Brownlow 2025 thread

[ajGreen]

The criticism of the umpires is well deserved and about time. I hope the decision making will be taken away from the umpires but doubt the AFL has the courage to do so.

There's always been conjecture about votes from certain games. It's been going on forever.

It's clearly become more of an issue since the TV coverage increased with every game now being shown

But what's the biggest change in the last couple of years when we've had the winners getting 40 odd votes?

The 4 umpire system. Not a doubt in my mind the impact it has had on the count.

You take the voting away from the umps who do you give it too? The media, a panel of past players?

It's easy, almost simplistic to say the umps shouldn't do the voting but it would be bloody hard to determine who should

I agree. It's always been flawed but that's part of the fun of it. Greg Williams BOG with no votes for example. Which would have won it.

There is just more spotlight now with TV. Betting. Etc.

Part of it is the umps are not perfect and that's ok.

There is already the MVP. Coaches votes and whatnot no need to change the brownlow system imo

[eliminator]

The concept that an umpires can determine who is the best player on the ground when that umpire is meant to be adjudicating the game is fundamentally flawed. It is not a hard decision at all to choose an alternative. Precedents can be found from other sports.  Any perceived difficulties in choosing an alternative should not be used as a barrier to long overdue change.

[Hard Roar Tiger]

I just laugh at people who bag the brownlow when all the awards are conflicted and compromised. Danger with 8 AA’s is actually laughable. Jez Cameron as captain is jaw dropping.
And these people have an ENTIRE YEAR to think about it.
Sorry but I’ll take a Rowell brownlow over this year’s mark and goal of the year as being better judged.
The brownlow is the least of our problems

[ajGreen]

The concept that an umpires can determine who is the best player on the ground when that umpire is meant to be adjudicating the game is fundamentally flawed. It is not a hard decision at all to choose an alternative. Precedents can be found from other sports.  Any perceived difficulties in choosing an alternative should not be used as a barrier to long overdue change.

The umpires have done it for 100 years. The award is who the umpires see as the better player.

People can't even agree if diacos or Rowell is the better player. Any system choosen will be flawed.

Dumb to change it 

[Hart4Jack]

The concept that an umpires can determine who is the best player on the ground when that umpire is meant to be adjudicating the game is fundamentally flawed. It is not a hard decision at all to choose an alternative. Precedents can be found from other sports.  Any perceived difficulties in choosing an alternative should not be used as a barrier to long overdue change.

The umpires have done it for 100 years. The award is who the umpires see as the better player.

People can't even agree if diacos or Rowell is the better player. Any system choosen will be flawed.

Dumb to change it

So true ajG.  It's always been the umpires award, why does it need to change.  More media beat up because Dicky Naicos didn't win. 

Even Daicos Snr has advocated not to change the system & certainly not to have"runner up" medals.

Leave it as it is.

[Francois Jackson]

The concept that an umpires can determine who is the best player on the ground when that umpire is meant to be adjudicating the game is fundamentally flawed. It is not a hard decision at all to choose an alternative. Precedents can be found from other sports.  Any perceived difficulties in choosing an alternative should not be used as a barrier to long overdue change.

The umpires have done it for 100 years. The award is who the umpires see as the better player.

People can't even agree if diacos or Rowell is the better player. Any system choosen will be flawed.

Dumb to change it

So true ajG.  It's always been the umpires award, why does it need to change.  More media beat up because Dicky Naicos didn't win. 

Even Daicos Snr has advocated not to change the system & certainly not to have"runner up" medals.

Leave it as it is.

wasnt an issue when cooney won it, or even woewodin, judd's 3... ooh but its nicky daicos and dillon wants to start making changes.

if it were a richmond man would this even be a talking point? No.

He is probably a closet pies fan as well as the other closet fan.

[eliminator]

It is a flawed award. Bartlett,  Mathews and Carey never awarded the medal when should have won it. To see players openly laughing at the voting is not a good look. As I said previously my view is it won't be changed . Regardless of how long it has been in existence does not mean it should escape criticism.

[ajGreen]

It is a flawed award. Bartlett,  Mathews and Carey never awarded the medal when should have won it. To see players openly laughing at the voting is not a good look. As I said previously my view is it won't be changed . Regardless of how long it has been in existence does not mean it should escape criticism.

Pele. Maradona. Maldini. West (NBA logo ) Malone etc. never won the equivalent awards. Cricket is often filled with controversy too.

Is it really worth changing it to a potentially slightly less flawed system?