SA Footy

another grub wrote:13 possessions, 1 mark, 1 tackle . 34 AFL pts. = 3 votes. Is next level ridiculous though MT

That's how good his possessions are. Star.

Armchair expert wrote:Coaches votes and Brownlow both had the same top 6 players but in different orders, not like they were completely off the mark.

Betting agencies were much the same.

another grub wrote:Its not as if its a split second 50/50 high tackle decision. These 4 blokes sit down over a lemonade after the game( I presume they look at stats sheet) and they came up with JHF ???? Did they think he was Bergman?

Bergman had a poor game that day, that was my first thought, I often got them mixed up, but at least I could blame alcohol.

amber_fluid wrote:Great effort by Neale to win 2 Brownlows.
Would anyone have him in their top 5 current best players?
I’d struggle to get him in my top 10

He’d make mine

The media, coaches, supporters all get to see the stats during & post match to decipher who was best. The umpires don’t. Then people are outraged when the umpires seemingly get some voting wrong. What do people expect? We are setting them up to fail.

Spargo wrote:The media, coaches, supporters all get to see the stats during & post match to decipher who was best. The umpires don’t. Then people are outraged when the umpires seemingly get some voting wrong. What do people expect? We are setting them up to fail.

On the other hand, i think looking at the stats will mean the award will only be given to the top stats players, and will take away some votes to key defenders and key forwards.
It's broken, but looking at the stats won't fix it IMO unless they dive into disposal efficiency etc

MW wrote:

Spargo wrote:The media, coaches, supporters all get to see the stats during & post match to decipher who was best. The umpires don’t. Then people are outraged when the umpires seemingly get some voting wrong. What do people expect? We are setting them up to fail.

On the other hand, i think looking at the stats will mean the award will only be given to the top stats players, and will take away some votes to key defenders and key forwards.
It's broken, but looking at the stats won't fix it IMO unless they dive into disposal efficiency etc

It’s the Brownlow Medal, it’s selected by the umpires, always has been and always should be.

There are many other awards to be won throughout the industry based on opinion, wherever people rank the validity is up to the individual.

Well done Lachie Neale, there were about 5 players that were seemingly “robbed”, if you get the ball enough, show great sportsmanship and leadership along with your side winning a large amount of games, you are going to give yourself every opportunity to win the award.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

MW wrote:

Spargo wrote:The media, coaches, supporters all get to see the stats during & post match to decipher who was best. The umpires don’t. Then people are outraged when the umpires seemingly get some voting wrong. What do people expect? We are setting them up to fail.

On the other hand, i think looking at the stats will mean the award will only be given to the top stats players, and will take away some votes to key defenders and key forwards.
It's broken, but looking at the stats won't fix it IMO unless they dive into disposal efficiency etc

It’s the Brownlow Medal, it’s selected by the umpires, always has been and always should be.

There are many other awards to be won throughout the industry based on opinion, wherever people rank the validity is up to the individual.

Well done Lachie Neale, there were about 5 players that were seemingly “robbed”, if you get the ball enough, show great sportsmanship and leadership along with your side winning a large amount of games, you are going to give yourself every opportunity to win the award.

I completely agree. The only ones outraged are the media, who have 'voted' for their own award during the year and they disagree with the votes or voting system. The voting system for the Brownlow is not 'wrong' it's just different. Accept it for what it is and move on.

We all know umpires can get it wrong .....it's how wrong!
It could, for some, open up questions of integrity in the voting.
We've already had one umpire cop his whack for being dishonest.

The worst thing about Fantasy footy etc is that people think the more stats = the better the player is. Completely wrong, the best players on the ground are the ones that had the biggest influence on the games result, racking up non damaging disposals are very misleading if relying on stats alone.

Dutchy wrote:The worst thing about Fantasy footy etc is that people think the more stats = the better the player is. Completely wrong, the best players on the ground are the ones that had the biggest influence on the games result, racking up non damaging disposals are very misleading if relying on stats alone.

That's why JHF can get 3 votes with 13 touches. Absolutely bang on mate.

A newly befriended neighbor previously worked for GWS and the AFL, he's got some people who works at Sportsbet in analytics.

Their Brownlow calculations are done two fold. They do a 54321 count in games to verify the 321 counts they do in games and, typically, come out with differing results. Probably saw last week AFL.com was rating Neale a huge chance.

The 54321 count had Petracca from Neale and Butters

The 321 count had Neale from Petracca, Butters and Daicos

Yes AFL.com.au had predicted the win to Neale in the lead up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't need to change the award, just reconsider it's standing against others.

regards,

REB