Millions of Australians are absolutely not at all shocked tonight, as Patrick Dangerfield was named the 2016 AFL Brownlow Medallist.
Dangerfield polled a total of 35 votes, the most ever recorded by a player in a single year under the 3-2-1 system, to take out the 2016 prize.
All the wash-up from the 2016 Brownlow Medal:
» Who got the most votes for your team?
» Red carpet photos and dress ratings
» WATCH: Majak Daw wins mark of the year
» WATCH: Eddie Betts wins goal of the year
» Re-live the night with our live blog
» The full leaderboard
» Every vote
He won the title from Sydney’s Luke Parker in second on 26 votes, and Dustin Martin of Richmond in third on 25.
Former teammate Rory Sloane had the fourth most votes of any player with 24, but was ineligible as a result of his suspension in Round 22.
Andrew Gaff, Dan Hannebery and Adam Treloar finished equal fourth on 21 votes apiece, while Marcus Bontempelli and Lachie Neale were the other players to crack the 20-vote mark.
“I feel so lucky to be involved in such a wonderful football club,” Dangerfield said in his speech after winning the award.
“I don’t think any individual that ever stands up here, stands up here just because of themselves.
“It is a collaborative effort from previously Adelaide and now Geelong and the group of players that we have at the Cats, the group of coaches.”
Dangerfield also praised his skipper Joel Selwood, who recorded 18 votes.
“I’ve been so lucky to spend the year with Joel,” said Dangerfield.
“He’s such a courageous player. I don’t know how you measure will but I don’t know if anyone’s ever played with more of it.”
In the other awards of the night, Jimmy Bartel was recognised for his commendable off-field activities with the Jim Stynes Community Leadership Award. Neville Jetta, Jack Hombsch and Jarrod Harbrow were the other finalists for the award.
Eddie Betts won the goal of the year award for a record third time after previously winning in 2006, and 2015. The result made him the first ever player to win the award in consecuitve seasons.
Majak Daw won the mark of the year award for his screamer against Collingwood, becoming the first North Melbourne player to win it since Winston Abraham in 1998.
dbjm
Guest
Completely agree. Lobb clearly had the better mark. To be honest I found Daws mark quite boring. Certainly nothing I could do, but Lobbs mark was much more impressive
andrew
Guest
I have to agree. I wonder if there was an extra agenda in that because the Lobb mark looked no less spectacular or courageous every time you saw it and I can't imagine a person voting for the Daw mark, or any other mark, over the Lobb one.
Rissole
Guest
It also seems that umpires are not afraid to award votes to players on the losing team if they deem them in the best three on the ground. Previously if a player was a clear B.O.G but played on the losing team they would generally net 1 vote from that game, with the 3 and 2 votes going to the best two players from the winning team. Now those players are getting 3 votes. Just look at how Merrett & Cripps polled last night.
I hate pies
Guest
More importantly than the brownlow, the mark of the year needs to be discussed. How did Rory Lobb not win it? It was by far more courageous and skilful than Daw's. Daw jumped high, but he's a tall bloke. Hangers like that aren't actually very hard if you get a sit; heck even I've taken one like that. The cynic in me think it's a better story for the AFL for Daw to win it, because Lobb's mark was clearly better.
anon
Guest
You've made some great points. I think it's a few factors. Umpires do get starstruck and have their subconscious biases. The top players get so much media exposure and umpires are aware of who the form players are. Naturally they gravitate to giving votes to those players. Another factor is umpire scrutiny. It's just easier to give votes to possession accumulators since you don't want someone summoning you to VFL House the day after the Brownlow count to explain why you didn't give 3 votes to the face of the league for their 38 possession game. A third factor is players are simply better conditioned to play at a high level throughout an entire season now. Players are more consistent, more professional, better prepared and have higher expectations placed on them. The last factor is that the best players almost universally play in the midfield now. This is a midfielders medal, the votes traditionally go to midfielders, all the best players play in the midfield and scoop up all the votes. Go back 20-25 years and the best players in the league aren't pure midfielders. Carey, Ablett Sr, Grant, Lockett, Richardson, Kernahan, Williams. See a trend. They're big strong athletic key position players, apart from Williams who was typical of many midfielders. The most talented players were primarily key position players. 6'3" guys solidly built who could hold contested marks and had all the skills. They were the match winners. 20 years ago a guy like Fyfe would play at CHF. Now he can have the most impact and has the physical capability of playing in the midfield.
mds1970
Roar Guru
It's a remarkable achievement and interesting stat that Patrick Dangerfield's 35 votes is more than the combined total of joint winners Robert DiPierdomenico and Greg Williams in 1986. One trend I have noticed in recent years is that the threshold to win Brownlow Medals has increased remarkably. In the last eight seasons, 7 players have polled 30+ votes. Before that, excluding two years in the 1970s when a different voting system was used, only 5 players had ever achieved that. No player has won a Brownlow with fewer votes than rounds played since Ben Cousins in 2005; but it was a reasonably frequent occurrence before that. Maybe fodder for an article if I can find the time and inspiration to expand on that point; or maybe someone else wants to run with it. But I'm intrigued why that would be the case. Is a single player dominating seasons more so now than was the case in seasons past? Are umpires subliminally affected by media hype over well-performing players, more than was the case in bygone eras, when it comes to casting votes? Or is it a rogue statistical quirk that I'm reading more into than is actually there?