There's a better way to decide the AFL's best player

Fair enough, but would there be this debate if Swan or Ablett had won?

4. My brother is a big carlton fan (I barrack for Melbourne), and he made the point that Judd kept Carlton in the contest during the third quarter. Yes, Collingwood won by a huge margin, but if you look beyond the score, it was a contest for a period of time, and Judd made it a contest.

The problem with Swan is that he had much more protection and support than Judd. Collingwood's midfield is much superior to Carlton's and so I don't agree at all that he was 'by far the best over the whole 22 rounds' as I don't think he was the best at all. You mention disposals; I think it's irrelevent. Judd has never averaged as many disposals in one season as Swan, yet what Swan can do with 30 disposals, he can do with 20. Personally I think that disposals is an overrated statistic, and no I don't think it's a fact that he deserved more than two best on grounds. BTW, regarding the AA team, I don't exactly think it should be taken as the final word. It's a wonderful honour, but it has featured plenty of questionable selections over the years (which is fine, as no award will please everybody, but it certainly is no exception).

Tell me a system that isn't flawed when it comes to human judgement? I also have trouble with "credible" media at the moment. Most think they are bigger than the game, therefore the arrogant disbelief of being proven wrong on Brownlow night (again)! It makes me laugh that they think their judgement is as wise as Solomon. You only have to look at the votes during the finals series to see the wide range of choices made for best players. (Sometimes I wonder if they watched the same game.) And don't get me started on stats as their justification for their decision. Why watch the game if you're going to give the best player to the the stats "king". And finally, they dare to criticise the Brownlow as a midfielders award. Just a touch hypocritical considering I didn't see to many key position or ruckman featuring in the media awards:D

Thats such rubbish, Dane Swan was by far the best over the whole 22 rounds. He was robbed. At one point in the season, he had a run of 35, 38, 31, 38, 39, 36, 37 disposals, got 1 best on ground in that period. Just because Judd is the best player in an average team dosent make him better than the best player in the best team. I could have picked 5 players who i would rank above him, and clearly im not the only one who thinks this because Judd is on the bench for the all australian team. Dane swan deserved more than 2 best on grounds for the season, and thats a fact.

1. The Brownlow Medal should be renamed the Best Midfielder's Medal - how often do defenders get votes. 2. The Umpires are no good at what they do, as in, award free kicks, and they are only getting worse. How can the league's most prestigious award be decided by them looneys? 3. Dane Swan was the best player in every Collingwood game I saw this season, and I'm saying that as a Richmond supporter. He actually works hard to win the ball, not like Ablett and Judd who get piss-ant handballs from their teammates so as they can rack up their possessions. Swan gets the ball all over the field, tackles, sets goals up, kicks them himself, etc. The only reason Ablett and Judd get so many votes is the umpires see them with the ball all the time. The likes of Swan, Hayes, Hodge, etc who dive in and win the hard ball don't get anything. 4. This award needs to be decided on impact on the game. For the record, in Round 6, Collingwood 24.11.155 def Carlton 16.6.102. Carlton C.Judd 3 votes. How can you be best on ground if your team loses by that amount?

Ben, did you see every game that Judd, Swan, Ablett etc played? How on earth can anyone say that Judd is undeserving, the guy is electrifying, he is a matchwinner and has singlehandedly change the tempo of games. He regularly gets the ball in the middle of a pack of players and has a seemingly impossible amount of time to dispose of it and when he does it is pinpoint to another player. Some players stand out more than others and he is one of those, for very good reason too. I don't follow Carlton, but credit where it is due and if he has been deemed by the umpires (who are neutral) to be worthy of the Brownlow, I'm happy with that.

I agree with amazonfan: 1. the umpires have a unique perspective - indeed, no one comes close to having their unique perspective; 2. the three of them, all neutral, pick who they think are the best three players on the ground, immediately after the game, it's sealed up, and counted on the Monday before the grand final - can't imagine how that can be improved on; 3. I have a fundamental problem with this whole "Swan had a better season than Judd" caper, and that is that invariably, by season's end, we have forgotten that Judd absolutely blitzed it from rounds 4 to 9, or whatever it was - he earned the votes, as decided at that point in time - and that's far, far more valuable than every pundit thinking at season's end that someone or the other was the best player.

Except it's not true that Judd wasn't clearly the 'best' player of the season, just as it's not true that Swan WAS clearly the best player of the year. Judd probably wasn't, but he had a fantastic season, and quite a few people regarded him as the best, one of the radio stations for example (Sheahan's one.) You may consider it to be clear-cut, but the umpires obviously disagreed and they know just as much as anyone. "So if the AFL is content to hand out this award year after year to guys who arguably don’t deserve it then that appears to make little sense (sure some years the system gets it right, but the flaws leave it open to getting it wrong)." Except nodody will ever agree on whom the best player of the year is. You talk about guys winning it who arguably don't deserve it, well many would say that they do, and who's to say who's right? You mention flaws, but you're talking about an award given by humans. There will always be 'flaws' because there will always be someone criticising it. Furthermore, how do you determine how the Brownlow got it right? When you agree with it? That's pretty narrow-minded. When everybody agrees with it? It's not going to happen. Take the AA team. I was shocked when Buddy was selected ahead of Brad Green, others were shocked that Hayes didn't make it, others were disappointed that Harry O' Brien made the team. Other people will have no problem with the team, but every year, it gets criticised. Personally, I don't believe that Swan had the best season of any player. I think that Hodge was better, and I think that Judd was a more worthy winner than Swan would have been (I think that Swan's statistics inflated his worth), but the point is that it's all a matter of opinion. The annoyance that I have is that critics of the winners don't stop to think that maybe, the umpires simply disagree with them, but instead they blame the system. You may disagree with the winners, fine, but please accept that the umpires have a right to their own view and they are not wrong simply because they gave it to someone you disagree with. "That’s why I’m calling for a change to its format. It doesn’t actually achieve what it sets out to achieve." But why? Because you disagree with some of the winners? I'm sorry, but this is pretty arrogant. Regarding the actual article, I completely disagree. "The issue for me with the Brownlow’s format along these lines is there’s no flexibility to it. Every game is judged as a 3-2-1, even when it’s a crucial top-of-the-table clash." The reason I love this precisely because it's rigid. The votes themselves are not important; they are symbolic. So the BOG gets 3 votes, the 2nd BOG gets 2 votes, the 3rd BOG gets 1 vote. It's does not mean that 'every best-on-ground performance is judged as worthy of three votes'. Rather it means that the umpires ask who were the best 3 players on ground in order. Then in order to determine who should win the Brownlow, they allocate votes. The problem IMO with flexible voting is two-fold. One it can be chaotic, if you decide to make the number of players offered votes flexible. But two, even if you say that you will award 5 players will be awarded up to 10 votes each, it becomes too subjective. I mean, how do you determine what's a 10 performance and what's an 8? My idea of a 10 vote performance no doubt differs from yours, for example. If you keep it at 3, 2, 1 votes; the votes themselves become objective as they merely represent the three best on ground rather than how good their performances were. I am open to the idea of increasing the votes to 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. It would never happen, but if there is to be a change, I think that should be it (as long as the rigidity remains). Regarding the umpires, NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! I can not stress how much I am opposed to this. Not only are the umpires perfectly able to walk and chew gum at the same time, not only are they arguably great judges of talent, but it is a unique tradition, and I don't know why we should desecrate arguably the world's greatest individual sporting award. "The question I guess is does the AFL really want a logical, credible and respected individual award every season, or are they happy blindly following tradition (and neglecting the Dane Swans, Wayne Careys and Gary Ablett Snrs)?" Two comments. One, many would argue that it is ' logical, credible and respected.' But also, for every Carey and Abett Sr (I can not believe you put Swan into the same category as Ablett Sr and Carey); there is a Williams, Stewart, Judd, Ablett, Hird, Voss, Thompson, Bunton, Skilton, Reynolds, Hutchinson, Murray, Quinlan, Platton, Lockett, Warne-Smith, Stynes, Buckley, Black, Goodes etc.... A number of champions have failed to win the Brownlow, but many have won it. Furthermore, there are plenty of great awards which legends haven't won. Take the Nobel in Literature. Joyce, Proust and Nobacov never won it, yet it remains the premier literature award. "For me, it makes perfect sense to break from tradition and find something more logical and rational." Tradition is important. The last Saturday in September, hating Collingwood, questionable pre-game entertainment at the GF, a day GF. These are all great traditions, as is the Brownlow being for the best and fairest and umpires voting upon it. I personally would be horrified if it was changed. Especially since, tradition aside, I think it works just fine. "The AFL owes it to the players who deserve their due credit." But which players are these? Swan? I would disagree with that. Hodge? Yeh, I would say so. Ablett? Hayes? The problem is that even if one accepts your premise that the players who deserve their due credit don't get at the Brownlow (which I don't, but nonetheless), it is incredibly debatable as to which player/s should receive their due credit. I'll conclude by saying that ultimately, who had the best season, is entirely subjective. You may disagree with Judd's Brownlow win, but that doesn't mean that the system failed or it wasn't logical and rational enough. Nobody is going to agree with every winner of any award.

At the end of the day, Dane Swan and Gary Ablett may have more possessions than Judd... but look at the teams they are in. Chris Judd is the standout at Carlton, and carries that team. So most of his possessions are hard ball gets, and clearances. The amount of times Dane Swan gets easy kicks in the backline is extraordinary, and Gary Ablett is given the ball by all of his teammates, whatever the situation is. The point is, Chris Judd works tirelessly for Carlton and gets 30 hard possessions, and Swan and Ablett get given 40 touches. It obvious who's the better player, and the umpires rewarded Judd with another Brownlow, as he deserved.

I have put a little thought into the whole process. Why not split the vote the following way. 1. MEDIA- (a mix of credible callers[abc springs to mind]) Allocated 9 votes in total to distribute as seen fit. 2.UMPIRRS- Given the same duties but vote on a 9,6,3 basis not the traditional 3,2,1 count. 3. COACHES/AFL REP- Winning coach allowed 4,2,1. Losing coach 2,1 and AFL representative 1, 2 and 3. I am sure there are holes but surely this would be a better balance, involving more people with a better say in it rather than 3 people. Thoughts? -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.

Why don't you start your own award, make up your own rules, judge it how you want, and give it to the pre-award favourite every year. Can't have these surprise results. Oh wait, that is what the Age already does. And the AFLPA. And the coaches association. And the Herald Sun. Or even better, let's get a panel of former players and journalists and select a whole team! Hang on, I think they do that somewhere as well. The Brownlow isn't the most prestigious award just because somebody says it is. IT is the most prestigious because the players want to win it, the punters like to see it, and the results sometimes surprise. Live with it, and please stop whingeing.

agreed. It was an absolute joke that the best player was not rewarded the highest individual award. I am a carlton supporter so i say this without any bias, but gary ablett and dane swan had much better seasons. I would even say lenny hayes, goddard, pendlebury, and hodge were better standouts in their games, but due to the current system, didnt even get close on votes. Judd is an exceptional player, but did not deserve to be name the leagues best player this year. i have always been a fan of the voting system used in the NBA. i stand to be corrected, but i think they use a panel of 25 voters made up of sportswriters / broadcasters / ex players etc, and one of those 25 is the collective vote of the fanbase which counts as one vote. Seeing how AFL media is made up of ex players, coaches, and people in the industry, surely the league could appoint a pretty decent in the know panel to make up the votes. Thow in the refs as one vote, the GMs or presidents as another, and you would have a pretty diverse collective of voters to decide who is the MVP. The fans would get their say, the media theres, the players, the refs, and coaches/presidents. as equal and unbiased as you can get right? There is a reason michael jordan won the award five times, why lebron has won it twice already, the system works. and it rewards the best individual every year.