Why Hayne shouldn't win the Dally M Medal

[Molly]

Unbelievable, Haynes first, then Daylight will again be runner up.

 

[ME SO HORNBY!]

I think Hayne will win. I love watching him play hes just a freak. He keeps this up and he could become one of the greats IMO.

 

[mickdo]

Lol, like when he was playing in the backline (centre i think it was)?

You clearly never saw him play at centre, or you wouldn't have made the comment. He was killing it even then. Shame the team wasn't.

 

[sando88]

was he killin it at 5/8

he will never be greatest of all time cos he aint even a ball player

 

[hineyrulz]

Hayne moved back to fullback in round 8 from memory, where he carved up the Cowboys and he has been carving it up ever since. he played ok at 5/8 in a sh*thouse team carrying a hack called Brett Finch. So at least 2 3rds of the season he has been easily the best player in the comp.

And as for Ridders comments of Hayne in the centres bit hard to do much if you are starved of the ball, just ask Jennings last friday night. With limited touches he was our best player.

 

[user_nat]

I remember the Eels V Broncos game early in the season, Hayne bombed about 5 tries over the line. When he was playing in the centres.

Donno if thats a good thing (he got over the line) or a bad thing (he dropped the ball). But its not exactly the top form he is in now.

 

[Redback71]

Rating every player every game...now there's an idea. take a lot more effort though, would require a panel for each game

Rugby League week has been doing it for decades.

 

[Redback71]

and Hayne has got 9 or a 10 out of 10 the last 6 or 7 weeks in a row

 

[Misanthrope]

No 1 deserves it more then Hayne. I cant recall many players dominating games like he has.

Didn't watch much prior to about 2007, did you? Johns; Lockyer, Lewis (in Origin); Langar; Fittler; Jones....

 

[Eelementary]

was he killin it at 5/8

he will never be greatest of all time cos he aint even a ball player

I don't care for this 'greatest' talk, but you're an idiot. Clearly he has all the skills - he's throwing cut-out passes, kicking and running.

As for the supremely stupid statement that only ball-players can be greats...Tell that to Shane Webcke...Clyde...Price...And the list goes on.

 

[Ulysseus]

Question, as with Johns in 2005 I wondered how he could come close you know since his team was dead last, couldn't ahve been that f**king dominant for them to finish at the foot of the ladder.

Thurston - why the f**k should he be a chance?
His team is gonna come about 10th or so, that's also hardly a picture of dominance.

Its a f**king bias bullsh*t award anyway, for instance when M Johns was a judge and judged on some Melbourne VS whoever games, he worked for the f**king team!
WHAT THE f**k!

Rugby League Week's player of the year has more meaning, and it can, and has, been won by forwards of all positions.

 

[mattyg]

exactly the reason it should be points based not 3-2-1. Rate every player per game out of 10. Whoever has the highest amount of points at the end of the year wins. You could even average it out maybe with a 15 game minimum, although I think the highest amount of points would work fine. Would also give forwards a better chance at winning the award.

 

[trudge]

exactly the reason it should be points based not 3-2-1. Rate every player per game out of 10. Whoever has the highest amount of points at the end of the year wins. You could even average it out maybe with a 15 game minimum, although I think the highest amount of points would work fine. Would also give forwards a better chance at winning the award.

Great idea.

Fantasy football does a good job of rating everyone on nrl.com. Perhaps they should have a fantasy team of winners.

 

[Jason Maher]

As has already been stated, Rugby League Week has managed to rate every player in every game for years. I believe they toss out the 3 or 4 worst results for a player when figuring out the overall winner, which allows for a couple of shockers or games missed through injury. I see no reason why the Dally M's can't be decided on such a system. Yes, you'll still get bias from some judges, but it will not have near the same effect as in a 3-2-1 system.

Of course, we could always go the AFL route of having the ref's do the voting...

 

[Non Terminator]

exactly the reason it should be points based not 3-2-1. Rate every player per game out of 10. Whoever has the highest amount of points at the end of the year wins. You could even average it out maybe with a 15 game minimum, although I think the highest amount of points would work fine. Would also give forwards a better chance at winning the award.

You wouldn't even need a 15 game minimum. Say they got 14 perfect games (140 points) and someone played the whole season averaging 6 (6 x 26 is 156) it would sort of value a full-season thing more.

 

[Ridders]

I have to admit i haven't heard of this Rugby League Week points system, but from what i've read, it sounds very impressive. Such a system would also allow workhorses like Stagg, Hindmarsh, Luck etc to get the recognition that their consistency demands.

 

[mickdo]

You wouldn't even need a 15 game minimum. Say they got 14 perfect games (140 points) and someone played the whole season averaging 6 (6 x 26 is 156) it would sort of value a full-season thing more.

That's stupid. The award should be for playing out of your skin, not playing more games. It would have to be an average.

 

[Admiral Awesome]

Hayne shouldnt win the Dally M becoz he has only ripped apart the competition for 18 straight weeks. Where was he the other 7 weeks?

 

[Ridders]

That's stupid. The award should be for playing out of your skin, not playing more games. It would have to be an average.

To be fair, if you go by the example, if one plays 14 games in a season, you probably don't deserve to be the Dally M Winner.

 

[K-Man]

Every player should be rated in every game. Fairest method.

Maybe, but everybody's idea of a rating scale is different. What one judge would call a 6 for an average game, another judge would give a 4.5

There would still be scope for it to be incredibly flawed.

At least with a 3-2-1 there are only 6 points to go around each game - how wrong can they get it? (Well, yes, very wrong... but even so).

Just look at how ridiculous the State of Origin ratings end up for an idea on how crazy a system like that might be after 26 rounds!

Also only players that played all 24 matches or very very close to it would have a chance of winning. I don't think that is overly fair.

A player could dominate the season but be injured in round 22. What chance would he have against guys playing an extra 4 matches scoring around 7/10 every match?