Nobby Clarke 2021

Football Discussion Dustin Fletcher Hangar
61

Would have to agree in some ways.

One example: No Snelling in the list. Regardless of whether people see him as valuable or if they are wrong about football, he clearly had a better year than many who polled ahead of him.

5 Likes
62

Though I’m not sure how exactly to fix it, I am sure that 1/2/3 votes are not enough to cover the range of reasons why people vote.

63

321 is definitely the easiest to understand and adhere to.
We could try 54321 and we’d probably get in some more role players…
The ‘top 5 players with ratings out of ten’ I think we could probably do but I see a risk of it going off the rails
The EFC b&f method of ‘rate everyone out of 5’ would be interesting but too onerous.

Here’s a way that I thought: free for all write every player you thought played well with no ratings - so you might write 1 player, you might write 23.

64

How about - ‘up to x votes’?
x to be a nominal number - 5, or 7 or 10.
The ‘up to bit’ - you can take an easier 1/2/3, or choose 1 player, or grade up to x.

2 Likes
65

Do you have specific ideas in mind?

As I said above, I think the system you use now works as well as any other. I doubt that it’s possible to have a perfect system, even assuming that everyone shares the same idea of what a “perfect” outcome would be. It’s really a question of finding the best, or least imperfect, system that’s actually workable on a forum like this.

66

What is your issue with it ?

I find it hard enough to pick the best three in order. And watching it on TV gives a totally different perspective than being there. I reckon Zerrett shows up more watching live, but Parish is more obvious on TV for example.

67

Are you proposing a penalty discount on blonde players?
If so you might need to add a bonus for Rangas to overcome some people’s aversion to them as well.

1 Like
68

Said for years it should be 54321.

Still think so, it’s damned hard to just pick 3 most weeks.

There’s always a couple who should get a vote & don’t.

69

Best 23 from the vote getters

b: Hind Stewart Laverde
hb: Redman Ridley Heppell
c: McGrath Stringer Cox
hf: Langford Jones Smith
f; Tippa Hooker Wright
R; Draper Merrett Parish
Int:Perkins, Cutler, Francis, Durham
Sub: Phillips

1 Like
70

Each week why don’t we rank every EFC player on the ground from crappest to least crap. At the end of the year the least crap player wins.

71

How about : 6 votes in total and
Minimum of 3 players.

             So,  3 2 1
              or  3 1 1 1
              or  2 2 2
              or  2 2 1 1 
              or  2 1 1 1 1
              or  1 1 1 1 1 1    would be the possibilities.
2 Likes
72

My first thought is multiple players but up to 15 or 20 votes in total.

So if one player is outstandingly better than any other, he might get 6, and the next 3.

But in an awful performance, say Port or Brisbane this year, you might give just a 4, a 2 and two 1’s.

It’s just a bit restrictive having just 3, 2 and 1, with no gaps between. On Sunday, it was difficult to add in a 5th player, but you might say Parish 5, Draper, Merrett and Ridley 3 each for a total of 14.

73

Can you cast a total of fewer than 20 votes? How is a low-vote week treated in the final tally as opposed to a high-vote week?

74

I think each game should be treated equally. I understand that in some games there are many good players and other games not so many but every round should be treated with the same importance. So a different number of votes for different games would seem a bit unfair.

1 Like
75

I think it sort of balances out if we do a running aggregate rather than each week categorize into 5/4/3/2/1.

A standout during a poor team performance should be downweighted compared to a standout in a good team performance is what this is all trying to adjust for, right?

1 Like
76

So losing by 70 points is the same as winning by 70 points or beating a top 4 team? I disagree with you so strenuously that it’s hard to measure.

77

Well, the NB is for individual performance, not team performance, so I get that whether we win or have a crap game - the person playing a great game should still get the same votes.

Having said that - if you were able to make 5 votes which were 1-5 for 5 players - over the season, the win/loss bias would become meaningless for the individual.

1 Like
78

So we should just give votes when we have a good win then. The performances even in a bad loss are just as significant in relation to the whole season.

79

Go back through the poor performances, and you’ll see that the 5 voter in a poor performance is nowhere near the same quality as the 5 voter in a great performance.

So, agree, I completely disagree.

80

Your comprehension skills are lacking.