The RLPA player of the season award is always so much more accurate than the Dally M. I love watching it, and I’ll come along for the livestream. But it’s not the ‘player of the season’ award for me.
As an AFL fan I never realised just how similar the Dally M is to the Brownlow, I never watched cos it's not on FTA or in the papers in WA but we had the exact same issue with the Rising Star this year with Harley Reid being unfairly suspended. There's so much drama in a vote count and good TV in showing highlights from the year that I don't think any solution involving the media can do away with the vote count, maybe pooling 6 votes amongst a max of 5 players? Or having a commentary team at the ground decide (do NRL commentators still call from the stadium?)
Yeah I come from a background where I know little-to-nothing about the AFL - but I've got a close friend who follows it religiously, and he told me how similar it was. NRL commentators do (mostly) still call from the stadium. It's only in instances where we're playing in New Zealand (Warriors home games) or when we take a game out to the country that the commentators usually don't come along. Could we maybe pool six votes against an undetermined number of players? I.e. allocate six votes for each game, and the independent judge can allocate them as they please? Very much just spitballing here but that may improve things.
The system I always thought would work Would be your 3-2-1 points to determine your players of game but then also have a special 4th point for the player of the round to reward the truly greatest performance of the week Or what could also work in my opinion is if no one had a 3 point performance just don’t award anyone the 3 points, and have two 2 point performances if so
I agree that the Dally M has it flaws/bias, but in all honestly it's extremely difficult to create a completely fair and objective system. Flaw 1 - I feel like this is more of a bias than a flaw. Does the system favour great players in poor teams, yes, but to a much larger degree it favours players in the "playmaking" positions such as FB, HB and FE. The Dally M has only been won 8 times out of its 44 years by players in non "playmaking" positions. Should Nicho Hynes be punished for the heavy influence and direction he had over the 2022 Sharks team? I for one believe it would be unfair to not recognise his impact. I guess this flaw might just be a matter of preference, our neighbours in QLD might respect a nut trucking forward, whereas us in NSW maybe prefer more a flashy flick passer. Flaw 2 - I completely agree with this, its a great point you bring up and honestly I didn't really think about it too much until you discussed it in you're video. I did however think of a potential way to resolve this, which is to again change the voting system. Still the judges will individually pick 3 players to gain points, but instead of giving them the set 1-3 points, they give them a grading form 1-5. In situation A where the player was absolutely dominant, the judge might decide to give them a 5/5 rating, whereas in situation B, the judge would give the best player a 3/5. The best player on the field would still get the most points (at least 3), but there can now exist scenarios where a player was so fantastic that they get an extra point or two. I feel like this grading change would also help alleviate the issue in Flaw 1, now Nathan Cleary, who had an incredible performance within an already great Panthers team can get an extra point over Ben Hunt, who had a great performance relative to his team, but not overall as good. For the ineligibly rules, again completely agree. I do actually like the idea behind the "Best & Fairest", however 2 suspensions being the cut off is too low. It would make more sense to simply deduct points for player suspensions/charges (not only do they lose votes, but also games to potentially get more votes). This would continue to incentivise fair play without completely disqualifying deserving players. If the NRL want to put even more emphasis on the "Fairest" part, they can just simply increase the point deductions for each penalty. Regarding the weekly voting as a TV spectacle, I believe this process is actually crucial. If the decision were made at the end of the season, there could be increased bias or a lack of objectivity. Retrospective awards can be swayed by factors like the team's final success or recency bias. The weekly voting system helps ensure that players are recognised on a game-by-game basis, minimising the influence of these biases. The award is also for the "Player of the Season", so a player who excels consistently over 25-27 games should be favoured over someone who is fantastic for only 15-27 games. Given the physical demands of the modern game, we should truly value and appreciate a player's consistency throughout a season. Overall, for what it is, it's not the worst system out there. If you really wanted to make it objective and fair, you'd have a team rate every player's performance each week and at the end of the season tally all those ratings up. But that's an incredible amount of effort for our game and as you mentioned, the TV spectacle and fan engagement is the most important factor from this and it does the job on that already. I still think some minor improvements could be made like the ones i mentioned above, but overall I think its decent. Overall, the Dally M Medal isn't perfect, but it serves its purpose well. While you could create a more comprehensive system involving a team evaluating (grading from 1-10) every individual player's performance each week for an end of season tally, the current model offers a reasonable balance between objectivity and fan engagement. By addressing the issues like Flaw 2 and the eligibility criteria, the Dally M would actually be one of the better top player awards out there.
Yeah very well put - I agree with all the criticisms you’ve put forward there, and I think the systems you’ve suggested would be improvements. The tough thing about any potential system is that none of them are perfect. Recency bias is where my end-of-season idea does get heavily impacted. Maybe we could use the weekly voting as a guideline, but still allow the decision to lie in the hands of a panel? That’d help avoid inaccuracy But very well said. I love the amount of thought you put into the comment! 💚
@@TheLeaguie Yeah 100%, I think it's impossible to make a perfect system and for the most part the general flaws around the system usually depend on an individuals preference. I do like the idea for an end of season panel. To me the idea that someone who got the wooden spoon can technically win, while it should still be possible, should be reserved for those 1 in a million season performances. Overall great vid as always, probably the best analysis of the Dally M awards I've seen so far. And from the discussion you've created in the comments I think there are some really good ideas being floated. Could potentially do a follow up video on the topic.
Aussie rules fella here there so Many common similarities with the Dally M and AFL Brownlow both systems are questionable and I think it’s time for a change
Rugby League Week used to give a 1-10 rank to every player per game. No idea why the Dally M doesn't go with that. It especially would fix that second flaw you mentioned. Another option would be to award points to every player in descending order. All things considered I still reckon Hughes is pretty likely to take it out this year though. Would be keen to here your take on who could actually steal it but I don't remember any players this year like Hynes or Ponga who could be picking up 3 points every win simply because the rest of their team are no-names. Hunt and Burton have been inconsistent, Teddy, DCE, Edwards would lose points to other players. Could we see someone like Stephen Crichton or Farnworth steal their way in? Maybe Carrigan by virtue of being the Broncos only good and consistent player all year?
Yeah I’ve seen particularly a lot of the older fans who want to see it return to 1-10. It’d definitely be more accurate Somewhat actually in contrast to my first point, I reckon it’ll be Tedesco. He had a 7 point lead on Hughes when voting went behind closed doors. Admittedly that’s not as big a gap as it used to be - but it’s a decent lead. If Hughes wins it - it wouldn’t shock me. And I definitely hope he does. But I guess the point I was making at the start of this video was that history tells us he won’t.
@@TheLeaguie Teddy’s definitely the other one getting thrown around, don’t think guys like Walker and Crichton could bring him down? I reckon he’ll lose as many if not more points than Hughes
@@TheLeaguie Looking back at the recent past winners, I think most of them would have been in the discussion and picked to be winners. 2023 was between KP & Johnson, I favoured Johnson for the fairytale, but fair dues to KP. 2022 I preferred Hynes over Hunt, both were instrumental to their team, however one dragged them to the top 4, whilst the other finished in the bottom 8. I reckon for this year it's between Edwards, Teddy and Hughes. In terms of quality I'd go Hughes > Edwards > Teddy, however the award is for best player for the "overall season", so If it goes to Teddy by a few points since he played the most, I can't really complain.
@@nozza4742 That's the one thing that has me 'concerned' about my claim. To be honest, I was more making the point that the guy everyone expects to win the Dally M doesn't actually seem to win it. This year, Hughes would be that player. It's more a "history tells us he won't win" rather than a specific analysis of his chances.
Great timing given that the Brownlow is facing similar calls of being unfair, even though it's umpire voted and most fans seem to want a media poll instead
Another terrific video. For most parts, you can replace “Dally M” with “Brownlow” and “NRL” with “AFL” and it would be a great critique of the Brownlow as well. Few things to add here. The Dally M, like the Brownlow, is more an award for consistency rather than being outstanding. So it is not about how good you actually were in the individual games, but how often you were at least very decent. But I agree that the system in place is still flawed in that regard. Furthermore, the award is heavily favours certain positions. The vast majority of winners are fullbacks, halfbacks and five-eighths, creative back line players. Players (like props) who do all the nasty hard stuff, tackling, short carries, absorbing tackles, forcing errors and saving tries but do not do anything “spectacular” like scoring a try, giving a try assist, kicking a goal, are not sufficiently rewarded by the system. As of being the “fairest”. I do like the idea that not only the playing quality of the player is rewarded but also his conduct (or equivalent, bad behaviour is being punished). But you are 100% right. Getting a ban doesn’t mean the player is dirty. And on the other hand, a player who does small nasty stuff consistently consistently but gets away with just one ban over the whole season, is not sufficiently punished by the system. I do have concepts of a solution. Instead of per game votes, make per round votes, with a diverse panel including (former) players (different positions), referees, coaches and stats guys who give votes to 12 different players per round (the best gets 12, the second best 11, you get it), the panel changes every round to counter potential bias. You could also increase the number of Players to get votes to get more air time (but at one point, it is getting to much). I do not have a solution for “fairest” part. That is tough. I would certainly change the laws such that only malicious fouls make players ineligible. But apart from that, I’d have to put more thought into it. But as you noted already. It’s all a feature not a bug. The award is there to get views and generate publicity. The fact that it is so controversial makes it so useful to the NRL and broadcasters. Per game voting generates way more air time, viewers and potential controversy. And at the end of the day, if you change the system fundamentally, it is not the Dally M anymore, it would be a different trophy under the name Dally M. The Dally M was always like that. It would make more sense to create a new trophy (by the NRL directly) rather than changing the Dally M.
Yep, had a very similar take myself. Every award is going to have its bias, while we can work to improve the accuracy of the Dally M (i.e slightly modify the grading system), the overall process is realistically impossible to make fair. As you stated, while it's not perfect, it does the job. The controversial opinions and winners get eyes glued and people talking, exactly what the NRL wants.
Very well said as always mate. Love reading your comments. You’re 100% correct in what you’re saying - all of these changes are good, but they won’t change a winning formula. The fact that it favours certain positions is emblematic of that too. The Balon d’Or in soccer is almost exclusively reserved for attackers/attacking midfielders, because the dirty work doesn’t get the same attention. I’m sure the same would be true for other sports. That’s a tough one to solve - but I think having the positional awards helps there
@@TheLeaguie thanks mate, appreciate it. Precisely. Remember Van Dijk being so dominant in 2019 and playing as good as a defender ever did, but Messi, who didn’t had an outstanding year, winning it.
Another problem with the Dally M compared to the AFL's Brownlow is that State of Origin players rarely win because they miss games. In the AFL they don't have such a mid-season disruption. Just another point I thought of.
That’s true. I don’t actually know whether Dally M points are handed out in origins - I’d assume not. But either way, Flaw 1 would be even stronger in Origin. And Origin players are often rested the following week too, losing more points
You could MAYBE argue that your first flaw isn't always the case, in that a player who stars, relative to teammates, in a losing side might less frequently score points-but only on rare occasions. It's highly infrequent that all the points go to the winning side, as far as I recall. (EDIT-because the points often go to players who've greatly influenced the result in favour of their team). I do think one of the problems that they'd face in rejigging the whole thing is that it would likely become both more intricate and more expensive. For example, appointing a panel of 10 judges who watch every single game that week, then score the best players across the board. Not with a 3, 2, 1, but with an out-of-10 rating, like the newspapers used to do years ago. It could be done, but why would they when, as you say, from the owners' perspective it's working beautifully?
Yeah you’re right in what you’re saying. But as you point out, often the third-place vote goes to the best player on the losing side. So for a club who’s mid-to-lower tier and does pick up a few wins, their star could pick up points consistently every week. The cost is definitely a concern. I know Fox already rank each player from 1-10 at the end of each game - but that’s definitely not done by panel. And often the results do seem a bit weird
In my opinion each individual player should be scored on a scale of 1-10 and it will be decided by a group of people who meet at the end of each match. It might be complex but does fix up many of the Dally M's fundamental flaws including both the ones you mentioned. The 3, 2, 1 system sucks
Yep - and it wouldn't actually be as complex as you'd think. Fox League already do player ratings after the games. They're very often quite inconsistent - but there's scope for that to improve if we made it our official Dally M pointscoring system.
Also reckon the team of the year can be a bit prone to odd wins from time to time. Jake Trbojevic keeps getting nominated for prop of the year despite not usually playing there, and I'll be howling that Dearden was robbed if Luai wins 5/8 of the year this year because even if he was probably better his best work was done in the 7 jersey.
Yeah that’s always tough. I remember Joey Manu a few years ago unable to win centre of the year because he played too much fullback. Definitely unfair on those players though. Covering for injuries shouldn’t rule a player out of winning the award for their natural position
My personal view is do away with the 321 system and just go with whoever wins the most man of the match awards. For what it’s worth I think under this system KP would still have won last season as he was the best player on ground during the majority of our 10 in a row victories.
There’s a logic to that - but I don’t think that would bypass either of the flaws I mentioned. In fact - I think it’d be even worse for especially the second flaw
RLPA is for more accurate imo It comes from the players The same players who consistently play against each other they have experience with who be good and who be bad Regardless of suspensions its not very hard to tell galvin is the best rookie qtnd this is reinforced by players voting ln him as best rookie The same players who have all played galvin and decided that his worth the hype The dally m medal is run by a completely biased system that favours indvidual stars on bad teams its as simple as that
Agreed. Gould was right in saying we just have to take the Dally M for what it is. Just a shame that as a society we put much more emphasis on it than the Players’ Champion
I’m not sure the reliability of the source but apparently last year it was watched by 100k people. It’s been going on a long time though so if it wasn’t commercially viable - they would’ve stopped doing it
One idea maybe would be to give the standout player of the round across all games an extra point or two on top of the usual Dally M points to be able to separate their performance from the rest but I don't think it's an overall fix to the system at all
Yeah I don’t mind that. It’d definitely be a step in the right direction. But yeah still fundamentally trying to patch up a system that’s quite broken anyway
Simple, get Buzz to decide. I could imagine him saying. Buzz: " ahhh, listen, hoops, my cards say that Jerome Hughes for Delly M and that Galvin kid for rookie of the year. End.... of..... story.
“Look Braith… it’s just not good enough. You and Readey with your storm ties are so focused on Hughes, you’re neglecting my pookie bear Braydon Trindall”
The rule is if you’re suspended for two or more games, which I don’t believe he was. But that just supports the argument too, because any additional one week suspension across the year would’ve made him ineligible
I agree with that. And look - if Hughes does win then I’ll be very happy, because that’s the outcome he deserves. I’d love to be proven wrong, but the history does suggest I won’t be
Maybe they should do a 5, 4, 3, 2 ,1 sort of thing for the player of the round. This way it compares every player in every game and not just the players that were the best of the worst.
Yeah, on face value I definitely think that’d be an improvement on the current system. It just sorta sucks that because of TV, we have to have a pointscoring system. As opposed to just doing it off who the judges think was actually the player of the year
Plath is also ineligible. He ironically got suspended in the same round for the same charge as Galvin. But the easiest way to realise the Dally M isn’t chosen properly is this: Any system where Nathan Cleary could go his entire career and likely not win the award is clearly not rewarding the best player in the comp that season. As for potential solutions, maybe a system where the voters vote every players game on a 1 to 5. It would have to be more in depth, but it means that the problem of shared votes disappears
Yeah I completely missed that one - but it only reinforces the point that wiping out our contenders with suspensions doesn’t make sense. I like that idea - it goes back to the old Rugby League Week system where players were ranked out of 10. That to me would definitely be an improvement on the current one
@@TheLeaguie I definitely agree. And it gives space for your example of a legacy performance vs just “probably the best on ground” getting equal points. The number couldn’t go higher than 6 tho imo. Cause then one godly game could wipe a whole season’s tally
Sorta depends on your definition of ‘fair’. To me, Hughes has definitely been the best player this season. Teddy has probably been second best - but to me he doesn’t deserve it, because Hughes deserves it more
Yep! Definitely felt it was worth talking about in a video. Taking nothing away from the players who won - but we’ve had unusual outcomes for a while now
Yeah no I missed that one when making the video. Just another supporting case study to say we shouldn’t be wiping out our contenders with this suspension rule
@TheLeaguie should be 1 suspension 2 weeks or under is ok, but any second offence your out of contention. That nullifies the rubbish "hip drop" tackles suspension they forget about by round 12
Yeah I definitely think that’d be an improvement on the current system. And it would keep that television suspense. Big fan of that concept. And while the Balon D’Or results are super competitive - we don’t ever really see bizarre results
The Balon D'Or has heap of bias. They get 100 journos from the top 100 ranked FIFA member nations. Pretty much all of them will include their own national players in the top 5 somewhere. The larger number of voters helps make sure there aren't too many bizarre results, but even then there is a lot of inconsistency between rating players who won club level competitions Vs. national level competitions.
@@wuzzyfuzzy22 For sure - but those aren't problems that we'd have to deal with in Rugby League. Neither with a massive international pool, or the difference between club and international competitions (since it's an NRL award).
All that being said... JOIN US on Dally M night for the Watchalong Livestream! ruclips.net/user/live6LtYfhys_4o?feature=share
I will be there for sure brother
I’ll be waiting
The RLPA player of the season award is always so much more accurate than the Dally M. I love watching it, and I’ll come along for the livestream. But it’s not the ‘player of the season’ award for me.
Agreed. I attribute more importance to the Player’s Champion too. Look forward to seeing you on the stream!
Great work Dylan the Dutchy! Can’t wait for the dally m stream on Wednesday
Individual awards just don't work in team sports very well I guess.
I can’t wait for the stream DONT worry I’ll be their😂😂❤🎉
As an AFL fan I never realised just how similar the Dally M is to the Brownlow, I never watched cos it's not on FTA or in the papers in WA but we had the exact same issue with the Rising Star this year with Harley Reid being unfairly suspended. There's so much drama in a vote count and good TV in showing highlights from the year that I don't think any solution involving the media can do away with the vote count, maybe pooling 6 votes amongst a max of 5 players? Or having a commentary team at the ground decide (do NRL commentators still call from the stadium?)
Yeah I come from a background where I know little-to-nothing about the AFL - but I've got a close friend who follows it religiously, and he told me how similar it was.
NRL commentators do (mostly) still call from the stadium. It's only in instances where we're playing in New Zealand (Warriors home games) or when we take a game out to the country that the commentators usually don't come along.
Could we maybe pool six votes against an undetermined number of players? I.e. allocate six votes for each game, and the independent judge can allocate them as they please? Very much just spitballing here but that may improve things.
The system I always thought would work
Would be your 3-2-1 points to determine your players of game but then also have a special 4th point for the player of the round to reward the truly greatest performance of the week
Or what could also work in my opinion is if no one had a 3 point performance just don’t award anyone the 3 points, and have two 2 point performances if so
That’d definitely be a step towards more accuracy, so I’d be happy with that change. Helps maintain that suspenseful TV-element too
Plath won't win the Dally M- he’s also ineligible (through suspension). The nominees are Strange, Bostock and Iro
Damn - must have missed that. Only reinforces the point though that it doesn’t make sense to wipe out our contenders with rules like that
I agree that the Dally M has it flaws/bias, but in all honestly it's extremely difficult to create a completely fair and objective system.
Flaw 1 - I feel like this is more of a bias than a flaw. Does the system favour great players in poor teams, yes, but to a much larger degree it favours players in the "playmaking" positions such as FB, HB and FE. The Dally M has only been won 8 times out of its 44 years by players in non "playmaking" positions. Should Nicho Hynes be punished for the heavy influence and direction he had over the 2022 Sharks team? I for one believe it would be unfair to not recognise his impact. I guess this flaw might just be a matter of preference, our neighbours in QLD might respect a nut trucking forward, whereas us in NSW maybe prefer more a flashy flick passer.
Flaw 2 - I completely agree with this, its a great point you bring up and honestly I didn't really think about it too much until you discussed it in you're video. I did however think of a potential way to resolve this, which is to again change the voting system. Still the judges will individually pick 3 players to gain points, but instead of giving them the set 1-3 points, they give them a grading form 1-5. In situation A where the player was absolutely dominant, the judge might decide to give them a 5/5 rating, whereas in situation B, the judge would give the best player a 3/5. The best player on the field would still get the most points (at least 3), but there can now exist scenarios where a player was so fantastic that they get an extra point or two.
I feel like this grading change would also help alleviate the issue in Flaw 1, now Nathan Cleary, who had an incredible performance within an already great Panthers team can get an extra point over Ben Hunt, who had a great performance relative to his team, but not overall as good.
For the ineligibly rules, again completely agree. I do actually like the idea behind the "Best & Fairest", however 2 suspensions being the cut off is too low. It would make more sense to simply deduct points for player suspensions/charges (not only do they lose votes, but also games to potentially get more votes). This would continue to incentivise fair play without completely disqualifying deserving players. If the NRL want to put even more emphasis on the "Fairest" part, they can just simply increase the point deductions for each penalty.
Regarding the weekly voting as a TV spectacle, I believe this process is actually crucial. If the decision were made at the end of the season, there could be increased bias or a lack of objectivity. Retrospective awards can be swayed by factors like the team's final success or recency bias.
The weekly voting system helps ensure that players are recognised on a game-by-game basis, minimising the influence of these biases. The award is also for the "Player of the Season", so a player who excels consistently over 25-27 games should be favoured over someone who is fantastic for only 15-27 games. Given the physical demands of the modern game, we should truly value and appreciate a player's consistency throughout a season.
Overall, for what it is, it's not the worst system out there. If you really wanted to make it objective and fair, you'd have a team rate every player's performance each week and at the end of the season tally all those ratings up. But that's an incredible amount of effort for our game and as you mentioned, the TV spectacle and fan engagement is the most important factor from this and it does the job on that already. I still think some minor improvements could be made like the ones i mentioned above, but overall I think its decent.
Overall, the Dally M Medal isn't perfect, but it serves its purpose well. While you could create a more comprehensive system involving a team evaluating (grading from 1-10) every individual player's performance each week for an end of season tally, the current model offers a reasonable balance between objectivity and fan engagement. By addressing the issues like Flaw 2 and the eligibility criteria, the Dally M would actually be one of the better top player awards out there.
Yeah very well put - I agree with all the criticisms you’ve put forward there, and I think the systems you’ve suggested would be improvements.
The tough thing about any potential system is that none of them are perfect. Recency bias is where my end-of-season idea does get heavily impacted. Maybe we could use the weekly voting as a guideline, but still allow the decision to lie in the hands of a panel? That’d help avoid inaccuracy
But very well said. I love the amount of thought you put into the comment! 💚
@@TheLeaguie Yeah 100%, I think it's impossible to make a perfect system and for the most part the general flaws around the system usually depend on an individuals preference.
I do like the idea for an end of season panel. To me the idea that someone who got the wooden spoon can technically win, while it should still be possible, should be reserved for those 1 in a million season performances.
Overall great vid as always, probably the best analysis of the Dally M awards I've seen so far. And from the discussion you've created in the comments I think there are some really good ideas being floated. Could potentially do a follow up video on the topic.
I hope for the sake of your channel that jahrome Hughes doesn’t win this year
I hope for the sake of the NRL that he does 💚
Aussie rules fella here there so Many common similarities with the Dally M and AFL Brownlow both systems are questionable and I think it’s time for a change
Rugby League Week used to give a 1-10 rank to every player per game. No idea why the Dally M doesn't go with that. It especially would fix that second flaw you mentioned. Another option would be to award points to every player in descending order. All things considered I still reckon Hughes is pretty likely to take it out this year though. Would be keen to here your take on who could actually steal it but I don't remember any players this year like Hynes or Ponga who could be picking up 3 points every win simply because the rest of their team are no-names. Hunt and Burton have been inconsistent, Teddy, DCE, Edwards would lose points to other players. Could we see someone like Stephen Crichton or Farnworth steal their way in? Maybe Carrigan by virtue of being the Broncos only good and consistent player all year?
Yeah I’ve seen particularly a lot of the older fans who want to see it return to 1-10. It’d definitely be more accurate
Somewhat actually in contrast to my first point, I reckon it’ll be Tedesco. He had a 7 point lead on Hughes when voting went behind closed doors. Admittedly that’s not as big a gap as it used to be - but it’s a decent lead.
If Hughes wins it - it wouldn’t shock me. And I definitely hope he does. But I guess the point I was making at the start of this video was that history tells us he won’t.
@@TheLeaguie Teddy’s definitely the other one getting thrown around, don’t think guys like Walker and Crichton could bring him down? I reckon he’ll lose as many if not more points than Hughes
@@TheLeaguie Looking back at the recent past winners, I think most of them would have been in the discussion and picked to be winners. 2023 was between KP & Johnson, I favoured Johnson for the fairytale, but fair dues to KP. 2022 I preferred Hynes over Hunt, both were instrumental to their team, however one dragged them to the top 4, whilst the other finished in the bottom 8.
I reckon for this year it's between Edwards, Teddy and Hughes. In terms of quality I'd go Hughes > Edwards > Teddy, however the award is for best player for the "overall season", so If it goes to Teddy by a few points since he played the most, I can't really complain.
@@nozza4742 That's the one thing that has me 'concerned' about my claim.
To be honest, I was more making the point that the guy everyone expects to win the Dally M doesn't actually seem to win it. This year, Hughes would be that player. It's more a "history tells us he won't win" rather than a specific analysis of his chances.
Great timing given that the Brownlow is facing similar calls of being unfair, even though it's umpire voted and most fans seem to want a media poll instead
Great video keep up the awsome content!
Thanks mate! This is just the beginning 🫡
Another terrific video. For most parts, you can replace “Dally M” with “Brownlow” and “NRL” with “AFL” and it would be a great critique of the Brownlow as well.
Few things to add here. The Dally M, like the Brownlow, is more an award for consistency rather than being outstanding. So it is not about how good you actually were in the individual games, but how often you were at least very decent. But I agree that the system in place is still flawed in that regard.
Furthermore, the award is heavily favours certain positions. The vast majority of winners are fullbacks, halfbacks and five-eighths, creative back line players. Players (like props) who do all the nasty hard stuff, tackling, short carries, absorbing tackles, forcing errors and saving tries but do not do anything “spectacular” like scoring a try, giving a try assist, kicking a goal, are not sufficiently rewarded by the system.
As of being the “fairest”. I do like the idea that not only the playing quality of the player is rewarded but also his conduct (or equivalent, bad behaviour is being punished). But you are 100% right. Getting a ban doesn’t mean the player is dirty. And on the other hand, a player who does small nasty stuff consistently consistently but gets away with just one ban over the whole season, is not sufficiently punished by the system.
I do have concepts of a solution. Instead of per game votes, make per round votes, with a diverse panel including (former) players (different positions), referees, coaches and stats guys who give votes to 12 different players per round (the best gets 12, the second best 11, you get it), the panel changes every round to counter potential bias. You could also increase the number of Players to get votes to get more air time (but at one point, it is getting to much). I do not have a solution for “fairest” part. That is tough. I would certainly change the laws such that only malicious fouls make players ineligible. But apart from that, I’d have to put more thought into it.
But as you noted already. It’s all a feature not a bug. The award is there to get views and generate publicity. The fact that it is so controversial makes it so useful to the NRL and broadcasters. Per game voting generates way more air time, viewers and potential controversy.
And at the end of the day, if you change the system fundamentally, it is not the Dally M anymore, it would be a different trophy under the name Dally M. The Dally M was always like that. It would make more sense to create a new trophy (by the NRL directly) rather than changing the Dally M.
Yep, had a very similar take myself. Every award is going to have its bias, while we can work to improve the accuracy of the Dally M (i.e slightly modify the grading system), the overall process is realistically impossible to make fair. As you stated, while it's not perfect, it does the job. The controversial opinions and winners get eyes glued and people talking, exactly what the NRL wants.
@@wuzzyfuzzy22 exactly.
Very well said as always mate. Love reading your comments. You’re 100% correct in what you’re saying - all of these changes are good, but they won’t change a winning formula.
The fact that it favours certain positions is emblematic of that too. The Balon d’Or in soccer is almost exclusively reserved for attackers/attacking midfielders, because the dirty work doesn’t get the same attention. I’m sure the same would be true for other sports. That’s a tough one to solve - but I think having the positional awards helps there
@@TheLeaguie thanks mate, appreciate it.
Precisely. Remember Van Dijk being so dominant in 2019 and playing as good as a defender ever did, but Messi, who didn’t had an outstanding year, winning it.
The Dally M different the AFL Brownlow because the umpires on ground not a panel
Nice analysis. Galvin is a great kid. Future looks bright if we can attract more like him.
Dally and Brownlow count it all about the women wearing
Another problem with the Dally M compared to the AFL's Brownlow is that State of Origin players rarely win because they miss games. In the AFL they don't have such a mid-season disruption. Just another point I thought of.
That’s true. I don’t actually know whether Dally M points are handed out in origins - I’d assume not. But either way, Flaw 1 would be even stronger in Origin. And Origin players are often rested the following week too, losing more points
You could MAYBE argue that your first flaw isn't always the case, in that a player who stars, relative to teammates, in a losing side might less frequently score points-but only on rare occasions. It's highly infrequent that all the points go to the winning side, as far as I recall. (EDIT-because the points often go to players who've greatly influenced the result in favour of their team).
I do think one of the problems that they'd face in rejigging the whole thing is that it would likely become both more intricate and more expensive. For example, appointing a panel of 10 judges who watch every single game that week, then score the best players across the board. Not with a 3, 2, 1, but with an out-of-10 rating, like the newspapers used to do years ago. It could be done, but why would they when, as you say, from the owners' perspective it's working beautifully?
Yeah you’re right in what you’re saying. But as you point out, often the third-place vote goes to the best player on the losing side. So for a club who’s mid-to-lower tier and does pick up a few wins, their star could pick up points consistently every week.
The cost is definitely a concern. I know Fox already rank each player from 1-10 at the end of each game - but that’s definitely not done by panel. And often the results do seem a bit weird
In my opinion each individual player should be scored on a scale of 1-10 and it will be decided by a group of people who meet at the end of each match. It might be complex but does fix up many of the Dally M's fundamental flaws including both the ones you mentioned. The 3, 2, 1 system sucks
Yep - and it wouldn't actually be as complex as you'd think. Fox League already do player ratings after the games. They're very often quite inconsistent - but there's scope for that to improve if we made it our official Dally M pointscoring system.
Also reckon the team of the year can be a bit prone to odd wins from time to time. Jake Trbojevic keeps getting nominated for prop of the year despite not usually playing there, and I'll be howling that Dearden was robbed if Luai wins 5/8 of the year this year because even if he was probably better his best work was done in the 7 jersey.
Yeah that’s always tough. I remember Joey Manu a few years ago unable to win centre of the year because he played too much fullback.
Definitely unfair on those players though. Covering for injuries shouldn’t rule a player out of winning the award for their natural position
My personal view is do away with the 321 system and just go with whoever wins the most man of the match awards.
For what it’s worth I think under this system KP would still have won last season as he was the best player on ground during the majority of our 10 in a row victories.
There’s a logic to that - but I don’t think that would bypass either of the flaws I mentioned. In fact - I think it’d be even worse for especially the second flaw
RLPA is for more accurate imo
It comes from the players
The same players who consistently play against each other they have experience with who be good and who be bad
Regardless of suspensions its not very hard to tell galvin is the best rookie qtnd this is reinforced by players voting ln him as best rookie
The same players who have all played galvin and decided that his worth the hype
The dally m medal is run by a completely biased system that favours indvidual stars on bad teams its as simple as that
Agreed. Gould was right in saying we just have to take the Dally M for what it is. Just a shame that as a society we put much more emphasis on it than the Players’ Champion
How many fans actually watch the Daly m medal? It's on pay tv and I couldn't imagine it being watched widely
I’m not sure the reliability of the source but apparently last year it was watched by 100k people.
It’s been going on a long time though so if it wasn’t commercially viable - they would’ve stopped doing it
One idea maybe would be to give the standout player of the round across all games an extra point or two on top of the usual Dally M points to be able to separate their performance from the rest but I don't think it's an overall fix to the system at all
Yeah I don’t mind that. It’d definitely be a step in the right direction. But yeah still fundamentally trying to patch up a system that’s quite broken anyway
Great video Leaguie❤❤❤❤❤
Simple, get Buzz to decide. I could imagine him saying.
Buzz: " ahhh, listen, hoops, my cards say that Jerome Hughes for Delly M and that Galvin kid for rookie of the year. End.... of..... story.
“Look Braith… it’s just not good enough. You and Readey with your storm ties are so focused on Hughes, you’re neglecting my pookie bear Braydon Trindall”
@@TheLeaguie 😂
Bro what hahaha why you lagging
Am I? Video looks all good on my end. Shouldn’t be any lagging issues to my knowledge 🫡
I mean towards the start
It don’t matter
Hughes got suspended in round 2, so he possibly can't win it
The rule is if you’re suspended for two or more games, which I don’t believe he was. But that just supports the argument too, because any additional one week suspension across the year would’ve made him ineligible
Jahrome Hughes was better this year than Shaun Johnson was last year.
I agree with that. And look - if Hughes does win then I’ll be very happy, because that’s the outcome he deserves. I’d love to be proven wrong, but the history does suggest I won’t be
Interesting. I think the current system is about as good as it could get.
Fair enough - all comes down to personal preference in the end 💚
Maybe they should do a 5, 4, 3, 2 ,1 sort of thing for the player of the round. This way it compares every player in every game and not just the players that were the best of the worst.
Yeah, on face value I definitely think that’d be an improvement on the current system. It just sorta sucks that because of TV, we have to have a pointscoring system. As opposed to just doing it off who the judges think was actually the player of the year
@@TheLeaguie true it would probably be better to just consider everyone, compare them, and then decide.
Is the rule not if you get suspended your automatically out of contention?
If you’re suspended for two or more matches - yes. Turns out Plath has been - which I missed while making this video
Plath is also ineligible. He ironically got suspended in the same round for the same charge as Galvin.
But the easiest way to realise the Dally M isn’t chosen properly is this:
Any system where Nathan Cleary could go his entire career and likely not win the award is clearly not rewarding the best player in the comp that season.
As for potential solutions, maybe a system where the voters vote every players game on a 1 to 5. It would have to be more in depth, but it means that the problem of shared votes disappears
Yeah I completely missed that one - but it only reinforces the point that wiping out our contenders with suspensions doesn’t make sense.
I like that idea - it goes back to the old Rugby League Week system where players were ranked out of 10. That to me would definitely be an improvement on the current one
@@TheLeaguie I definitely agree. And it gives space for your example of a legacy performance vs just “probably the best on ground” getting equal points.
The number couldn’t go higher than 6 tho imo. Cause then one godly game could wipe a whole season’s tally
Great video leaguie exited to be in the stream on Wednesday
Can’t wait! See you there 💚
They say that the Dally M award is awarded to the “best and fairest player,” but it’s not fair that Lachlan Galvin can’t win the award.
Your honour, this man’s logic is flawless
@@TheLeaguie Nothing is more flawless than this video's analysis, your honour
It is at 2:19
Keep the videos coming man… a great take once again
Thank you mate 💚
I agree how did Kalyn pongs win when he was injured Shawn Johnson deserved it way more and I’m not even being biased
Definitely agree. Ponga was super good, but to me SJ definitely should have been the winner
Yeah he was good but being injured for most of it the judges hate nz and it’s anoyying
If Tedesco wins it is that not fair ?
Sorta depends on your definition of ‘fair’. To me, Hughes has definitely been the best player this season. Teddy has probably been second best - but to me he doesn’t deserve it, because Hughes deserves it more
The dally m is so weird sometimes like as you said Ben hunt was a favourite but then Hynes got it although he was good but Ben hunt deserved it more
Yep! Definitely felt it was worth talking about in a video. Taking nothing away from the players who won - but we’ve had unusual outcomes for a while now
@@TheLeaguie yeah definitely, have never watched a dally m I'm exited for Wednesday
@@arlomoreland8011 You're in for a treat. It is genuinely very entertaining.
Plath got suspended. He can't win either
Yeah no I missed that one when making the video. Just another supporting case study to say we shouldn’t be wiping out our contenders with this suspension rule
@TheLeaguie should be 1 suspension 2 weeks or under is ok, but any second offence your out of contention.
That nullifies the rubbish "hip drop" tackles suspension they forget about by round 12
Max Plath is also inlegable
Yeah I missed that one. Only strengthens the argument though that we shouldn’t be wiping out our contenders with suspensions
@@TheLeaguie agreed considering that Plath and Gavin are the only 2 acceptable rookies of the years
We all know Blake Lawrie will be player of the year
It’s between him and Tom Hazelton for me
@@TheLeaguiedrew Hutchison an underdog?
@@YTxwell If Drew Clutchison doesn't win the Dally M, we riot.
They should do it like the ballondor
I think they get 50 people and they vote on the top 5 players and they give it a 321 rating so they can still get the drama
Yeah I definitely think that’d be an improvement on the current system. And it would keep that television suspense. Big fan of that concept.
And while the Balon D’Or results are super competitive - we don’t ever really see bizarre results
The Balon D'Or has heap of bias. They get 100 journos from the top 100 ranked FIFA member nations. Pretty much all of them will include their own national players in the top 5 somewhere. The larger number of voters helps make sure there aren't too many bizarre results, but even then there is a lot of inconsistency between rating players who won club level competitions Vs. national level competitions.
@@wuzzyfuzzy22 For sure - but those aren't problems that we'd have to deal with in Rugby League. Neither with a massive international pool, or the difference between club and international competitions (since it's an NRL award).
@@TheLeaguie yeah great video tho hopefully they will change it and make it better
yoo
yoo
@@TheLeaguie Ur vids are so good, its nice to see an nrl fan with basic congitive abilities :/
@@peterplayz7215 Thanks man! There's a lot of us out there - which is the audience I'm looking to create