I can't help but notice every year when the dally ms happen.Theres no eels players ever winning anything significant no medals no dally m no team of the year no coach of the year nothing.Theres Bairley to none of any eels players ever there now.
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
Replies
If it's not flawed why is there a blow up about some winners every year?.
Rating every player gives every player a fair chance to get a score they deserve. Rugby league week use to do it this way.
Edit. What do you mean its not for the best player overall, that's exactly what it is.
Who was the last Dally M winner where people said the person who won shouldn't have? Maybe Wighton in 2020? Ponga in 2023 had a little bit but his finish was that good that he did deserve it.
Also, I didn't say the whole system is not flawed, you said that players taking points off each other is flawed. That is not a flaw when say Yeo has a better game than Cleary, as he is a superstar player, he will get more points. Compared to someone like Ponga who if Newcastle win, more than not he is responsible as there aren't as many other superstars in his team that have as much impact on the result as he does. So if Edwards or Yeo for example are getting 6 points and Cleary only gets 3 for a Penrith win, that is not a flaw.
If players in the same game as Cleary play better than him, they deserve more points. Fact is, at Penrith, there are players who are good enough to shine despite Cleary being there compared to someone like say Ponga or Hynes prior to this year as they are the main ones in their teams.
You say every year, has anyone complained that Cleary got it last night? Look at the past years where he didn't win it when Penrith won the comp. 2021, Turbo won and had what many consider the most dominant season in League history. 2022 he played 14 regular season games. 2023, Ponga had a Jarryd Hayne like stretch carrying Newcastle to finals. 2024, he played 13 games all year. Then last year, Penrith started poorly so he wouldn't have scored well, but also in their late surge, Yeo and Edwards were a big part of the come back. No matter the scoring, that is not the best system but what is, some years a player just had a career year over Cleary.
As with player rating, giving scores out of 10 sounds fair on paper, but match ratings are always tied to the scoreboard. If a team gets smashed 40-0, even their best player rarely gets more than a 6/10, while average players on the winning team get 7s and 8s for barely breaking a sweat. The 3-2-1 actually protects individual dominance in losing sides much better than a 1-10 rating system does.
Its flawed in the sense that the players on the losing team don't usually score points even if they are the best player on the field, if it's a close loss they might get 1 point if lucky.
They already changed the way they score it once because they knew it was flawed, still is. The old big league player of the year was held in more regard by those in the game than the dally m's it just never got the media hype.
Really? Jarryd Hayne won in 2014 when he had 50% win record.
Ben Hunt nearly won in 2022, same record. Look at this year before Round 12 when it went behind closed doors, there were examples of players receiving points when their team lost. But where are there examples of a team losing and a losing player was above and beyond the star? It is rare.
Again, you are claiming and trying to argue it seems that i am saying the overall concept is flawed. I was saying that players taking points off one another is flawed and you said that. Now it is players from a losing team doesn't poll. So which is it that is flawed?
'That is where it is flawed, the fact other players take points off him' So now you are saying it is about losing teams? Both i feel is not flawed that losing players rarely poll bigger points and players taking points off another player in their team.
I stand by players in the same team taking points, we already discussed that so mo point repeating it.
You are OK with the system, I don't like it and believe a player rating of 1-10 for every player is a better system.
No i am repeating it as you stated that was the flaw, now the flaw is something else. If a player in Penrith had a better game, it is fair they take points off Cleary. Your 1-10 system is not a silver bullet as you fall into the same trap as what we have now where if a player gets a 7, it will be "Why did they not get a 9?"
Also, you mentioned a flaw was losing team players do not poll or poll well. Well going to 1-10 ratings, that bias towards the winning team is still there? But if a player is able to play so well to be an outlier in a losing team, they would poll with current system anyway.
You are right, i am ok with it. Reason i am ok with it is because there is no perfect system and never will be. 1-10 would be an absolute nightmare. What we have now is a bit more simple. Different judges, judge differently. Plus, out of 34 players that play a game, probably only 3-4 are really relevant anyway. The current system, 4-5 players poll.
The year Wighton won convinced me it was rigged.
They had Gutherson in front and he only had to get a point to win, he was the MOM in that last game and harshly treated to not get the two points, to not get the one point was criminal.
Maybe because half the team hasn't hit their peak and the other half are close to retirement
Hey at least we had the rookie of the year !. Lol Eels - the feeder club of the year 🤣
I will say Chief, not saying it for sake of arguing ill have this regardless of who it was. But Sanders shouldn't have even qualified for rookie of the year.
He played 2 games in 2024 and 2 games in 2025. This was his 3rd year in FG. I understand the rule of under 6 games or something like that but what if a player plays 1 game a year for 6 years, he can win rookie of the year in his 7th season? To me, once you have debuted, the following season you are not a rookie. If they keep it as the following year under 6 games you can still be counted then fair but 3 years since debut?
Wasnt a strong year either as I felt Harrison at least deserved a nomination.
As for Sanders, you know my thoughts on that whole thing. Don't want Blue Eel to come get me haha.
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
of 8 Next