Lack of Brownlow votes when Tigers win | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Lack of Brownlow votes when Tigers win

RemoteTiger

RemoteTiger

Woof!
Jul 29, 2004
4,646
98
Had a couple of minutes up my sleeve so I thought I would have a bo peep at the Brownlow votes game by game - wish I hadn't because now I am full of angst.

Did you realise how the umpires voted in the games Richmond won -

Round 2 Tigers beat Hawks by 14 points
votes are
3 - P Everitt, H
2 - K Pettifer, R
1 - L Franklin, H

Round 3 Tigers beat Bulldogs by 4 points
votes are
3 - N Eagleton, WB
2 - D Giansiracusa, WB
1 - N Brown, R

Round 8 Tigers flog Magpies by 35 points
votes are
3 - N Brown, R
2 - S Prestigiacomo, Coll
1 - P Licuria, Coll

In all other games we polled as expected - that is if we flogged the other team we got all the votes 3-2-1 if we got flogged they got all votes 3-2-1 if it was close a winning team player got the 3 votes a losing team player got the 2 votes and a winning team player got the 1 vote.

What have the Tigers done to the umpires to alienate them so much that the umpires drop convention of allocating the 3 votes to a player on the winning team when the Tigers win?

A check of all 176 games this year shows that the umpires strayed from the convention of allocating 3 votes to a winning team player just 21 times - that is 11.93% of all games this year. Demons, Saints, Swans were the worst hit as they won 3 games each where 1 of their players did not get the 3 votes. Tigers had two games.

I am astonished that a team can win a game reasonably comfortably and not get the best player on the ground. I know it does happen - and usually when the winning team has an even contribution from all 22 players (which the Tigers rarely had this year) and the losing team has 1 standout player.

Maybe my concept of voting conventions are outdated - I remember when greats like Bob Skilton (tripple Brownlow Medalist) - when the Swans were not a great team - polling many 2 votes as well as a couple of 3 votes to win Charlie.

Maybe I have been following the Tigers too long (Since 1963) and have developed a persecution complex!

However IMO - The modern day game is throwing up many anomolies......
 
Interesting food for thought Remote. I guess there's no set rule but your examples certainly seem to go against the trend.

I haven't studied the results. Were there games Richmond players got the 3 votes despite losing?
 
It would be an interesting exercise, but I wonder what the results would be if you analysed the votes in each match, and identified how many of those played their best in the last half, as opposed to the first half.  I wouldnt be surprised if the votes are swayed to 2nd half performers.

The thing about voting is you often only remember the last things that happen.  Especially when there's alot to do on the ground, you are not specifically concentrating on each individual player's performances.  I know myself when doing votes for the local club, and doing alot of match work as well, that it is a very difficult task to pick the best players purely because you are concentrating on other things.  Often it is a special incident or the last good bits of play that attract the most focus when deciding on best players.

I dont give much credence to the Brownlow for this reason.  Sure its a great honour to win, and invariably the winners are great players, but in a team game, it is not right that the award is always weighted to a midfielder.

Cheers
 
I actually agreed with the votes for htose games. THEy were close and we didnt really play the better football o nthose days, jsut had good comebacks. THe Collingwood game I would hardly call a lfogging. One good qtr by Nathan Brown won us that game. I had no problems with those votes.
 
its always an interesting exercise trying to figure out brownlow votes and trends Goodone.I remember in rounds 2 and 3,they were not only close games,but I though the opposition played better than the tiges overall then.It was Richmonds eficiency at scoring at opportune times that got em over the line.Cheers! :clap
 
I actually noticed this too and started getting pissed of!
However I do think the votes should be to the 3 best or most influential players on the ground at least!
But still it was crap when in the Hawks game 2 of their players polled out of 3!
 
RemoteTiger said:
Had a couple of minutes up my sleeve so I thought I would have a bo peep at the Brownlow votes game by game - wish I hadn't because now I am full of angst.

Did you realise how the umpires voted in the games Richmond won -

Round 2 Tigers beat Hawks by 14 points
votes are
3 - P Everitt, H
2 - K Pettifer, R
1 - L Franklin, H

Round 3 Tigers beat Bulldogs by 4 points
votes are
3 - N Eagleton, WB
2 - D Giansiracusa, WB
1 - N Brown, R

Round 8 Tigers flog Magpies by 35 points
votes are
3 - N Brown, R
2 - S Prestigiacomo, Coll
1 - P Licuria, Coll

In all other games we polled as expected - that is if we flogged the other team we got all the votes 3-2-1 if we got flogged they got all votes 3-2-1 if it was close a winning team player got the 3 votes a losing team player got the 2 votes and a winning team player got the 1 vote.

What have the Tigers done to the umpires to alienate them so much that the umpires drop convention of allocating the 3 votes to a player on the winning team when the Tigers win?
A check of all 176 games this year shows that the umpires strayed from the convention of allocating 3 votes to a winning team player just 21 times - that is 11.93% of all games this year. Demons, Saints, Swans were the worst hit as they won 3 games each where 1 of their players did not get the 3 votes. Tigers had two games.

I am astonished that a team can win a game reasonably comfortably and not get the best player on the ground. I know it does happen - and usually when the winning team has an even contribution from all 22 players (which the Tigers rarely had this year) and the losing team has 1 standout player.

Maybe my concept of voting conventions are outdated - I remember when greats like Bob Skilton (tripple Brownlow Medalist) - when the Swans were not a great team - polling many 2 votes as well as a couple of 3 votes to win Charlie. 

Maybe I have been following the Tigers too long (Since 1963) and have developed a persecution complex!

However IMO - The modern day game is throwing up many anomolies......
Click to expand...

Are you not a student of Richmond history Remote?

Tigerland has also been a gritty uncompromising place that doesn't suffer fools. Powerhouses like Jack Dyer, Mopsy Fraser, Mal Brown and Neil Balme have always been the bane of umpires.

Umpires without exception have always been that squeaky little twit in the school playground that nobody went near, except to pick on or steal their lunch money. Give them the power to rule a footy game and they get back their 100 minutes of power over the ones that made their childhood bitter.

Umpires are low life despicable runts out for revenge. The lack of Richmond Brownlow winners are part and parcel to our history and a consequence to our future.
 
I agree with Nitro. In my view Everitt, Giansiracusa and Brown were clearly BOG in the three games in question. Pettifer did good things late in the game which stays with the umpire. Franklin was mentioned in the best players. Pretagiacoma gave Richo an absolute bath in a game where we flogged the pies. Franklin was mentioned in the best players, certainly there were a few on this forum questioning why we took Tambling after this game. Eagleton might have deserved a vote but not three and Licuria should not have got a vote in front of Cogs who had 28 posessions.

And what would a Bill James post be without the stats for what they're worth.  8)

Code: 
Kicks	Marks	H.Balls	Disp	Goals	Pts	H.O.	Tack	 
   17	    7	      4	  21	   2	  1	  28	   1	Peter Everitt
   16	    8	      2	  18	   2	     	     	 	Kayne Pettifer
    8	    4	      4	  12	   3	  2	    	   3	Lance Franklin
								
   17	    8	      4	  21	   1	  1	    	   2	Nathan Eagleton
   18	   13	     14	  32	   1	  1	    	   1	Daniel Giansiracusa
   17	    5	      3	  20	   3	  1	    	    	Nathan Brown.
						    		
   15	    8	      6	  21	   5	  2	    	   2	Nathan Brown.
    9	    5	      9	  18	      	   	  	   2	Simon Prestigiacomo
   14	    5	      5	  19	    	  1	    	   7	Paul Licuria
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Fault in Tiger Brainteasers | Chris Ladhams >
Top Bottom