Roast The Brownlow has no credibility left

[FlowersByIrene]

Why should they be close?

Surely an umpire and a coach would ha e very different criteria for what constitutes being the 'best' player in the ground?

Why is that?

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Take the voting away from the Umps already. Who gives a stuff about tradition, they just get it wrong.

The main reason that it is a terrible idea to have umpires vote isn't because they get it wrong, but because, as we've already seen, there is a massive risk of gambling corruption.

You are introducing a way in which officials could become compromised by organized crime that shouldn't exist at all. There is absolutely no need to open this risk up whatsoever. Officials shouldn't have anything to with gambling markets beyond the outcome itself. It's far too easy to manipulate.

This competition is the biggest bush league in the world. There are so many amatuer aspects to it, it's unbelievable.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

I agree with you on this except one point. The players you have mentioned have been the best midfielders of this year, not necessarily the best players. Like the umpires the media only report on the Mids. Meanwhile backman are holding good forwards to nothing and forwards are towelling up good backman.
Did Cripps have a better year than Hogan? I can argue yes and no on that answer. Hogan was sensational this year. What does he get out of his sensational year? Nothing, won't even win his clubs B & F as they are also weighted towards mids.

I am a traditionalist but if football is to be seriosu we now need to separate these awards into 3 catogories, Backs Mids, Forwards. 3 MVP, 3 Brownlows.
We simply are not awarding the best players anymore. Just the best mids.

Hogan had some excellent games, but didn’t have as many great games as Cripps or Daicos. It’s not just the Brownlow that goes to midfielders, it’s also coaches award, peer award and every other media award all go to midfielders because they are the most influential players in the team. It’s not since Carey has the best player in the comp not been a midfielder, Gawn perhaps but still played mid.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

As for umpires giving votes I agree they shouldn’t have that responsibility, in a previous life I umpired senior footy in a top suburban league and 90% of games I would come off the ground with literally no idea who to give votes to, the umpire has so many things to do out in the ground that the last thing they are concentrating on is who is the best player on the ground. I used to tell my mates if you wanted to get votes just run around calling out your own name, because the ump would remember hearing it a lot and assume you played well.

 

[Cookie]

The problem is people equating record votes to record year.
It doesn't mean that.
Cripps polled 29 votes when he won in 2022 (and played 3 less games). Walsh polled 30 in 2021 when he came equal 4th.
The votes from one year to the next are simply not comparable in any way.

Before it was 25-30 that would win it, you could win it with 20-25 votes. Players have won it with sub 20 votes.

So this year Cripps polled 45 votes from 24 games (1.875 per game). In 1940, Herbie Matthews and Des Fothergill tied on 32 votes from 18 games (1.778 per game). Not much of a difference.

Massive difference if you apply some grey matter.
There was a war going on. Most of the players enlisted.
Have a look at Melbourne's premierships at the same time, and read between the lines.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Why is that?

Because a coach has a plan that involves 22 players playing their role as instructed.

Players don't just go out and play. They go out and do what the coach tells them to do.
We don't know what that is. Umpires don't.

From a coach's perspective, a guy playing an important defensive role perfectly could make him the best player on the ground - whereas the rest of us might think they've been quiet.

A guy could get 25 kicks but break team rules with each one. Most people would think they've been good - but the coach wouldn't.

 

[Partridge]

Fair points that the system has been flawed forever. I guess we used to respect the umps abut more so we respected their decisions.

On the cherrypicked stats thing, anything from champion data is sus, and at least as bad as the poor demoralised umps.

I blame the boys club afl. How did Dillon's wife know Bont was no chance?

Not so much that, but think back to when the award was inaugurated.

1924. A full century ago. The game was much, much, slower. Only one umpire, who probably could make a decent fist of working out who the best player was, as there weren't nearly so many rules nor so much going on in the game itself. I don't know what kind of reporting there was, but I'd be pretty confident it wasn't 24/7 saturation of absolute garbage that it is now.

Today with the modern game, it's light years apart. Too many umpires, too many rules and far, far too many interpretations, and the creep of what the umpires actually do (some of it self-inflicted) has made the decision of working out the best players just about impossible.

Respect for the umpires would return if they returned to just umpiring. Not offering advice, not being their junior coach, just umpire. Most fans would be happy with that instantly.

 

[Partridge]

You really just put intelligent and Kane Cornes in the same sentence?

He actually forms his own opinions and doesn't just pick the star players from each team. That alone makes him stand out. Buckley is pretty good too.

 

[Cyclops]

Not so much that, but think back to when the award was inaugurated.

1924. A full century ago. The game was much, much, slower. Only one umpire, who probably could make a decent fist of working out who the best player was, as there weren't nearly so many rules nor so much going on in the game itself. I don't know what kind of reporting there was, but I'd be pretty confident it wasn't 24/7 saturation of absolute garbage that it is now.

Today with the modern game, it's light years apart. Too many umpires, too many rules and far, far too many interpretations, and the creep of what the umpires actually do (some of it self-inflicted) has made the decision of working out the best players just about impossible.

Respect for the umpires would return if they returned to just umpiring. Not offering advice, not being their junior coach, just umpire. Most fans would be happy with that instantly.

Thats a fair summary. I've been told the umps have little earpieces and they have a coach who whispers encouragement to them during the game, is this the case? Talk about taking interference too far.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Because a coach has a plan that involves 22 players playing their role as instructed.

Players don't just go out and play. They go out and do what the coach tells them to do.
We don't know what that is. Umpires don't.

From a coach's perspective, a guy playing an important defensive role perfectly could make him the best player on the ground - whereas the rest of us might think they've been quiet.

A guy could get 25 kicks but break team rules with each one. Most people would think they've been good - but the coach wouldn't.

The point of the coaches vote and the Brownlow is to identify who played the best, the umpires and the coaches are both doing that, from slightly different perspectives. You are correct, a coach may not reward a stat stuffer who was hacking the ball forward against the gameplan (and we'd all argue they shouldn't).

But the fact that the Brownlow results largely aligned with the coaches votes show that both systems are adequate for picking the best players (albeit from potentially different perspectives) and while there may be the odd anomaly, they get it right largely at the end of the day.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Don't know what everyones upset about. I was baffled seeing some of the predictions for low 30s votes for Cripps and Daicos going into the night. They both ended up a touch higher than I thought but I was adamant after critically looking at both their seasons that Cripps would win (and break the record which I said repeatedly over the last couple of months) and Nick would come 2nd in the high 30s.

Both had spectacularly consistent years and while neither produced the pure brilliance of a Dustin Martin 2017 campaign both were just ultra consistent in teams that had no other standouts... The votes were always going to flow in.

Cripps getting the extra 4-5 votes was unexpected but not preposterous, I thought he should have ended on about 40.

 

[Partridge]

The main reason that it is a terrible idea to have umpires vote isn't because they get it wrong, but because, as we've already seen, there is a massive risk of gambling corruption.

You are introducing a way in which officials could become compromised by organized crime that shouldn't exist at all. There is absolutely no need to open this risk up whatsoever. Officials shouldn't have anything to with gambling markets beyond the outcome itself. It's far too easy to manipulate.

This competition is the biggest bush league in the world. There are so many amatuer aspects to it, it's unbelievable.

It's the same problem Boxing had in the early days when the referee was one of the judges. Since abandoned eons ago for those very logical and sane reasons.

Why footy is so bush league in how it is administered? Easy. It's run by cashed up bogan scum. Their entire life is a footy (or cricket) dressing room, or a bar, with their 4-6 footy (or cricket) mates, and every single type of broadcast is moving relentlessly towards emulating that (The Front Bar openly DOES emulate that). The ones that aren't ex-players are utterly lovestruck fanboys, who are desperate to not lose their privilege by actually doing their job with a semblance of competence and independence. So it's completely insular and circular. There can't be criticism because they do everything perfectly. Or in their own words, "going beautifully".

 

[burge13]

If they want an umpires award, why not go back to 3 on field umpires (not sure 4 has made anything better) and use the 4th as a 'voting umpire' from the sidelines. No commentary for bias, just watch and vote

 

[chickenonachain]

When the media constantly bombards you with how good Daicos, Cripps, Heeney or whoever are surely this influences the umpires.

 

[DanA]

Cripps was the right winner IMO but in no way was it a historic dominant season by him and it’s just a joke how few votes non-midfielders get.

 

[JackOutback]

When the media constantly bombards you with how good Daicos, Cripps, Heeney or whoever are surely this influences the umpires.

Harley Reid and Naicos trading Charlies for a decade incoming.

 

[Sweet16]

It would almost be better if we allowed 3 people from Champion Data to do the award. I think they would be better at picking non-midfielders.

Champion Data had Cripps winning.

 

[Daka]

The Norm Smith is a more prestigious award than the Brownlow in the AFL.

As a player as if you would choose a Brownlow, than being BOG voted by a panel.
The umpires can't even get decisions right on-field. they giving votes to players who have stinkers for cying out loud.

You can debate Norm Smith voting all you like but you not winning the award if you have a stinker, I can tell you that.

 

[Ricmel]

It’s not since Carey has the best player in the comp not been a midfielder, Gawn perhaps but still played mid.

Riewoldt in 2004/05 probably regarded as best in game. Buddy in 08. Even this year Cameron was at times called best in AFL.

It is not just recently that KPs have been ignored by umpires. A few ruckman have won it in 60s and 70s. Plugger is only KPF. Not sure a KPD had ever won it.

It is a flawed award, but so is the draw, so is the draft, so are the trading rules.

The Brownlow quirkiness is a minor issue in the game. Most educated supporters put higher value on MVP and coaches award.

 

[Proper Gander]

The count was unusual obviously but overall it’s the ranking that matters. It’s not like there weren’t large numbers of people that thought Cripps wouldn’t stand a chance. Great player and was always going to be up there.

Like many I would like to see the contributions of players other than midfielders feature in the votes, but that ship sailed a long time ago so I’m not going to rage every year.

 

[Ricmel]

The Norm Smith is a more prestigious award than the Brownlow.
You can debate Norm Smith voting all you like but you not winning the award if you have a stinker, I can tell you that.

Norm Smith is a better guide to BOG in a particular game but it is one game. You can argue that Cripps got some soft votes but you can’t argue he didn’t have a great season and that is harder to pull off than one game.

 

[Substance]

The Brownlow peaked in 2009. Ablett, the best player of the modern era, won it. Fev was eventually thrown out by crown security after this:



Vale the glory days of the Brownlow

 

[Daka]

Norm Smith is a better guide to BOG in a particular game but it is one game. You can argue that Cripps got some soft votes but you can’t argue he didn’t have a great season and that is harder to pull off than one game.

Cripps deserved it, but not the amount of votes both him & Daicos polled way too many.

 

[kickazz]

Maybe it's not so much the voting that has become more biased toward midfielders, but the game itself.

A key position player who doesn't have a reasonable tank doesn't get a game these days. It is harder for the true exponents of the 1on1 to shine. Even little things like the fact that the modern game is MUCH stricter on what gets paid a mark (or in the back, etc) just makes these players less prominent.

But we still have so many good forwards and defenders. I still think giving a midfielder who has a good game of say 30 disposals can be lazy. Sometimes a small forward kicking 4 goals is the game winner. Midfielders often get many possessions anyway cos they are in the middle.

I'd like to see a statistical analysis done - you'd need to come up with some sort of heuristic to measure how good a game a player had (supercoach score could be a crude example to start with) - and then look at all performances that are 1, 2, and 3 standard deviations above the mean for each position - and how this correlates with votes received.

I'm guessing that someone like Toby Green kicking four goals and having a couple of assists would be a fair way above the mean but not rewarded as much as a 30 possession midfielder game.

Just think forwards have to do TOO much to get votes now.