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.
I push back on the 1-10 system being a nightmare, Rugby League Week magazine managed to do it for decades and it was more highly regarded by those in the game than the dally m's.
for many years, the Rugby League Week Player of the Year award was considered by purists, players, and coaches to be a truer reflection of a player's consistency and quality than the Dally M Medal.
I remember that game, it was against the West Tigers, we won 28-24. Gutho had a great game, 2 try assists and 2 try saving tackles, one at the death on Luke Garner, who looked for all money to score. Gutho only needed one point to tie with Wighton, they gave the one point to Luke Brooks, and he did nothing all game. Watching the Dally M that year, reading out the points in that game, you knew the voting was changed after they tallied it up.
There’s a reason no major sport uses a weekly 1–10 scale anymore. In reality, it was just a compressed 5–8 scale—nobody got a 2, and 10s were virtually non-existent. Winners always got 7s and 8s, while losing teams got capped at 5s or 6s, meaning 1–10 doesn't solve losing-team bias anyway. Plus, in an era of HD replays and micro-stats, subjectively grading 272 players every single round just creates 272 individual arguments.
Though of course players themselves loved the RLW ratings as they got recognised with a score, coaches as well as everyone is accounted for. Though the players themselves hold the RLPA Players’ Champion in higher regard. An award that uses a 3, 2, 1 voting model, granted at the end of the year but still uses it, not a 1–10 report card. If you ranked a round under both systems, the top 4 or 5 players in the 1–10 marks would almost always be the exact same players polling in the current 12 point system. Why bloat an entire award and force judges to grade 34 players a match when 90% of those scores have zero bearing on who the best player actually is? A bloke getting 7s every week isn't turning games on their head. Both systems have bias and neither is flawless, but the current system is cleaner in finding the genuine Player of the Year.
Here’s a quick math example to prove why: a player who averages 8/10 across 24 matches gets 192 points for the year. Meanwhile, an elite player who misses games for Origin, rest, or a minor injury plays 18 games and averages an 8.5/10, scoring 153 points overall. The player with the better per-game performance gets outscored simply due to game volume. Under a 3, 2, 1 setup, that higher-average player accumulates the top-tier points and finishes with the higher tally. That's just fairer. Not perfect by any means but more simpler to get the end result.
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
of 8 Next