Jump to content

2024 Brownlow Medal

Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

 
1 hour ago, No. 31 said:

I think Bont was hard done by not to garner more votes but also Treloar had a great season and would have taken votes off him. IIRC Bont had a quiet start to the season but was huge in the middle/later part of the season.

As for the Bont v Cripps question raised by some, I would always take Cripps. He carried Carlton on his lonesome in the disastrous years, Bont was playing in a Premiership winning team as a 3rd year footballer. Cripps has definitely faced more adversity in football. This isn't a sleight on Bont either, just recognition that Cripps has travelled a very bumpy footballing road in the early years.

Bont is the best I’ve seen since Ablett jr. I wouldn’t have Cripps anywhere near that discussion. 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    5 hours ago, Biffen said:

    They should scrap the Downlow. Or at least remove the umpires from the process.

    The umpires are too busy awarding frees for angry looks and expressions to make a clear judgement on the best player.

    An idependent panel  and /or coaches would be better judges.

    The umps are too busy keeping the scores close on games and reacting to the crowd ,swaying results to fit narratives etc.

    Could not disagree with any of this. and add that the odds vastly changed the last 48 hours with some big money.

    And it became the Cripps night before the Cripps night.

  • Quote
    •  

    Obviously the umpires voting on Blues games are crippscentric and the umps voting the Pies Games are Nickcentric even when Josh is the best of the two. Those final count numbers are way off line for where both clubs finished and the closeness of some games!!!!

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    Just now, DeeZone said:

    Obviously the umpires voting on Blues games are crippscentric and the umps voting the Pies Games are Nickcentric even when Josh is the best of the two. Those final count numbers are way off line for where both clubs finished and the closeness of some games!!!!

    The media & coaches voted the same way

  • Quote
    • Shocked 1

    The Brownlow voting system is not an umpire issue, it's a system issue

    Same as the game itself

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    what is strange is the number of best on grounds that the winners get. You would expect far more one and two votes in a proper statistical spread. Being the top player out of a possible 46 on 12 occasions is hard to believe. Cripps is good but he's no phenomenal superstar

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    45 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

    Just lazy, lazy voting by the umpires. Wont be watching the count in the future.

    Not sure what's worse. The lazy voting or the questions dished out on the poor players by the hosts. It was horrifically cringeworthy 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     

    The AFL determine that the umpires award the Brownlow votes.  It's not the umpires taking it upon themselves.  Never has been and never will be

    Cause & effect in a system that can easily be rectified.  Not to perfect levels, that's impossible, but if we want a better system with regards to the Brownlow voting, the league needs to embrace a better, workable system

    To me, a player receiving 45 votes in the Brownlow is a red flag moment.  It's just way too many votes regardless of how good a year Cripps had.  Same deal for Nick Daicos

    We need a better system of awarding the votes (in previous posts I've outlined a different system using ex players as those who could award the votes)

    Blaming the A-end of a problem is pointless and not a realistic solution

    So without change, expect more of the same

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    A panel of qualufied judges (ex players, not media people) at each match awarding votes which takes into account the various positions on the ground and the degree of difficulty in excelling in the different positions

    In theory, the panel of judges at each match would include ex backmen, ex forwards etc etc

    Giiving votes out to forwards, backs, ruckmen, midfielders etc arriving at a consensus for the best 3 players

    A very big ask but it is possible

    Or, it stays as it is and we'll just continue to complain every year about the outcomes

    Edited by Macca

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    17 hours ago, dees189227 said:

     Afl store know something?

     

    image.png.de8e8467618df729a7c6437d03a3287b.png

    Wonder how the sales of Nick Daicos's 2024 Brownlow medal guernsey are going? Could be an opportunity to collect a few at bargain basement prices and await the rebound.

  • Quote
    • Haha 1

    Will Carlton and it's captain restore some prestige to the Brownlow by returning the 1922 centennial medal?

  • Quote
    • Shocked 1
    2 hours ago, Macca said:

    The media & coaches voted the same way

    Not sure about media, but Coaches’ votes were very different from those of the umpires. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    16 minutes ago, Fanatique Demon said:

    Not sure about media, but Coaches’ votes were very different from those of the umpires. 

    Didn't midfielders dominate the voting?

    That was my point

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    In low scoring games where midfielders possessions are largely innefectual the backmen should get the bulk of the votes (in my view)

    And we don't often get high scoring games so a forward who kicks 3+ is often highly effective.  Votes for forwards? 

    But it seems that the midfielders are now getting far too many of the overall votes

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    1 hour ago, Macca said:

    A panel of qualufied judges (ex players, not media people) at each match awarding votes which takes into account the various positions on the ground and the degree of difficulty in excelling in the different positions

    In theory, the panel of judges at each match would include ex backmen, ex forwards etc etc

    Giiving votes out to forwards, backs, ruckmen, midfielders etc arriving at a consensus for the best 3 players

    A very big ask but it is possible

    Or, it stays as it is and we'll just continue to complain every year about the outcomes

    You can be the person that arranges the roster for these experts say 5 at each game 3 home 2 away over the 207 games each season. 

    The logistics would require a full time AFL employee to be available 24/7 and on weekends also. 

    No thanks. Let’s not get too bogged down the Coaches votes are the best really and plenty of diversity in their selections. Still have mids winning though. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    2 hours ago, 58er said:

    You can be the person that arranges the roster for these experts say 5 at each game 3 home 2 away over the 207 games each season. 

    The logistics would require a full time AFL employee to be available 24/7 and on weekends also. 

    No thanks. Let’s not get too bogged down the Coaches votes are the best really and plenty of diversity in their selections. Still have mids winning though. 

    Whar are you talking about?

    The AFL are swimming in cash and my idea would not cost a lot anyway

    The coaches votes are stacked with midfielders so what's your point?

    Different mix but the media awards & Brownlow votes are also stacked with midfielders

     

    Edited by Macca

  • Quote
    2 hours ago, Hellaintabadplacetobe said:

    Not sure what's worse. The lazy voting or the questions dished out on the poor players by the hosts. It was horrifically cringeworthy 

    The “two” “two” “two” thing by Hamish to Cripps was one of the cringiest things I’ve seen. Hamish is too use to interviewing children. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

    I wouldn't be putting the Brownlow votes in the hands of the  coaches either

    How do they judge opposition players when they are concentrating on their own players so much?  They'd know the worth of their own players but the opposition?  

    And what about bias?  That would raise it's ugly head year one.  No thanks

  • Quote

    I wonder how many votes Cripps would have if he was correctly pinged for all the throws he does. I know others do it but he seems to be the master of throws.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Angry 1
    3 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    what is strange is the number of best on grounds that the winners get. You would expect far more one and two votes in a proper statistical spread. Being the top player out of a possible 46 on 12 occasions is hard to believe. Cripps is good but he's no phenomenal superstar

    It’s a great point, but the reality is that it’s the best player out of 6-7 other midfielders. The umps don’t look beyond the square.

  • Quote
    • Thanks 1

    I recall many years ago a journalist (too many years ago to remember who) telling the story of how after a game where Peter Hudson had kicked 16 the journo said to the umpire that he knew he couldn't tell him who he gave the Brownlow votes to, but that obviously Huddo would have got the three.  The ump replied that as didn't give any votes to Hudson he felt it was Ok to say so (questionable).  The journo asked gobsmacked how could he not give him a vote given he kicked 16.  The ump replied that he thought he'd only kicked about four. 🙄

  • Quote
    • Haha 1
    • Shocked 1
     
    12 minutes ago, Craig T said:

    I recall many years ago a journalist (too many years ago to remember who) telling the story of how after a game where Peter Hudson had kicked 16 the journo said to the umpire that he knew he couldn't tell him who he gave the Brownlow votes to, but that obviously Huddo would have got the three.  The ump replied that as didn't give any votes to Hudson he felt it was Ok to say so (questionable).  The journo asked gobsmacked how could he not give him a vote given he kicked 16.  The ump replied that he thought he'd only kicked about four. 🙄

    And back in those days the votes were read out differently... all the 1's then all the 2's finishing with the 3's

    So there was no way of identifying which games certain players polled in.

    I believe it wasn't until 1984 as to when the match votes in 1, 2, 3 order was adopted

    In 1972 or maybe 1975, the last 20 × 3 votes read out were all from players in contention.  So the 'Knowledge' of who had won was in my opinion, known

    So if people reckon it isn't hunky dory now, take a look back ... way back

    *Former Demon Greg Wells was 2nd in 1972 pipped at the post after Len Thompson received the last 3 votes read out

    Beaten by 3 votes but Wells was in front on the old countback system before that last 3 votes cruelled his chances

    Rigged for dramatic effect?  You betcha

    *Memory is a bit sketchy as it might have been Stan Alves pipped by Gary Dempsey in 1975 

     

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    8 hours ago, Macca said:

    Forwards & Backs have been ignored for decades now

    The term 'Midfielders medal' started at least 30 years ago but way back in the 70's many would complain that key forwards (especially) and Backs just didn't poll well enough

    Star Key backs like Scarlett for instance, rarely pick up any votes at all

    And it's not just the umpires either.  The media, coaches etc all award votes in the same way

    Of course, in a general sense, midfielders stand out as they don't have direct opponents nor are they ever tagged

    Meanwhile, a player like Hogan is often double or triple teamed whenever he goes near the ball

    Excluding finals, Bob Pratt in 1934 kicked 138 goals in an 18 round season and received the paltry amount of 13 Brownlow votes

    So not much has changed

    Yes, good points.

    Huh! Imagine kicking basically 7 goals a game for a whole season and losing by six votes in the Brownlow count.

     

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • NON-MFC: Round 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • 25 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

        • Like
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Like
      • 232 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All