2011 Brownlow Thread

[Bornadog]

Re: 2011 Brownlow Thread

The best player is a measure of what supporters, posters, media and umpires etc notice in a game, and evidence of star-struckness as much as anything ).

Edited for accuracy

[anfo27]

Re: 2011 Brownlow Thread

I was lucky enough to have something on Swan simply because of the amount of footy he was getting. The umpires now get to see the stats before they give their votes. I think last year was the first year it happened and with Swan getting so much ball last year with very little votes in return it created a lot of talk back madness on radio. The amount of idiots that would ring in quoting the amount of touches Swan got without getting a vote was never ending. So i'm sure the umpires have made a conscious effort now to give votes to the players who rack em up.
In past years you would have young players who star in a game but because the umpires don't really know who they are they would miss out on votes. A Fyfe comes to mind as an example but now the umpies would look at the stats and see Fyfe has had 30 possies and 2-3 goals so he should get 3.
I don't like the way the umpires do the votes these days but with the amount of criticism they get from the media and the fans I don't really blame them.
In the future i will be looking at the stats to give me the best indication on where my money is going.

[jazzadogs]

Re: 2011 Brownlow Thread

I was lucky enough to have something on Swan simply because of the amount of footy he was getting. The umpires now get to see the stats before they give their votes. I think last year was the first year it happened and with Swan getting so much ball last year with very little votes in return it created a lot of talk back madness on radio. The amount of idiots that would ring in quoting the amount of touches Swan got without getting a vote was never ending. So i'm sure the umpires have made a conscious effort now to give votes to the players who rach em up.
In past years you would have young players who star in a game but because the umpires don't really know who they are they would miss out on votes. A Fyfe comes to mind as an example but now the umpies would look at the stats and see Fyfe has had 30 possies and 2-3 goals so he should get 3.
I don't like the way the umpires do the votes these days but with the amount of criticism they get from the media and the fans I don't really blame them.
In the future i will be looking at the stats to give me the best indication on where my money is going.

Surely they don't see the stats? That would be ridiculous.

[anfo27]

Re: 2011 Brownlow Thread

Surely they don't see the stats? That would be ridiculous.

I'm 95% sure they do. If you look at the top 10 vote getters jazz how many of them are rack em up midfielders?

[jazzadogs]

Re: 2011 Brownlow Thread

I'm 95% sure they do. If you look at the top 10 vote getters jazz how many of them are rack em up midfielders?

But that's been the case for years.

Surely there would have been much more media outcry if they'd decided after 80 years of voting to let the umpires see the stats post-match!?!

[Topdog]

Re: 2011 Brownlow Thread

Is that evidence of change, or simply evidence of umps being star-conscious? Dane Swan was a middling poll-getter when he wasn't considered a star, he played better last year than this yet polled less, now that he's an established 'gun' umps seem happier to give him the votes.

Ditto Ward's votes in Rd 24. He did nothing, but had been in the news all week so the umps noticed him more than anyone else.

The Brownlow is not so much a measure of the best player as it is a measure of what umps notice in a game, and evidence of star-struckness as much as anything (another symptom of which is how much they love using a star's first name over and over during a game, to show how chummy they are).

No it is showing it is changing. There were numerous examples of it this year and not always the "star" player.

As for using first name it is one of the first things told to officials, nothing to do with being star struck.