Whole Cowboys team to ditch the Dally M awards night

Your Name wrote:Just goes to show the only reason JT has won the last 2 Daly M's is because he is playing at a time when the player talent is so thin. 2 of the 4 are basically give me's.

Hands up who thinks Aaron Woods was the 2nd best player in the comp
Hands up who thinks Benji Marshall was the 3rd best player ?

It is either a fantastic testament to the junior development which occurs at the Tigers or it shows a glaring issue with the system which in turn puts into question JT's win. You can't argue the system is broken but they got the winner right. That makes no sense.

They aren't the 2nd and 3rd best, but is that really what the current scoring system is designed to show though. The way that the scoring works is that rather than show who is the best it rather shows who is the most infuential to their team. Benji for example is nowhere near where he used to be, but if the Dragons play well enough to get a win then typically Benji is influential in that. Therefore you get a system like current where Woods can be 2nd on the leader board because he might have been really good in say 5 of the Tigers wins and that could see him get 15 points.

It kind of happened last year with Hayne too. Not that anyone could deny he played amazingly last year but he is always going to look good when the Eels win because there is no one else. To an extent, you could also say the same about JT prior to this year. Yes he has been the standout player for years but you could argue that some of his Dally M success could be tied to having a lack of talent at the cowboys in previous years.

You can see it easily enough with the other sides who are stacked. Melbourne never had 1 player so linked to their fortunes, neither did Manly yet those two teams dominated for pretty much 7 seasons between 2006-2012 and they only picked up 3 Dally M's in those seasons. Roosters have been stacked for the last few years with nothing to show for it, as have the Rabbits. The award is supposed to show who is the best player in the season and yes the leaderboard does feature some of the best players for the year but at the top end it is always going to show whose team relies on them the most.

Bingo. Beast understands it completely.

That's not to say JT doesn't deserve his award because he does, by miles.

Honeysett wrote:Bingo. Beast understands it completely.

Flawed system so we will never truly see what the award is designed to. In a perfect world we would see a leaderboard where the top few would come down to the likes of JT, Smith, Cronk, GI, RTS, DCE, Johnson, Bromwich, Graham and some other big names who have big seasons but it never will. But the flipside is just getting people to vote on who is the best player in the game will be boring as we lose the whole points per round aspect and not being sure of the winner till the end in most years, and because the best player if it is a one off vote from the game's "well informed and key people" becomes a popularity contest and is just subject to personal opinion. You just know the likes of Gould and Warren would be given a vote if it was media choice with a one off vote but they tell us every week who they rate so it wouldn't have the appeal.

End of the day it is a flawed system and I can't really think of any system which greatly improves upon it. At least we have never had a situation where someone undeserving has never won. Yes we have had Orford, Barba and Carney win it in the last 10 years but to say that they didn't play great footy that year wouldn't be true. They might not have been the best but there is no doubting they played great and were hugely important to how their team finished up.

I suppose it is an individual award, if you're the best player in a shit team you do deserve some recognition for getting your team some wins.

Honeysett wrote:I suppose it is an individual award, if you're the best player in a shit team you do deserve some recognition for getting your team some wins.

That's what the club awards are for. Robbie has benefitted from playing in a shot side and polling well for years.

Honeysett wrote:I suppose it is an individual award, if you're the best player in a shit team you do deserve some recognition for getting your team some wins.

As just stated, that is what club awards are for. Just in this past Dally M we have seen Benji Marshall and Aaron Woods finish 2nd equal in the entire league. Were it not for JT being so dominant, even within his own team, we could have got a situation where it got down to rd 26 scores with JT ahead by say 2 points and everyone in the room nervously looking round thinking that a 2015 Benji Marshall could be in with a shot at winning. I hope it doesn't come to but this kind of scenario could very easily happen.
Take next year for example. Myself and quite a few others will probably have the opinion that the Knights won't be much chop next year. If they get to 10 wins Hodkinson will need to be key for them in my opinion and could easily nab himself 2-3 points in all those wins. You give him low-mid twenties of dally m points, add in a few points from some tight losses and you could have him nearing 30 points at the end of the season. JT, in a dominant year only managed to get to 32. There needs to be a change in how they award it.

I've got no real issue with the 3-2-1 system and if you are a good player in a shit team then kudos to you if you poll enough to jag a Dally M.

Those suggesting the Brownlow is any different are off the mark IMO.
They have similar scenarios where the best player in the comp doesn't always win the award.

Probably my only suggestion would be to go down the path of having the ref's award the votes.
They are (meant) to be impartial and are in the best position to gauge influence on the game, so ref-bashing aside, that would be the way to go if you ask me.

Mind you if the ref's award the votes, it will be frustrating to see Mitchell Pearce or Boyd Cordner win the award.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:Mind you if the ref's award the votes, it will be frustrating to see Mitchell Pearce or Boyd Cordner win the award.

It would be Cam Smith. Ref's love him.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:Mind you if the ref's award the votes, it will be frustrating to see Mitchell Pearce or Boyd Cordner win the award.

At least Gallen wouldnt poll any.

The entire thing about media voting on the awards is rubbish. Firstly because half of the media are ex-footballers themselves, or involved in admin of the game, which removes any of the impartiality of it.

Secondly, because the ones that arent ex-players or involved in the game wouldnt know how to judge football if the immortals reformed and had a scratch match in front of them.

I mean, I like the concept of the Immortals... but when you have muppets like Rothfield, Hadley and Warren voting on it, it takes the legitmacy away from it. Ray Warren is a legend of the commentry box but spends half his time bickering with Gus and the other half mixing up Jack Reed and Alex Glenn.

If the best way to get people who intricately know and see the game, who are (in theory) impartial is to get refs to vote on it, then the refs should vote it. I cant think of a better way.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:I've got no real issue with the 3-2-1 system and if you are a good player in a shit team then kudos to you if you poll enough to jag a Dally M.

Those suggesting the Brownlow is any different are off the mark IMO.
They have similar scenarios where the best player in the comp doesn't always win the award.

Probably my only suggestion would be to go down the path of having the ref's award the votes.
They are (meant) to be impartial and are in the best position to gauge influence on the game, so ref-bashing aside, that would be the way to go if you ask me.

The day someone like Aaron Woods wins it while playing for a Tigers team that finishes in 15th will be the day they finally sit up, take notice and change the system. Being a good player in a shit side shouldn't give you so much weight in a Dally M leaderboard. All you need to do is be an average half in a shit side, be the only one trying, manage to pull out 9 wins (the same amount as the Titans in 14th position) and you could see yourself at 25 points. A few more and you become a legitimate contender for the top award.

how about the coaches voting for it ? ( but not on their own team).
They watch the games closer than anyone !!

quicksand wrote:how about the coaches voting for it ? ( but not on their own team).
They watch the games closer than anyone !!

That could be the best way to sort out the predicable 3 points for a spine player on the winning team voting we get at the moment. Still wouldn't really do much in the way of trying to fix the good player on a shit side getting all the points but I don't think we will get a perfect fix for that. So far I like your coaches vote as the best option raised on here.

Beast From The Big East wrote:

The day someone like Aaron Woods wins it while playing for a Tigers team that finishes in 15th will be the day they finally sit up, take notice and change the system. Being a good player in a shit side shouldn't give you so much weight in a Dally M leaderboard. All you need to do is be an average half in a shit side, be the only one trying, manage to pull out 9 wins (the same amount as the Titans in 14th position) and you could see yourself at 25 points. A few more and you become a legitimate contender for the top award.

I doubt whether your hypothetical would ever be a reality and thus wouldn't change the system based on that.
This season is the closest anything like that has happened in the NRL or AFL and the fact is it still didn't happen and wasn't really close to be honest.

As for the suggestion of coaches voting....that is a horrific idea.
How could they possibly be impartial?

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

I doubt whether your hypothetical would ever be a reality and thus wouldn't change the system based on that.
This season is the closest anything like that has happened in the NRL or AFL and the fact is it still didn't happen and wasn't really close to be honest.

As for the suggestion of coaches voting....that is a horrific idea.
How could they possibly be impartial?

did you read the part about 'not voting on their own team' ?

quicksand wrote:

did you read the part about 'not voting on their own team' ?

Yeah but I wasn't talking about that.

They still have influence on the outcome and could theoretically not award votes to the player in their team's main contender.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

I doubt whether your hypothetical would ever be a reality and thus wouldn't change the system based on that.
This season is the closest anything like that has happened in the NRL or AFL and the fact is it still didn't happen and wasn't really close to be honest.

As for the suggestion of coaches voting....that is a horrific idea.
How could they possibly be impartial?

The only reason things didn't get slightly awkward was because JT was head and shoulders above every one else in the game this year. The fact is that 2nd, 3rd and 4th in this year's Dally M's were Woods, Marshall and Ennis. Ennis I can accept because he did play very well this year and was a huge factor in the sharks run to the playoffs. All it will take is for a few big names to no be as dominant (which they were this year bar JT) and the Dally M race could start looking very interesting.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Yeah but I wasn't talking about that.

They still have influence on the outcome and could theoretically not award votes to the player in their team's main contender.

14 coaches voting on each game should balance that out !!

quicksand wrote:

14 coaches voting on each game should balance that out !!

It's the best idea I've seen yet. I'd definitely watch DallyM night to see how they voted.