners......so why the big hoohaa over Lachie winning it this year? You all know he is a very very good player etc......it's not like he's some random from a nothing team. It's also more often than not NOT one of the favorites speculated on by all the so called "experts"

In this case Lachie was in the top 5 chosen as who could win....and he did

Talk about sour grapes that grew and grew as if it's a first and never happened before.

Get over it people.

 

[Jeremias]

Over 10 seasons from 1972 to 1981, six ruckmen won Brownlow Medals.

Dempsey , Moore , Barry Round , Moss etc

Simon Madden Essendon bnf 77’ and 79’

OK. I'll ask again, relevance?

 

[Shane Heard]

For as long as I can remember the Brownlow has thrown up surprise winners......so why the big hoohaa over Lachie winning it this year? You all know he is a very very good player etc......it's not like he's some random from a nothing team. It's also more often than not NOT one of the favorites speculated on by all the so called "experts"

In this case Lachie was in the top 5 chosen as who could win....and he did

Talk about sour grapes that grew and grew as if it's a first and never happened before.

Get over it people.

And you have perfectly encapsulated the ridiculous absurdity of the winning result year after a year ..hence ..the award has lost all credibility

 

[Shane Heard]

OK. I'll ask again, relevance?

You’re a few fries short of a happy meal aren’t ya..

 

[Jeremias]

You’re a few fries short of a happy meal aren’t ya..

I usually ask for extra fries to make sure I'm not short-changed.

It's strange you can't answer a simple question.

 

[flyinghi64]

I don't think it is about people complaining their favorite player got cheated out of a vote here in there or Neale not being a worthy winner as much as it is about the players and performances that are getting the umpire votes week to week has the consistency of the MRO.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

because many people are behind the curve. Just like Carlton fans getting up and about Cripps being the best in the game and value-ing the Brownlow heavy, yet didn't make the AA team and shouldn't have made the squad in 2023. Ollie Wines, probably not a top 150 player in the league despite having a record tying 36 votes a couple of seasons ago. It means next to nothing.

All it literally means is that after each game the umpires huddle together and somehow come up with a consensus opinion as to who were the three best players on the ground.


These opinions are no more relevant than anyone else's.


It does not determine the best player, it is merely an opinion of the umpires. And given that there are 3 or 4 of them - it's highly unlikely that each umpire agrees with the final decision.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

I am happy enough to keep the Umps awarding votes. However I would like a simple quality assurance program put in place and some guidelines. The latter should emphasise the Medal is not just for mids.

For example each game Umps closely watch marking contests for infractions between key forwards and backs. They should be able to observe the skills displayed and how overall a back or forward contributed to the game. Probably wrong but I think Peter Knights was the last KPD to regularly poll well.

Only one full back - the great Fred Goldsmith - won a Charley. The Prince of full backs, Jack Regan should have.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

This is such a ridiculous overreaction.

The Brownlow is a completely subjective award. It relies on the opinions of the umpires; naturally there will be people who disagree both with the result and the way we get there.

Subjectivity breeds unexpected results. Every year we see them and every year they're met with outrage and calls to change the process.

No. If you are so hell bent on the award perfectly reflecting your expectations of the season that has just unfolded, then this award is not for you. And I dare say, what needs to change is both your expectation of the evening and how you view the award.

The Brownlow is viewed as a hugely prestigious award. Whether you agree with that view - or the process undertaken to crown a winner - does not change that.

Are people really under the impression that these voting anomalies are new? That they haven't been around for decades?
Of course they have. And you're completely naïve if you think otherwise.

And yet we still - for the most part, with some notable exceptions - hold the winners in high esteem. There is a reason for that, and rightly so.

If you want to consider the Brownlow of lesser significance than other awards, all power to you. Some prefer the MVP and there is merit to that opinion. But let's not pretend as though there are no 'credibility' issues with that either, because there are plenty. Yet conveniently in these sorts of discussions, those shortcomings are overlooked.

The only change I'd consider making to the award is affording the umpires an opportunity to view the stats before they submit their votes. But even that opens up a whole can of worms that I believe we would be better off without.


Geez we really did a number on you, didn't we?

Cry harder.

Agree with all of that, except for these two lines:

"And yet we still - for the most part, with some notable exceptions - hold the winners in high esteem. There is a reason for that, and rightly so."

There is no logical reason for the Brownlow to be held in higher esteem than any other opinion based award. There's a case that the umpires opinion on who is the best player makes it less relevant than any other award out there.


"The only change I'd consider making to the award is affording the umpires an opportunity to view the stats"

Stats are misleading. Certainly in isolation. They should never be a factor in determining who the best players are.
FWIW, the only reason I actually like the Brownlow at all is because I know it's a gut feel award where stats are not considered.

The one change that should occur, is that each umpire gives their own 3-2-1, rather than a consensus.

 

[Shane Heard]

All it literally means is that after each game the umpires huddle together and somehow come up with a consensus opinion as to who were the three best players on the ground.


These opinions are no more relevant than anyone else's.


It does not deter the best player, it is merely an opinion of the umpires. And given that there are 3 or 4 of them - it's highly unlikely that each umpire agrees with the final decision.

So…Explain JHF & Phillips’ 3 vote then..cause it’s so wrong it’s not funny.

Not even the most nuffy simpleton out there in the suburbs would vote that crap.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

There are plenty in the media that have less idea than the umpires

No doubt

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So…Explain JHF & Phillips’ 3 vote then..cause it’s so wrong it’s not funny.

Not even the most nuffy simpleton out there in suburbs would vote that crap.

I would suggest that the 'consensus' nonsense is what happened.

The senior umpire apparently gets the final say, and for whatever reason they felt he was BOG and stood their ground on it. Either that, or they just made a mistake.

Regardless, if you gave each umpire their own 3-2-1 instead of a consensus then it wouldn't have happened.

 

[HalloweenJack]

...

Only one full back - the great Fred Goldsmith - won a Charley. The Prince of full backs, Jack Regan should have.

Verdun Howell won the Brownlow, tying with Bob Skilton, in 1959 and he was the Saint Kilda fullback.

 

[Shane Heard]

I would suggest that the 'consensus' nonsense is what happened.

The senior umpire apparently gets the final say, and for whatever reason they felt he was BOG and stood their ground on it. Either that, or they just made a mistake.

Regardless, if you gave each umpire their own 3-2-1 instead of a consensus then it wouldn't have happened.

That doesn’t make much sense ..man.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Verdun Howell won the Brownlow, tying with Bob Skilton, in 1959 and he was the Saint Kilda fullback.

Many thanks. Howell was a terrific player.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Someone made a good point about the JHF game that the umpire probably confused JHF with Miller Bergman (As the Adelaide Advertiser even did). Bergman's game wasn't that special either, but his extra stats, plus the context of JHF getting booed arund that time and the umpires maybe feeling sorry for him might make an explanation (a bad one, but still).

 

[Back One Out]

He’s a ******* imbecile who thinks he’s the smartest ideas man in the history of the game and never reads the room ..just like a true narcissist

Eddie: "Let's all take a deep breath..." [and everybody listen to ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME]