Nobby Clarke 2021

Football Discussion Dustin Fletcher Hangar
81

I was exaggerating!

82

So last game was a poor perforamnce based on losing by 49 point and no goals after half time, but Darcy was BOG and deserved the maximum points, as he was as good as it gets.

83

I understand that, and agree.

However - that logic applies to everyone who played in that bad loss, right? So all players are going to suffer a point-hit, so to speak. Let’s say the system was one where you can give a 1-up-to-5 vote for up to 5 players. In a bad loss, you may have 2 or three players getting a 1 or 2. In a great win, the votes will be amplified - maybe a 5, a couple of 4’s, and a couple of 2’s. Over the season, none of that would really matter - the total counts. So good games and bad games - all players were affected by it.

84

We already get that anyway. We usually have 90-100 posters vote after a good performance, but 50-60 after a bad one. Doesn’t change the relativity or the numbers of votes that accrue for the entire award.

2 Likes
85

True.
Do you see it advantageous to have ‘more votes to give’?

Edit:
What’s missing to me, is the votes for the players who are consistently in the top 10 performers, but do not receive votes because they are rarely if ever in the top 3. Yet, we count the Nobby as a Top 10. Someone who is say, top 6 in every game deserves better than 0 votes.

1 Like
86

Well, I’m sure Snelling and a few defenders would have got more votes.

87

Yep. It’s Snelling I was thinking of, but there are others.

88

Am all for completely adjusting the Nobby to ensure Snelling gets rewarded.

89

I think that’s largely countered by the number of people voting. The good but not great performers in a game are usually noticed by someone and given a vote; and once someone has given a player a vote, subsequent voters say, “Oh yeah, he was great, I’ll give him one too.”

Okay Snelling missed out. Someone deserving is always going to miss out, no matter what system you choose. In his case it was really only in about the last 3 games that anyone started to notice what the selectors had been seeing all year, that he is an excellent pressure player and rarely goes missing, and has smarts and skill as spirit.

90

Based on 5,4,3,2 and 1 votes per game from Age, HS, AFL, Aust (if authors are different) you end up with:
Merrett 77
Parish 66
Stringer 37
Ridley 22
Hind 21
So not that different to Blitz, given 5,4,3,2,1 compared with 3,2,1.

My observations are that the media favours high disposal players (Merrett, Parish) and known ‘stars’ (Stringer etc). Defenders poll better when there are losses. Blitz has a wider spread.

The Crichton Medal now uses a system of 5 to 0 for each player allocated from each coach. This would be difficult for BomberBlitz.

I favour retention of current system or 5,4,3,2,1.

1 Like
91

What do you feel are the down & up sides to making it an ‘up to 5 players’ system (5 to 1)?

92

I think it would make some difference, but not much. Except for Noonan, who would have that much more work to do. It would help if it were made clear that you didn’t have to cast all five votes. So in a good week no doubt everyone would cast votes for 5 players, but there have certainly been games where I would give votes to maybe two or three players at most, and probably give the best of them only 3 votes rather than 5.

I think the interesting thing is that there are all sort of different systems used for various awards, eg the Age awarding votes out of 10 but with the reviewer having the discretion about how many are given to each player; we have the Blitz system; we have the basic 3 2 1 system, we have the Crichton system, the players’ MVP system – but they all end up with very similar outcomes. The only one that sometimes produces an outlier result is the Brownlow, and that’s because it’s the umpires casting the votes, who have a completely different perspective from all the others.

2 Likes
93

Enjoy collating that!

94

I managed a team one year where we had the following system:

10 votes available per game
Maximum 5 players got votes
Maximum of 5 votes per player
Did not have to allocate all the 10 votes, therefore some games only 3 players got votes and we may not have used the full 10 votes available (ie we lost and only 3 players really tried)

The result was the best 3 players went 1, 2 and 3 at the end of the year and in the same order as if we simply voted 1, 2 and 3 per round. We went back to 1, 2 and 3 votes the next year and no one really cared too much and it was a lot simpler.

I say we stick to the current system, even with its flaws it still rewards the best players.

1 Like
95

The current system works perfectly adequately to determine the best player because it focuses on top 3. This is then collated to a top 5 for the awarding of final votes for that week.

So essentially the results are always going to be a “top ten of top fives”.

It depends if we want the Nobby just to award the best player, or to recognise the contribution each player makes.

The winner each year is always accurate, IMO.

2 Likes
96

Yeah but who won the Nobby in the three years Wally Buttsworth was winning the Crichton?

Need to know to demonstrate the Nobby isn’t a midfielders medal.

97

I’m inclined to get with this but with a total of 15 votes.

98

The real question is what you do with the weekly results. In your example, assuming the best player in the bad game only got say 3 votes, did he end up with the same number of votes towards the year-end tally as a the best player in a good game who got 5 votes?

If you simply added up the total number of votes cast each week for each player, so that in a good week with a clear best player you had 80 x 5 votes for player X, player X would get 400 votes that week; in another week the best player might get 3 votes from 60 members, and he would get 180; and the Nobby would go to the player with the most votes over the whole year. You’d get absolutely massive totals, but it would recognise the players who play best in the best games.

Then again, I could see an argument for weighting the voting in favour of the players who perform well even when the rest of the team is playing badly.

I still think there’s no perfect system and the one you have now is as good as any.

99

I’d have to think about that.

There’s no trouble with the calculation since it’s all in Excel.

But you’d have to vary the number of votes to be allocated for each round, based on result, and then pro-rata the players’ votes across the total allocated for each round.

All getting too complicated now.

100

Correctomundo