TYS Wallaby Player of the Year

[RugbyReg]

Not disputing the methods.

Seems strange that George Smith didn't poll at all. :nta:

yep, remembering the baabaa game didn't count. He was just overshadowed it would seem in the other matches.

What I also did was ended up, for every game, was added up all votes everyone received each game and then divided it by the number of people voting to effectively come up with a percentage of the vote per game. I've then added them all up for a total tour votes. Which is:

TOTAL
Luke Burgess 4.85
Dean Mumm 3.31
Stephen Moore 2.94
Benn Robinson 2.89
Nathan Sharpe 2.82
Matt Giteau 1.74
Al Baxter 1.74
Digby Ione 1.33
Stirling Mortlock 1.17
Mark Chisolm 1.08
Ben Alexander 1.07
Hugh McMeniman 1.05
Richard Brown 0.90
Peter Hynes 0.85
George Smith 0.67
Drew Mitchell 0.46
Quade Cooper 0.36
Lote Tuqiri 0.21
Adam Ashley-Cooper 0.13
Wycliffe Palu 0.13
Phil Waugh 0.07
Berrick Barnes 0.06

 

[Scotty]

I think Burgess getting the majority of the votes for the Wales game is slightly insane. I guess over a short period like this the 3-2-1 system somewhat awards inconsistent performances - if you are crap one game then great the next people will tend to notice the difference more and you are more likely to poll higher. This will probably even out over a whole year though.

If we all gave the players a rating out of 10 for each game, then we would probably see the likes of Smith up the top.

 

[Ash]

Yeah, no system is perfect, and it's unfortunate that this system rewards gross inconsistencies. Typically you wouldn't expect a Wallaby to be able to be so woeful for a few weeks and so good the next - but we had to persist with Burgess instead of easing him in in the ideal way. Such is life, and hopefully it's a very unusual situation.

Well done to Burgess, but he is bloody lucky.

Kudos to Noddy for putting it together.

 

[naza]

I think Burgess getting the majority of the votes for the Wales game is slightly insane.

No, you giving Drew Mitchell 3 points was insane. Our forwards were solid but nobody stood out. Our backs were hopeless. Mitchell kicked a ton of ball away albeit made a good covering tackle. Burgess tackled like a loose forward, got us the only attacking momentum we had in the match, and engineered our tries. Only flaw was a couple of mediocre box kicks.

 

[Scotty]

And what did Mitchell do wrong, oh great one?

Anyway, the point is the Burgess has been rewarded, in a way for incosistency and potential. As Ash says, we had to persist with him and he has therefore probably got a lot of points because he was compared from week to week, bad to good.

Although I think he was very good in HK. I just don't think he is the second coming that some here do (happy to be proved wrong though). I have even spoken to some English and Kiwi guys, whose analysis of the England game was - you were pretty good, but I don't think much of your half back!

 

[naza]

What did he do right ? He kicked valuable possession away. He didn't do a good job of it either - failing to chase, not catching his up and unders. I'm a fan but he's been underwhelming. With his running ability he should have carved up. Instead he does silly stuff like over running the bloke who's about to pass him the ball.

As for Burgess, seems you can't let go of the England game and are putting too much stock in it.

I find it odd that posters on here relentlessly campaign for youth/'new blood' but have little patience with said new blood in the Wallaby jersey.

 

[disco]

Burgess actually won it easy, when you look at the points scored by players the next bloke down is usually only .2 of a point behind yet Burgess beat Mumm by 1.54

 

[formeropenside]

there are a lot of Burgess fans on the Scarf, apparently

 

[RugbyReg]

Burgess actually won it easy, when you look at the points scored by players the next bloke down is usually only .2 of a point behind yet Burgess beat Mumm by 1.54

its a bit of that Dally M thing. Better performing players in poorer teams often win it because they stand out more often. Burgess got our MOM in two of our poorer performances (the two losses on tour) whilst Mumm (2nd) got MOM in our bad Italy game.

 

[Spook]

there are a lot of Burgess fans on the Scarf, apparently

This poll only proves that Aussie rugby fans are extremely parochial

 

[Scarfman]

???

The Reds thread is twice as long as the Tahs thread. I reckon not many people would be voting just for players from their own province.

Although I'm open to statistical evidence to the contrary. Noddy? Got any stats packages installed on your computer?

 

[Sully]

I voted for the Cockroach

 

[RugbyReg]

Hmmm. Just checked and it would seem that after every game he gave the following points.

3 Phil Waugh
2 Matt Dunning
1 Adam Freier.

 

[Scarfman]

And why wouldn't you? Good call.

 

[Scotty]

Naza,

Do you think that the England game is the only one in which Burgess has been poor? I'd love to share your faith in him, but until he shows more consistency in his performance, then other options will also need to be tried. He is not exactly 'young' at 25 anyway.

I'm sure that we will see at least one or two other halfbacks in Wallaby jerseys in 2009.

 

[naza]

I think it helps to reflect on what an incredible season Burgess has had. This is a bloke who started the year with senior representative experience consisting of a grand total of 2 appearances off the bench for the Brumbies. He still has played less S14 than Kurtley Beale, Lachlan Turner & Quade Cooper.

He's finished the season our best back, 2nd only to Stirling Mortlock. I'm not sure what your expectations were but I'm stoked that he's emerged and we're not stuck with Brett Sheehan as our #1 halfback.

 

[Scarfman]

Yeah, that's all great - give him the Rookie award or something. But I wouldn't put him in the top half of players on the tour.

Lots of potential, very briefly fulfilled, and then a lot of garbage. As Scotty says, I would be jumping out of my skin if I was J.Holmes or Lucas, thinking I had a real shot.