Tom Mitchell did not deserve the Brownlow Medal

like Martin in 17 Dangerfield in 16 Fyfe in 15 Why should it be any different for Mitchell

Fyfe and Cripps if these 2 players play in 10 plus wins a year then Mitchell isn't even in the conversation. Mitchell gets lots of cheap (Gary Abbett) possessions this is true, his disposals miss the target 55 percent of the time this is true, he doesn't get tagged because he does hurt teams as much as other midfielders again true. But, to say he didn't deserve the Brownlow Medal, because he should've been reported is just silly, he wasn't suspension he got the most votes, right or wrong and he wins. I didn't watch every Hawks game but I dare say if you went over every minute of every game and gave out votes that he may of miss a couple of 3 votes. Mitchell like his father is a star well done to win the medal and I do believe he will win another or 2, umpires will see his head pop up a lot and that will get the job done.

Another jealous comment from a disturbed personage on his own self identity trip, Live and let live..... give him space for his endless selfish or self serving diatribe, we need him and this so called viewpoint so we see the difference in fair play, fair votes and disgruntelled confusion. Long live our ability not to be mislead and to know the difference, Green....Florida. USA.

You may remember that when Buckley was interviewed after the Hawthorn game in 2017 asked why he didn't tag Mitchell, said he didn't feel that his possessions were really hurting Collingwood as they were not well directed. Naturally, Mitchell came out this with that ringing in his ears and had a blinder against the Pies this year.

Sounds like they're a balanced team. West Coast have kept winning games without since Nick Natanui got injured and Gaff got rubbed out for his unprovoked coward punch.

The article was more about the fact he maybe should've been suspended for his high contact with Goldstein. The high possessions are an interesting one. They certainly are amazing the numbers he generates, but there was some stat I heard that indicates there is virtually zero difference between the Hawks winning and losing should Mitchell get 40+ disposals, to when he gets around the 20-30 mark.

It has nothing to do with elite players but is a result of the changes to the rules to avoid suspensions for what are deemed to be low force contact. There have been few winners of the Brownlow over recent years that have not had an incident or two that could or should have seen them suspended. Fyfe, Dangerfield and Martin all were possibly lucky to escape suspension in the years that they won. In fact, Mitchell probably was extremely unlucky not to have won last year as well.

Fyfe shouldn't have been suspended three times what are you talking about mate, show me proof. The fact that he was suspended robbed him of the award in 2014 and he would have won this year if it wasnt for the injury.

Given he was a red hot favourite, not sure how anyone could claim that he didn't deserve it. Having said that, on Sydney TV they showed some of his highlights from the season, and I swear, every one of his disposals went to a player who was not wearing a Hawthorn jumper!

Agreed. Did Bucks write this? In 2018 Mitchell averaged 8 clearances, 6.3 tackles and 4.9 inside 50s per game, while over 45% of his possessions were contested. He's an absolute machine. The fairness argument is ridiculous, too. The MRC/MRO had no problem suspending Dangerfield last year or Fyfe and Naitanui this year.

I don't understand how Mitchell has this reputation for "cheap possessions". Averaged a staggering 35 disposals per game. 16 contested possessions, 19 uncontested. Steele Sidebottom averaged 30 disposal per game. 10 contested possessions, 20 uncontested. Pendlebury averged 27 disposals per game. 10 contested possessions. You get the point. There's a lot of lazy analysis going on out there.

And let's not forget Chris Judd went on to win the Brownlow after opening up Matthew Pavlich's cheek with an elbow. Mitchell's hit on Goldstein was dumb but the hit on Goldstein was in the same direction as Goldy was running and barely caught up with him. To my biased eye it looked like an attempted push gone wrong. Still, it wasn't a good look. In the 'old days' there had to be genuine violence for a player to be suspended but these days the bar is set much lower. I wouldn't be averse to loosening the rules so that it was only intentional acts that disqualified players from the Brownlow (like Judd's on Pavlich!).

Spot on Jim.

What a load of garbage this writer says. He had the most disposals etc etc. You say he should have been suspended. The blow to Goldstein would not have knocked a fly over. What about Fyfe he should have been suspended THREE times the year he won it. Mitchell was a well deserved winner IMHO.

I would be more inclined to believe your conspiracy theory if Mitchell getting reported was in the last couple of rounds and in in the first few. There were plenty of others who were not Brownlow favourites that also got of because of insufficient force. Its drawing a long bow to imply that Mitchell was already identified as a Brownlow favourite in round 5. Never-the-less, I do think that too much emphasis is placed on if a punch connects and the outcome. I think you should also get reported for throwing a punch or elbow even if it misses because the mere act of swinging can start a melee or fight.

"He now regularly collects over 40 disposals a game, although most of the possessions are fairly cheap which don’t mean much." Mitchell's "cheap possessions" are no cheaper than the shot taken at him by the author. The comment smacks of either animus or ignorance and detracted from the points attempting to be made. Mitchell ranked highly in terms of clearances, metres gained, contested possessions and the like. He also ranked highly in terms of turnovers but that is hardly unusual for players with high contested possession games. Like many, I think the Brownlow is clearly skewed to midfielders but in this case Mitchell also picked up a swag of other awards.

I thought Elliot Yeo would have got more votes than he did

The "strike" you refer to was below the level of force required for a striking charge, and he was fined for misconduct instead. If we want to lower the standard to suspend players who only barely touch other players, the number of suspensions are going to rise significantly. The tribunal guidelines were correctly applied to this incident, and therefore Tom was a legitimate winner of the Brownlow medal.

I agree. It seems that the AFL decides who will be charged, found guilty and wear it or, the elect few who get off, when others who do something identical yet fall by the hammer. There have benen examples of this during the season where people have been scratching their heads trying to figures out the differences between who goes for a holiday and who doesn't. We all know its all about entertainment but the AFL have never been backward about coming forward in changing the rules to suit "the game." Actually meaning what suits the brand rather than what is right and fair. Its long been known the Brownlow is basically a midfielders medal. Anyone else would have to be head and shoulders above all the rest to get a look in. And there are concrete examples for those who wish to look further. Look at the season's Max Gawn and Brodie Grundy have had. The Brownlow iself is tarnished perhaps, it should be just the best player forget about fairness.

Goldstein after the game you mention... "He only just got me," Goldstein told Channel 7 after the game. "It wasn't hard enough, I barely even noticed it. It was like a fly touching me really - he'll be fine." The AFL MRP was fairly consistent this year in grading this sort of stuff by actual impact and consequences, not intent - so on that basis I don't see how Mitchell should have been suspended. Plenty of other players were not.