Another year, another Dally M controversy

1. Am I happy with two nights rather than one? No. In want it all on one night, please, not strung out to get more viewers for the broadcaster.
   As to your comments on great players not getting into the short-list, they are valid – but that is inevitable given the 3-2-1 structure of the votes.

   For every complex question, there is usually a simple answer – and the simple answer is usually wrong! Here is my simple solution.
   1) Score each match 5-4-3-2-1, so more players can get votes.
   2) At the end of the season determine the result by taking the AVERAGE vote per game, for each player.
   3) To be eligible, each player must have played a minimum of TEN games. (This will eliminate any player who plays a couple of brilliant rounds and scores high marks, then sits out the rest of the season injured or suspended.)

2. Firstly, while it isn’t fair that someone can miss a chunk of the season and still be outstanding the rest of the time, you can’t by the same token penalize other players for the simple reason that they’ve gone through a season uninjured. Who’s to say, for example, that Turbo might not have put in a series of crappy games during those games he missed?

   The easiest solution for all concerned, one that recognizes talent yet shows fairness to those who put in more games, is to arrive at some kind of figure – say 16 games as an example – from the season that can count towards each player’s resume for the season. Thus if a player like Turbo misses 6 games at the beginning of the season, they won’t be counted towards the total. For a player who’s been on the paddock for all 24 games, the 16 games in which he notched the most medal points would be counted, while the 6 lowest scoring would be ditched. Obviously there’s a slight favoritism towards the players who turn out the most, because there’ll be 24 games to pair down to the best 16-game total, but that’s only fair.

   As for the points situation per game, the way the points are judged has long worked against top teams stacked with talent – there’s so many to choose from week to week. The reverse applies to other teams where players who wouldn’t even get a look in at teams like Melbourne or the Roosters (injury free!) still manage to garner maximum points their efforts really don’t deserve in the greater scheme of things – hence the bolters we occasionally get winning the medal.

   By far the easiest and fairest way around it is to ditch the antiquated system presently in use and just go for a system that scores ALL the players in a game, even subs, out of 10. That’s far fairer to the top teams and players, as well as giving a fairer assessment to average players on average teams.

   On a team like Melbourne at its peak, why shouldn’t Cameron Smith, Billy Slater, and Cooper Cronk each get 10 out of 10 in a game together if their respective performances merit it, instead of being handicapped for simply being three outstanding players on the same outstanding team? How ridiculous does it look if Cronk ends up being the one getting the single point, while some no-name halfback on another team gets three points for a level of play that doesn’t even come close to Cronk’s standard?

   Look at Turbo or Tedesco this season. They would have been ringing the bells with scores habitually in the range between 8 – 10, even in losing efforts. They, and all outstanding players, should get scores that reflect their level of play, regardless of the standard of their teams and team mates, and regardless of the results.

   Round it all out by having three independent judges at each game, and it should work beautifully and I think all concerned would be a lot happier.

3. One small correction – I said the 6 lowest scoring would be ditched from a player’s total of 24. I meant 8. I was still thinking about the Turbo example of games missed through injury. 🙂

Comments are closed.