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
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.
There was a system in place to take missing games into account. The bottom 5 scores were not counted, don't know exactly how the full formula worked but it was worked in.
As I have stated it was a more highly regarded award by those in the game so to totally dismiss it as you have is ignorant.
Really i am ignorant? You have yet to explain why 1-10 works so much better and is much more fairer other than "Players liked it". Well players much more prefer the players champion award which is a 3, 2, 1 system. If 1-10 works better where is that metric? Plus players who never get a mention in the Dally M votes would love seeing themselves get a score every week. Why hasn't the concept been taken up somewhere else once the publication folded?
I am not saying the system that RLW had in place was an awful idea, i am saying it has flaws and to suggest the easy fix to the Dally M's system is to do 1-10 player ratings is not that simple. Not saying the idea is awful, just it has limitations and headaches that come with it too. Both systems are very flawed, but i feel 3, 2, 1 is more simple.
Having the system of drop 5, it can be fair though it also allows a player who played 5 more games, 5 more chances to score better in those games. I do not think that is overly fair. But on the other side, that player who did play 24 games will be thinking i scored more overall i should win.
Though i would wish the NRL would also make a big deal over the RLPA awards and let fans see the awards play out. It gets a mention then moves on.
Actually you are correct, the hidden problem is the talent and opinion of the judge's, by compressing the scoring to 123 you compress the ability of bad judges having an undue influence on the best player's and their obvious favourites....everyone stop and think about that and it also makes the final countdown much more exciting.
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.
"Shouldn't have" has no role, the rules maybe wrong by opinion but they stand outside of the absolute!
There is an irony on Sander's selection given that he could actually be dropped from "half" next season, assuming Ethan Strange has a mortgage on the 5/8 role. Ironical even more is that "new" half could be next years "rookie".
Lot's of halves coming through the system, Rooster's half from last year playing against his old club......Fogarty likely without a club next year, Cowboys getting it wrong, and lets not mention the Bronco's line up with the great "Petit" story. Dog's are still toying with Galvin......
An aside to that conversation Penrith have always had a good back up for Cleary, one of the reason's they have failed this year is that Cogger is a deadset Reserve Grader, .......the importance of Volkman for us can only be a good thing in back up terms.
Alright Alright we've got some signings coming
I love it how some have come here to abuse the club after the Dally M's when if you ask the same people 3 months ago if we would have any involvement in the Dally M's the answer would be an emphatic no. So why is it a problem now when we knew for a while we would have no mention? Haha
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
of 9 Next