Official Nicho Hynes

HaroldBishop said:

Nicho only 2 points off hahaha that's ridiculous

Click to expand...

Agree . Probably would have won if he didn't miss some early season games .

The whole thing is so flawed.

SF said:

View attachment 29543

Kalyn Ponga wins Dally M Medal

Newcastle Knights have taken out Dally M double, with Kalyn Ponga winning the men’s Dally M Medal and Tamika Upton earning the women’s Medal.

www.nrl.com

Click to expand...

Well at least they released the final standings (Minus Drink[more]water)
I know rnd 27 had no bearing on the result, but they should have still read out the votes on the night!

Also lucky that NQLD had a poor game (as did Drinkwater) otherwise it could have been embarrassing to see him at 56 points alongside Ponga.

Nikora and McInnes are two I can think of that had a better year than Nicho.

Western Sharkie said:

Well at least they released the final standings (Minus Drink[more]water)
I know rnd 27 had no bearing on the result, but they should have still read out the votes on the night!

Also lucky that NQLD had a poor game (as did Drinkwater) otherwise it could have been embarrassing to see him at 56 points alongside Ponga.

Click to expand...

Yeah they have to address that ineligible situation next year

SF said:

Yeah they have to address that ineligible situation next year

Click to expand...

I definitely get it.

The alternative thou is that they could end up giving someone who didn’t deserve points, points! Especially at the end of the season when factoring in eligibility.
And it’s hard to not give someone votes if they have had a blinder even if ineligible.

I think they need to go back to 3-2-1 each round.

Maybe a panel of 3 decide them instead of 2 given their own set of 3-2-1’s

Just an idea

Western Sharkie said:

I definitely get it.

The alternative thou is that they could end up giving someone who didn’t deserve points, points! Especially at the end of the season when factoring in eligibility.
And it’s hard to not give someone votes if they have had a blinder even if ineligible.

Click to expand...

I would say they can keep getting points but just don't include them in the TV Points countdown once they are ineligible.

Sir Chadley said:

Nikora and McInnes are two I can think of that had a better year than Nicho.

Click to expand...

Had a better year but are they our ‘best’ players? Nicho is our best and most important player.
The voting judges appear to value the
contributions of our star halfback more than they worry about being lost or having adhd or whatever because he tries to make things happen in loses probably a bit too generously.

Nikora, McInnes played more ‘consistently’ and closer to their ceiling. But Nicho is our best player.

Western Sharkie said:

I definitely get it.

The alternative thou is that they could end up giving someone who didn’t deserve points, points! Especially at the end of the season when factoring in eligibility.
And it’s hard to not give someone votes if they have had a blinder even if ineligible.

Click to expand...

Agree so I think maybe the solution is -3 per week suspended, perhaps -6 per week at discretion of judiciary (not a good look to have someone who had a biting charge up the top end for example). But nobody is ever ‘ineligible’.

SF said:

I would say they can keep getting points but just don't include them in the TV Points countdown once they are ineligible.

Click to expand...

So they still get read out, but don’t accumulate on the points table?

Yep. That works for me.

But you know some jurno will still keep a tally and report that Player X scored more than the winner and missed out due to ineligibility

Flanno said:

Proof the system needs an overhaul

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it needs an overhaul, you just need to recognise it's limitations. Look at the guy who won it, he pretty much only played half a season.

It's the nature of the system that generally rewards attacking players and will always reward the star player in an average team (Ponga, Drinkwater, Nicho) over the star player in a good team where other guys will steal votes (Cleary).

Look at the top 20:
Panthers - 3 players (Cleary 48, Edwards 42, Yeo 41)
Broncos - 3 players (Haas 48, Walsh 42, Reynolds 36)
Warriors - 2 players (SJ 55, AFB 44)
Storm - 2 players (Grant 47, Munster 31)
Eels - 2 players (Gutho 38, Moses 33)
Newcastle - 1 player (Ponga 56)
Sharks - 1 player (Nicho 54)
Cowboys - 1 player (Drinkwater 50)
Manly - 1 player (DCE 50)
Roosters - 1 player (Teddy 39)
Dragons - 1 player (Hunt 37)
Titans - 1 player (Tino 36)
Souths - 1 player (Walker 35)

Sir Chadley said:

Nikora and McInnes are two I can think of that had a better year than Nicho.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but if one of Nikora, McInnes or Nicho played no games this year, I know which one would have hurt us the most.

So to change the system so it favours players that are in stacked teams - you would need to go to a system similar to what the old Rugby League Week did. That is - everyone gets a rating out of 10.

But you’d still get the flashy players winning it, because they get noticed more than blokes working hard off the ball

Mr Ryan said:

So to change the system so it favours players that are in stacked teams - you would need to go to a system similar to what the old Rugby League Week did. That is - everyone gets a rating out of 10.

But you’d still get the flashy players winning it, because they get noticed more than blokes working hard off the ball

Click to expand...

Yeah that's how the ratings system originally worked on here, and it was almost impossible to give fair ratings to everyone, unless you sat down and watched a full replay and looked at all the stats. There's also the question of "do they deserve a 9/10 because they played almost to the best of their ability, or 5/10 because they are still average".

Mr Ryan said:

So to change the system so it favours players that are in stacked teams - you would need to go to a system similar to what the old Rugby League Week did. That is - everyone gets a rating out of 10.

But you’d still get the flashy players winning it, because they get noticed more than blokes working hard off the ball

Click to expand...

A fair question also though is who does more to win you the game
One of three to seven middles 'working hard off the ball' or your best spine player?
Your good attacking edge player who runs a great line and defends solidly on one side, or your best spine player?
Your whole team contribute to wins, your hard workers help lay the platform to let others shine, but the top spine players are on big money and on the ball as much as possible because they are how most teams win games.

Looking at the leaderboard
Ponga - spine
SJ - spine
Drinky - spine
Hynes - spine
Grant - spine
DCE - spine
AFB - forward (and first repeat of a team)
Cleary/Edwards - spine (and repeat) - Haas (forward)

Not a winger, centre or edge forward in the top 10 and plenty of players across these positions had really good seasons.
The spine players, particularly the better ones, simply impact the game far more. The two middles who made it are well beyond just 'hard working'.

To highlight the importance, if you swapped Ponga and Perham the Knights and Bulldogs probably close to swap ladder positions.
How would the ladder look if Dolphins had SJ in that form and Warriors had IKatoa competing with Volkman, TMM and Metcalf

I do agree with your first sentence, this system hurts players in stacked teams. Question I guess is do they consider it an MVP award?
Can definitely mount a fair argument Ponga was the most valuable player to his team for the season, but was he the best player? I think there is more room for conversation there.
He was very good, no doubt, was he substantially better than, for example, Reece Walsh? I think your could fairly debate that and Walsh wasn't even in the top 10 for votes. Assuming it is an MVP award the results are probably pretty accurate, punishing more stacked teams (who probably don't mind because they make the grand final instead).

SF said:

Yeah that's how the ratings system originally worked on here, and it was almost impossible to give fair ratings to everyone, unless you sat down and watched a full replay and looked at all the stats. There's also the question of "do they deserve a 9/10 because they played almost to the best of their ability, or 5/10 because they are still average".

Click to expand...

Agree with that issue, you can kind of address it by laying out the parameters to at least provide some guidance. The other issue we would have, which NRL with set voters wouldn't, is dudes getting thrown 1s or 0s for an poor to okay game with one stand out bad moment.

MrDravid said:

Maybe, but if one of Nikora, McInnes or Nicho played no games this year, I know which one would have hurt us the most.

Click to expand...

If one of Nikora or McInnes we’re in the halves you wouldn’t be saying that

Halves are generally the most important players of your team but that doesn’t mean Nikora or McInnes performance over the year wasn’t more consistent/better then Hynes

bort said:

The spine players, particularly the better ones, simply impact the game far more. The two middles who made it are well beyond just 'hard working'.

Click to expand...

If only there were some sort of Index...

Mr Ryan said:

So to change the system so it favours players that are in stacked teams - you would need to go to a system similar to what the old Rugby League Week did. That is - everyone gets a rating out of 10.

But you’d still get the flashy players winning it, because they get noticed more than blokes working hard off the ball

Click to expand...

That would make it too difficult for Ruan Simms to guestimate.

The system is biased against locks. Come on. Only one lock in the top 20. Total bullshit. Harris, Carrigan, Red Dog and Yeo were the best players on their respective teams this year, but the show ponies hog all of the points.

NRL obviously devised this system to stop the locks winning everything and demanding more money. They should form their own union, or a splinter league.

BurgoShark said:

The system is biased against locks. Come on. Only one lock in the top 20. Total bullshit. Harris, Carrigan, Red Dog and Yeo were the best players on their respective teams this year, but the show ponies hog all of the points.

NRL obviously devised this system to stop the locks winning everything and demanding more money. They should form their own union, or a splinter league.

Click to expand...

Most locks just pass the ball as the link man now - it doesn’t have to be that way - but it is fact ..

Cam Murray is an awesome player - even he did too much of this - partly because his half back is so very limited ..

BurgoShark said:

The system is biased against locks. Come on. Only one lock in the top 20. Total bullshit. Harris, Carrigan, Red Dog and Yeo were the best players on their respective teams this year, but the show ponies hog all of the points.

NRL obviously devised this system to stop the locks winning everything and demanding more money. They should form their own union, or a splinter league.

Click to expand...

#LockLivesMatter