2010 Brownlow Medal Count - Live scores *SPOILER ALERT*

[Psyber]

The Brownlow and the Magarey should be restricted to players who have never been suspended, perhaps?
That would give them relevance! [Good luck to the winners if suspended after they win it..]

[JK]

The Brownlow and the Magarey should be restricted to players who have never been suspended, perhaps?
That would give them relevance! [Good luck to the winners if suspended after they win it..]

Personally I reckon the "fairest" component should be removed from the awards criteria

[Psyber]

The Brownlow and the Magarey should be restricted to players who have never been suspended, perhaps?
That would give them relevance! [Good luck to the winners if suspended after they win it..]

Personally I reckon the "fairest" component should be removed from the awards criteria

Isn't that the only thing that distinguishes them from all the other awards?

[JK]

The Brownlow and the Magarey should be restricted to players who have never been suspended, perhaps?
That would give them relevance! [Good luck to the winners if suspended after they win it..]

Personally I reckon the "fairest" component should be removed from the awards criteria

Isn't that the only thing that distinguishes them from all the other awards?

I would have thought the fact this award was decided solely by umpires was the distinguishing factor.

What effect does having a tag of being "fair" have, it doesnt affect how good the player is when he graces the turf and should he win a medal after missing games then it further supports the theory he was the best player running around.

[whufc]

The Brownlow and the Magarey should be restricted to players who have never been suspended, perhaps?
That would give them relevance! [Good luck to the winners if suspended after they win it..]

Personally I reckon the "fairest" component should be removed from the awards criteria

Isn't that the only thing that distinguishes them from all the other awards?

I would have thought the fact this award was decided solely by umpires was the distinguishing factor.

What effect does having a tag of being "fair" have, it doesnt affect how good the player is when he graces the turf and should he win a medal after missing games then it further supports the theory he was the best player running around.

very good point,

add to that its hard to compare winners from different eras especially with how the modern day player can be suspended for something that wasnt even a free kick years ago.

[gossipgirl]

well its an outdated old VFL award - enough said

[Punk Rooster]

I feel sorry for Ablett, Judd should not have been eligible after he split Pav open earlier in the year. I agree he is an umpires favourite, but to a degree so is Ablett and Swan, its just the latter two had competition from people in their own sides.

Eddies face was the best part of the night, i wonder what his face will look like if they lose on Saturday, ill be watching just for that

not so sure about that, last season Swan polled woefully and this year it appears the umps only thought he was good enough fro wat 2 BOGS was it?

Judd is a champion no doubting, and regardless of being a stand alone star for Carlton, seems to poll votes for just turning up, id be interested to know his career votes, every year he is up there.

Also how often does someone poll FIVE straight BOGS?!? I dont even think Carlton won 5 straight did they?? And the umps are saying out of both teams, for 5 straight weeks he was the best?

I'm not fussed that Swan missed out, but the way Judd won it is a mockery of the concept.

[Mr Beefy]

well its an outdated old VFL award - enough said

It's now an outdated AFL award.

[Psyber]

I would have thought the fact this award was decided solely by umpires was the distinguishing factor.
What effect does having a tag of being "fair" have, it doesnt affect how good the player is when he graces the turf and should he win a medal after missing games then it further supports the theory he was the best player running around.

For the sake of the argument I'll state something I expect to be unpopular here.
The issue is that both the Brownlow and the Magarey awards were promulgated originally in an era when the people running football thought it was a sport and that being fair mattered.
Sport was about being "sporting" not just winning. That is why the votes were set up to be given by the Umpires.

I suspect society has now changed permanently, and win at all cost is, and will remain, the dominant belief.
Football is not sport but a mass entertainment, for the mass market, just as the Roman games were.
Being sporting has no place any more, and these awards are redundant.
They should be replaced with awards for the "most effective and brutal" selected by the ex-player thugs who commentate, like Dermie.

It was apparent in my youth that the philosophy of being sporting was going, and "brutality wins" was the coming rule.
Even way back then, I had no intention of being permanently maimed in the interest of playing what to me was only a game.
That's why I dumped football for Hockey aged 13 - no one then playing Hockey deliberately set out to cripple the opposition for being better at getting the ball.
I saw that not as cowardice, but as common sense, as I expected to live a long life and wanted to still be able to go in moving around freely as I got older, and not be semi-crippled, or lose an eye or a kidney.
[Admittedly that fact that "Chicken" Hayes was the school football coach at the time may have made the issue more obvious than at other schools.]