Put the red marker pen through Brownlow ineligible players
Roar Pro By Bruce Walkley, 24 Sep 2008 Bruce Walkley is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Adam Cooney, Adam Goodes, Brownlow Medal, Buddy Franklin
It’s time to stop awarding Brownlow Medal votes to players after they become ineligible to win it.
Umpires should be given a red marker pen before each game and use it to put a line in the Football Record through all players who have been ruled out in earlier matches, like Buddy Franklin and Adam Goodes were this year.
Why? Because the three votes Franklin got from umpires Simon Meredith, Scott McLaren and Ray Chamberlain in Hawthorn’s game against the Brisbane Lions at York Park in round 19 could well have cost Lions champion Simon Black a second medal to add to the one he won in 2002.
Black, who finished one behind the Western Bulldogs’ Adam Cooney on Monday night, polled his 23 votes in eight of the first 16 games (he missed round seven) and didn’t score in the remaining six.
But consider this: when the Hawks played the Lions in round 19, the votes went to Franklin (3), Cyril Rioli (2) and Stuart Dew (1) in a one-sided game that Hawthorn won by 69 points, 16.14 (110) to 5.11 (41).
One reputable list of best players in that game disagreed with the umps by naming Dew as only the Hawks’ sixth-best player, in a cast of thousands, behind Franklin, Rioli, Luke Hodge, Cameron Stokes and Sam Mitchell.
The same list, not surprisingly in view of the score, deemed only four Lions players worthy of mention – Black, Jared Brennan, Travis Johnstone and Luke Power, in that order.
And it’s not all that unusual for the best player in a team that gets thrashed to be rated the third-best overall.
So if ineligible players had been barred from receiving votes, the top three players probably would have been Rioli, Dew and either Hodge, Stokes or Black (Mitchell was also ineligible).
If Black had got the nod for that one vote it would have been enough to give him another medal, as he would have finished tied on 24 votes with Cooney.
Franklin, who became ineligible after round 12, also got one vote in round 15 against the Sydney Swans and three in round 18 against Collingwood, so he should have finished with 13 votes instead of being sixth on 20.
Goodes, unable to win after round 11, picked up two votes against Fremantle in round 19, so should have finished with 19 votes, tied with Geelong’s Joel Selwood, instead of 21.
Apart from Black, plenty of other players would have picked up votes along the way if errant players had been ruled out from the time they became ineligible.
That said, it wasn’t much of a surprise to me that Cooney won.
I had a gut feeling that the winner would come from the Bulldogs, as there were too many Geelong and Hawthorn players taking votes from each other, and Gary Ablett missed three games at a vital time.
When my wife asked me just before the count started who would win, I nominated Ryan Griffen, whom I also picked in a nationwide tipping contest, but said I thought Cooney might cost him the medal by taking a few top votes for some outstanding performances.
Griffen started like a house on fire, with six votes after four rounds, but faded to total 10 up to round 14. He missed the following week’s game and didn’t score again.
The Brownlow night tribute to retired dual medallist Robert Harvey was a nice touch, and brought the staggering observation that there are 173 AFL-listed players who weren’t born when he played his first game in 1988 at the age of 16.
It was no surprise to hear that the St Kilda coach who threw him in at the deep end that day was Darrel Baldock.
The Doc was given his baptism of fire in official senior football for Tasmanian club East Devonport at the same age, after playing in a practice game when he was 12.
East’s coach was Lindsay Webb, one of the best Tasmanian footballers never to play in the VFL/AFL.
Baldock, who reportedly isn’t in the best of health these days, turns 70 next Monday. Happy birthday, Doc.
And a pat on the back to the AFL and Channel Ten for allowing Fox’s Main Event channel to air the Brownlow count live in NSW and Queensland. Pity about those finals games, though. Maybe next year.
Premiership pick: Cats by 11, coming from nine down at three-quarter-time. Last week 1 from 2 (never again, Saints), total so far 118/183.
Recommend this story.
Jim Beam Devil's Cut
As bourbon ages, a portion of liquid is lost from the barrel due to evaporation. This is known as the Angel's Share. When the bourbon is taken from the barrel, a certain amount is left trapped within the wood. It's that extracted liquid, and the rich flavours from deep within the barrel that are in Jim Beam's Devil's Cut.
Click here to learn more about Jim Beam's wicked new bourbon.
- Explore:
- Adam Cooney, Adam Goodes, Brownlow Medal, Buddy Franklin
September 24th 2008 @ 12:04pm
Millster said | September 24th 2008 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
And to catlover – I don’t follow your logic. Under current rules the result was known Monday night. What you’re suggesting in agreeing with Bruce about Black’s case is not the status quo. It is a change to the current state of affairs. So in short your post doesn’t adhere to the basic principles of logic.
September 24th 2008 @ 12:42pm
Bruce Walkley said | September 24th 2008 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
Hey, guys, I didn’t say Black WOULD have got the extra vote – just that it was possible he COULD have done. A lot of other players could have polled, too, if votes which were effectively dead weren’t wasted on ineligible players. Another solution, of course, would be to scrap the “fairest and best” requirement, remove the idea of making players ineligible, and just vote on the best players. After all, a lot of water has gone under the bridge since 1924.
September 24th 2008 @ 12:57pm
Michael C said | September 24th 2008 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Millster -
there’s an irony of course, in that Best & Fairest could perhaps also, like the Hall of Fame, include a ‘character’ component!!
Is it the Dally M where you actually score a negative 3 or something for a week if you are suspended – - or was I dreaming that??
Bruce et al
The Brownlow shouldn’t be studied too greatly – - it’s one of the vestiges of tradition and romance – - and so, treat it subjectively rather than overly objectively. Part of the romance is the uncertainty.
Otherwise, we can apply a mathmatical statistical rankings system that will deliver, statistically and weighted, the best player.
But – - as it is, sometimes, umpires might just get caught by the ‘beauty’ of a particular player…………….and, why not!!!!!
btw – I’m not for a minute suggesting that Adam Cooney is ‘beautiful’.
September 24th 2008 @ 1:07pm
Pippinu said | September 24th 2008 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Many have written critiques of the Brownlow over its 84 year history, and in truth, no one has ever come up with a convincing alternative.
At the end of the day, the umpires are the only ones who share the playing arena with the players, and have the most unique perspective of pretty much anyone.
They give the 3,2,1 to the three best players on the day from their perspective – end of story.
September 24th 2008 @ 1:24pm
Rich_daddy said | September 24th 2008 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Bruce,
Regard your comment
“Another solution, of course, would be to scrap the “fairest and best” requirement, remove the idea of making players ineligible, and just vote on the best players.”
You can’t seriously believe this is a viable alternative. This means Barry Hall could have potentially won the Brownlow medal this year. I’m sure the AFL would love to send this message out “yes smack the hell out of people and we will turn a blind eye and give you a medal”. Of course you could argue they do that already
But my point is, the Brownlow medalist should be someone everyone can look up to, not based purely on talent. If you want to reduce the number of ineligible players, then the tiggy touchwood rules that come become the tribunal should be addressed.
September 24th 2008 @ 1:31pm
Pippinu said | September 24th 2008 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
Re the issue of a suspended player being able to win it – it’s worth recalling that a suspended player has only ever been in the picture to win the medal on two occasions, and that was quite recent too.
In other words, I don’t think it’s even a big deal – leave the rules as they are.
September 24th 2008 @ 2:03pm
Millster said | September 24th 2008 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
Rich-Daddy – what sort of a fairy kingdom do you live in? To me it is entirely conceivable that a season can be ruled or dominated by one player, irrespective of what mischief that player may get up to on or off the field. Using your example, irrespective of his king-hitting skills, if Barry Hall was the one player all year from any club that was the most tactically astute, that showed sublime precision and skill, that kicked numerous critical goals, and that was consistently the difference between success and defeat, then surely wouldn’t it be just utterly hollow and rubbish for any other player to be given the premier award for the season?
How would you feel if it was you getting the Brownlow when everyone in the land knew that someone else was the season’s REAL impact player?
Using the Hall example again, he obviously didn’t get any votes in the weeks he was scratched out. So if – even with 5 or 6 or 8 weeks missing – he can amass more points than any other player (including those that played, and could have gained votes, every game all season) isn’t that even more of a demonstration of a justified recognition of his performance?
Note all I am using the Hall example theoretically to make the point.
September 24th 2008 @ 2:17pm
brissyfan said | September 24th 2008 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
At last some sense Millster – its like I said who can judge this fairness crap- and yes if players are elimated for one or more weeks surely it is punishment enough that they cannot get any votes that week
And to all of you who say never change anything – pls try to get a grip on the real world – things change all the time – and sometimes, believe it or not, for the better
September 24th 2008 @ 2:18pm
Rich_daddy said | September 24th 2008 @ 2:18pm | Report comment
Millster,
The whole point of the BEST and FAIREST is to provide an incentive to play the game fairly. Surely the message the AFL wants to present to players and youngsters is “play hard, play tough but play fair”. If the brownlow medal was awarded to a player who bites, scratches, punches, and fingers (yes Hoppa reference) other players, this hardly presents a good image for AFL. Under the current system, if a player is good but ill disciplined and he wants to win a brownlow, he understands that if he is ever going to, then he needs to address his discipline problem, regardless of his talent.
Anything that discourages dirty on field behaviour is a good thing, and I’m sure Cameron Ling and Brent Staker would agree with me.
September 24th 2008 @ 2:35pm
Millster said | September 24th 2008 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Yep fairy kingdom. All of a sudden the individual pinnacle of a sporting code is not just skill and game-impact. You’d prefer to retain this kind of prissy finishing-school, behaviour-changing element to the award. We just simply have to differ.
Also note that in my earlier post I didn’t suggest scrapping the award as-is. I understand the tradition behind it, and even the intention (though I think it is awfully naive). All I said is that a second equally-regarded award should be given to the outright best – irrespective of conduct.