John Eales Medal 2014

[domo]

no conspiracies, no real surprise. Just a player making huge contributions to his team week in week out, and his team mates noticing.

 

[Mr Doug]

are you sure you meant " "indifferent" " ?

Yes Biffo, where indifferent=mediocre. IMO, the last two weeks held so much promise, with the chance to beat the ABs in Brisbane, the expected positive build-up to the EOYT, capped off by Hooper or Slipper, (or both 'jointly'), winning the John Eales Medal!
So Biffo, it has been a very "indifferent" two weeks for me, mate.

 

[Dctarget]

Mr Doug, surely celebrations are in order for Sam Carter taking out the debutant?

 

[Mr Doug]

I think the players got it right but were usurped by the ARU.
Don't know about the Sydney Uni bullshit

There is no doubt it should have been between Hopper and Slipper.

Izzy played with the Tahs and couldn't make it into their top 10, so what has changed. he didn't play THAT well in the majority of tests.
My theory as some others is that the award was given to Folau in an attempt to keep him in rugby.

Guess what fellas. Izzy is about Izzy and the almighty $$$$$. He made his bones in the NRL, Took a huge payday to go to AFL where he failed badly. He probably only came to rugby because his "stardom" was waning terribly in AFL, and we, the rugby mob were prepared to pat more $$$$ than the league boys.

He will fuck off to Europe after RWC. For what reason - there common thread $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Don't get me wrong. I don't blame the bloke for getting as much as he can, because he has a brand (like SBW).

It just disappoints me that blokes like Hooper and Slipper, loyal exponents of the game miss out on an opportunity to get the brass ring because of a marketing ploy.

Anyway, congratulations to all the OTHER winners - am sure they actuallyDESERVED their awards.

PS: Chuck was at the back table.

Maybe a solution to this sort of manipulation is that votes are actually sealed and only opened on the night with Scrutineers present. Otherwise the farce resembles an election in the Republic of the Congo.

Rant over

An excellent post Scrubber 2050, it's as if I, Mrs D., or several of our Rugby-mad friends wrote it.
So much wisdom from one so young (52)!!!

 

[Mr Doug]

Mr Doug, surely celebrations are in order for Sam Carter taking out the debutant?

Yes Dctarget, one of the few "positives" for Mrs D. and I in the last two weeks, (although, in fairness, the boys did play great Rugby at Suncorp Stadium).
I sent a txt to Sam's proud folks as soon as I saw it on this thread.
Should add a few dollars to his his "trading value"!! He's a top young bloke!

We will toast Sam tonight, after having observed our three alcohol-free days for this week!!

 

[Mr Doug]

Yes Dctarget, one of the few "positives" for Mrs D. and I in the last two weeks, (although, in fairness, the boys did play great Rugby at Suncorp Stadium).
I sent a txt to Sam's proud folks as soon as I saw it on this thread.
Should add a few dollars to his his "trading value"!! He's a top young bloke!

We will toast Sam tonight, after having observed our three alcohol-free days for this week!!

Just got a msg back from Sam's Dad, who said it's been a "big year" for them all. Dave also said: "Now that the dust has settled over coaching, let's hope they have a good tour"........... And so say all of us!!

 

[barbarian]

I always love the reaction by some when the JEM results go against their opinions of specific players. "The players think they know about rugby? Fuck that. I know about rugby, and this award is a joke".

The fact is you get a very different opinion of a player's ability when you play alongside them. That is true from 5th grade Subbies right through to Test level. And every year that theory is proven by the JEM.

It's doesn't make the award right or wrong, it is what it is, like the umpires voting for the Brownlow, or the journos for the Dally M. All about perspective.
.

 

[Mr Doug]

So the JEM votes should be normalised by salary? The final determinant is the number of votes you received divided by your salary?

Just because he's paid big bucks doesn't mean his contributions become any less impressive.

Hi Joeleee, I'd put that differently. Izzy is paid big bucks because his contributions are expected to be impressive. He is paid to perform at a level higher than most (or all) of his team mates.
I would need to have all the contract payment details in front of me to know if it's "most" or "all"!

Perhaps you have those details, if you do, tell me (via a PM), and if his remuneration is the same as that of Hooper and Slipper, I will extend him an apology.

 

[Aussie D]

for anyone who's played you know how these things work - normally blokes who do the most memorable things get the first voters nod, next bloke comes along says pretty much the same thing as they are still buggered from playing. Very little thought goes into it. This explains why fullbacks, flyhalves and flankers dominate and tight five forwards barely rate a mention.

 

[Mr Doug]

I can't imagine the players weigh up how good someone is meant to be relative to what they're being paid when handing out their MOTM points.

Given that comment BH81, perhaps it's a good thing that I'm not one of "the players"!

 

[Dctarget]

Doug, that's a bit of a ridiculous thing to claim. So that means that depending on your pay you get a handicap? You'd imagine someone like the Mantaray should've won because his salary to performance ratio would be huge.

The players are asked to vote objectively 3,2,1 each game on who performed the best, regardless of pay, expectations or how much they like the bloke.

EDIT: Sorry Mr Doug, looks like I'm just sticking the boot in now, my argument is a bit redundant after what others have posted.

 

[RugbyReg]

I always love the reaction by some when the JEM results go against their opinions of specific players. "The players think they know about rugby? Fuck that. I know about rugby, and this award is a joke".

The fact is you get a very different opinion of a player's ability when you play alongside them. That is true from 5th grade Subbies right through to Test level. And every year that theory is proven by the JEM.

It's doesn't make the award right or wrong, it is what it is, like the umpires voting for the Brownlow, or the journos for the Dally M. All about perspective.
.

absolutely agree with that.

And don't forget, the GAGR Wallaby Player of the Year. I genuinely think we have something quite unique here. Its the only of its type I am aware of. Voted by the fans after every test - not a popularity contest in a People's Choice type of way.

 

[Scrubber2050]

I would think Izzy is probably getting at least double the other 2 blokes - reckon Izzy ATM is on between $800,000 - $1,000,000. Is the difference worth it, probably not.

Suppose there is also the big question of "marketability" of a high profile player such as Folau which really does add to his value but not his playing prowess.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Doug, that's a bit of a ridiculous thing to claim. So that means that depending on your pay you get a handicap? You'd imagine someone like the Mantaray should've won because his salary to performance ratio would be huge.

The players are asked to vote objectively 3,2,1 each game on who performed the best, regardless of pay, expectations or how much they like the bloke.

EDIT: Sorry Mr Doug, looks like I'm just sticking the boot in now, my argument is a bit redundant after what others have posted.

Simple Solution:

The players vote after each match;
The votes go into a locked container
The Container is opened at seasons end under the scrutiny of a couple of indepenant persons (so no scallywag shit can happen).
The Award is announced accordingly.

There can be then no argument from anybody - re conspiracy theories of ARU agendas, Tahs, Reds - anybody - certainly would provide some tranparency - which tjhe ARU seems to be lacking

 

[Dctarget]

Scrubber I really don't think the ARU have the time, money or even intelligence to rig the system. The players themselves know who they voted for, they would've discussed it with each other etc. After the game there's a general consensus among the players about who was the best. So they would know something is up if Israel didn't win it fairly. The ARU would not want to run that risk. Time to put the tin foil hats away I think.

 

[Mr Doug]

Doug, that's a bit of a ridiculous thing to claim. So that means that depending on your pay you get a handicap? You'd imagine someone like the Mantaray should've won because his salary to performance ratio would be huge.

The players are asked to vote objectively 3,2,1 each game on who performed the best, regardless of pay, expectations or how much they like the bloke.

EDIT: Sorry Mr Doug, looks like I'm just sticking the boot in now, my argument is a bit redundant after what others have posted.

No need to apologise, Dctarget. It's not about a "handicap", it's about "expectations". Izzy (who, BTW, I regard as a very gifted player, but "being contained" of late), is paid commensurate to his past performances, and future expectations. When he first came to Rugby, Mrs D. was ambivalent. I said, "the guy's a freak, and he will deliver". He has "sometimes". Yes, my expectations are higher than many here, perhaps that's because after running several businesses, I expect staff to perform up to their individual "expectations"!

 

[Joeleee]

Hi Joeleee, I'd put that differently. Izzy is paid big bucks because his contributions are expected to be impressive. He is paid to perform at a level higher than most (or all) of his team mates.
I would need to have all the contract payment details in front of me to know if it's "most" or "all"!

Perhaps you have those details, if you do, tell me (via a PM), and if his remuneration is the same as that of Hooper and Slipper, I will extend him an apology.

I think we might be making different points. I'm trying to say that whether he's considered the best player in the team (which is, in one way, what the JEM is supposed to be about) is not impacted by his pay grade. He can still be considered the best player, even though he may be paid more than his worth (which I don't think he is).

I think what you're trying to say is that, dollar for dollar, his contributions on the field aren't to the level of guys like Slipper and Hooper. Fair enough, I think there's a very strong argument there, I just don't think that's what the JEM is about.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Relative contributions on the field have only a small correlation with how much a player is paid.

If you want Izzy playing for the Wallabies you're going to have to outbit several other very interested, cashed up outfits.

If you want James Slipper, there's much less interest and much less money from others.

It's supply and demand.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Hi Joeleee, I'd put that differently. Izzy is paid big bucks because his contributions are expected to be impressive. He is paid to perform at a level higher than most (or all) of his team mates.
I would need to have all the contract payment details in front of me to know if it's "most" or "all"!

Perhaps you have those details, if you do, tell me (via a PM), and if his remuneration is the same as that of Hooper and Slipper, I will extend him an apology.

Wait, this is the John Eales medal, not the Return On Investment medal. A player's wage has nothing to do with this.

 

[Braveheart81]

Simple Solution:

The players vote after each match;
The votes go into a locked container
The Container is opened at seasons end under the scrutiny of a couple of indepenant persons (so no scallywag shit can happen).
The Award is announced accordingly.

There can be then no argument from anybody - re conspiracy theories of ARU agendas, Tahs, Reds - anybody - certainly would provide some tranparency - which tjhe ARU seems to be lacking

The votes are counted after each match and a players' player is announced to the team (and generally a journalist or two will report it).

I'd say there is plenty of transparency already at least amongst the team.

In my experience, all these awards have some involvement from an auditor to review the process, counting and announcement etc.