Almanac Footy: A two piecer on the Brownlow – A modern rant, and an old Almanac short story
Matt Rowell Deserves Every Bit of It!
At last, the umps are starting to get it. And prove, for the most part, the public don’t. The football media, social media, is awash with brainless dickheads screaming; ‘Rowell only got 16 touches! How could he poll 3 Charlies!?’
Influence.
Influence, not stats. That’s how. Tackles, contests. Being found at the bottom of every pack. IMPACT! Sorry, outside players are interchangeable. Just ask Neale/Bailey last Saturday.
Influence should be everything if you want to win the Midfielders Award.
Hell, Robbie Flower could get Best On with 12 touches! Bewick with 10! Nank was second BoG in a GF by dropping in the hole and wearing pack after pack on his shoulders. Stopped Geelong dead, freeing up Dusty to win it. Toby’s actual stats that day were irrelevant.
Of course, the umps only went half way. The reason on-ballers poll so well now, is because backmen and forwards don’t. Their votes get mid-a-fied!
Harris Andrews was the most INFLUENTIAL player in half a dozen games this year, yet polled bugger all. Modern footy attack begins on the half back line. Again, half-backs, bugger all votes.
But I have faith! Haha. The umps took a HUGE step in the right direction last night. They’ll get it right. Eventually.
And NO, don’t you dare take the Midfielders Award award off the umps and give it to a faceless panel! To people in booths, with wine glasses stuck up their bums, slow motion replays and stats sheets to fornicate over and media interests. Every other AFL award has that. The umps, for all their faults, have faults, they are the human element. Charlie is THEIR award, damn it! Their reward! They deserve to be able to cast THEIR votes. We would not have a game without them.
Onya Matt Rowell! Keep charging into packs like a BEAST! A bull-in-a-China-shop! Your WANT for the ball is unique! The five blokes behind you couldn’t do that, not for love or money. You fully deserved your Midfierlder’s Medal!
And now, a memory… 2012, God, how long have I been Almanacking!?
Love you all, Old Dog.
More from Matt Zurbo HERE.
To return to the www.footyalmanac.com.au home page click HERE
Our writers are independent contributors. The opinions expressed in their articles are their own. They are not the views, nor do they reflect the views, of Malarkey Publications.
Do you enjoy the Almanac concept?
And want to ensure it continues in its current form, and better? To help keep things ticking over please consider making your own contribution.
Become an Almanac (annual) member – CLICK HERE
Nice work Old Dog.
Tell it like it is, Matt!!
Good work.
Gotta laugh Rowell finished high up in the media awards voted on by supposed experts. He was 3rd in the Coaches Award voted on by a group largely comprising experts. Daicos finished 4th in the latter award and Rowell led it with a round to play. He was 5th favorite according the to AFL’S gaming partner not that they encourage gambling.
The Umps thought he was the best player in the competition and according to the self appointed media experts that makes the umpires stupid and the Brownlow voting should be taken away from them.
Fair dinkum you couldn’t make that crap up
Baffling to be sure, Hayden. Every time the stats squad disagrees with an ump… the ump has to go! Why? Stats!
The Brownlow is what it is.
Do I agree with it 100% of the time? No.
Do I want it changed? No.
Agree.
When footy players make glaring errors you don’t see the footy media circus howling to dump the player immediately, because obviously he ain’t good enough. Same point can be made about commentators – actually, the last thing we need are commentators who can’t even judge correctly when a ball go through for a point adjudicate on a much more subjective and sensitive topic like B&F.
Slightly off topic, but I’d love to smash the hold Vic male footy commentators have on the AFL. Yeah Nick Daicos is brilliant but so are Serong, Warner, Butters, Brayshaw, Anderson, McCluggage, Steele and Sheezel. In March the AFL website had its experts rank the top 25 players in the AFL. Nick was number 1, Rowell was 33. Cats Holmes was 25 and he’s key to a Cats premiership, the best player in the comp, Andrews was 23. I think the experts maybe should take a Bex and have a lie down.
What makes the Brownlow so distinctive and valuable (warts and all) is that umpires are significantly more independent than any cohort that god forbid might replace them as the Brownlow voters.
Spot on, Old Dog.
It’s Wednesday and my understanding is not getting clearer. I cannot understand how anyone who writes about the game for a job, can suggest that umpires might get a Brownlow Medal vote “wrong.”
Let’s be very clear. Umpires give the votes for the Brownlow Medal.
By definition, they are NOT wrong.
Did your expectations for votes differ from those the umpires gave?
If so, great. Take it as a learning opportunity.
Did your expectations rely on anything as pathetic as a statistics count?
If so, I pity you.
There are plenty of other awards given whose judges may or may not use statistics sheets to help them decide. That’s fine. No problem.
As for the umpires, they award votes based on things the rest of us CANNOT see, hear or experience. Umpires are uniquely placed to award votes for best and fairest. They have been doing it for a long time.
If anyone is upset with the votes from Monday night, I suggest that they spend some time querying why they are upset. If they think they are right and the umpires wrong, I suggest that they are deluded. If they think votes should be given another way, by all means, they can create their own award.
Embarrasingly, on Wednesday ABC online still has the following stories and summaries listed.
#1 “The moment that showed the AFL has a serious Brownlow Medal problem”
It is not often that the AFL’s night of nights gets hijacked by a moment not involving the winner of the Brownlow Medal. This is exactly what took place when Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera was seemingly robbed in broad daylight.
#2 “Rowell takes out Brownlow Medal as vote snub stuns players”
Matt Rowell becomes the second Gold Coast player to win the prestigious AFL award, as a questionable voting call regarding Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera leaves the room stunned.
STORY 1 – The only problem the Brownlow has is being covered by ignorant reporters. Nothing was hijacked. No one was robbed. And certainly not in broad daylight. Reporters and players may have been surprised. But that is FINE. BE SURPRISED. Maybe even LEARN SOMETHING.
STORY 2 – A story about the Brownlow Medal winner should not be tainted by talk of a snub. There was no snub. There was a difference of opinion between the umpires who are by definition correct, and a small section of people who are paid to talk about the game. “Leaves the room stunned” is a big call. Even if that were true, it would represent nothing more than a catastrophic failure in understanding of what the Brownlow Medal is. The Brownlow Medal is awarded to the player judged best and fairest by umpires.
Not hard.
Agreed 110%. Some of these geese in the media seem incapable of writing a newspaper column without including a myriad of stats, some of which I have never seen before. It is becoming like American football where every inch is measured and dribbled over. That rotten Champion Data has a lot to answer for, but never will. The umpire voting has been a bit wonky ever since Gavin Wanganeen was robbed of his second Brownlow and the triple winners permitted to escape with unworthy gongs. But I don’t favour dumping them at all.
Plus, if we are not playing in the VFL, why do we still have the Brownlow and Coleman medals?
The tradition of complaining about umpires voting for the Brownlow is as old as the awarditself. When it was announced in 1924 there were articles pointing out the problems of umpires voting for the best player. Yet despite 101 years of complaining the system has stood up pretty well.
Despite their flaws the umpires are considered to be neutral. If the Brownlow voting is handed to some expert panel, presumably made up of media commentators, what happens when there is the inevitable controversy about who they vote for in a game? Will the media then demand Brownlow voting go back to the neutral umpires?
Best to recognise it’s a subjective and flawed process but one that is better than the alternatives.
Here’s a link to an early example of the 101 year old tradition. And if voting was taken away from the umpires what will the media complain about then?
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/1905141