Brough leads Albert Goldthorpe Medal table

[League Express]

HUDDERSFIELD GIANTS star Danny Brough has moved to the top of the Albert Goldthorpe Medal table after earning the maximum three points for his performance for the Giants in their 25-16 victory over St Helens in Monday night's televised clash.

Click here to view the article

[amm]

some might say that's a convenient jump from 3rd to 1st....not me, I'm not naughty like that

[Larry the Leit]

some might say that's a convenient jump from 3rd to 1st....not me, I'm not naughty like that

 

I think most would say that it's an irrelevant award.

[Guest]

I wouldn't say that. It shows who has consistently been the best player throughout the season.

I think most would say that it's an irrelevant award.

[Ant]

I think most would say that it's an irrelevant award.

Like the golden boot then eh

[Larry the Leit]

Like the golden boot then eh

 

No, this one has always been meaningless, and not just recently discredited.

[Martyn Sadler]

I think most would say that it's an irrelevant award.

Rather a silly assertion!

 

Fortunately the players rate it very highly, and there is a strong move to change the rules for the Man of Steel award so that the players accumulate votes weekly for that too.

[Larry the Leit]

Rather a silly assertion!

 

Fortunately the players rate it very highly, and there is a strong move to change the rules for the Man of Steel award so that the players accumulate votes weekly for that too.

 

The players rate it very highly?  Ok Martyn if you say so, I'd bet if you asked most of them they'd have no idea how it works and many having never heard of it.

 

It's so flawed it's laughable.  Liam Farrell topped the table a few weeks ago, and yet had he been sent off for his striking of Justin Poore a week or so earlier in the season he'd have been excluded from the competition all together.

 

I don't have an issue with Brough being up there in terms of being "best", but "fairest" don't make me laugh.

 

Your own form in regards to awards highly questionable to say the least, you like a debate, and you like to raise awareness of your publications, but in seeking out these goals you devalued the greatest individual award in the game last year.  

[Martyn Sadler]

The players rate it very highly?  Ok Martyn if you say so, I'd bet if you asked most of them they'd have no idea how it works and many having never heard of it.

 

It's so flawed it's laughable.  Liam Farrell topped the table a few weeks ago, and yet had he been sent off for his striking of Justin Poore a week or so earlier in the season he'd have been excluded from the competition all together.

 

I don't have an issue with Brough being up there in terms of being "best", but "fairest" don't make me laugh.

 

Your own form in regards to awards highly questionable to say the least, you like a debate, and you like to raise awareness of your publications, but in seeking out these goals you devalued the greatest individual award in the game last year.  

Your point about Farrell is no longer correct. When the award began in 2008 we had a provision that being sent off disqualified a player from the award, but that provision was removed because it was too sweeping, partly because a player could be sent off but then be found not guilty.

 

You second point is presumably about Kevin Sinfield winning the Golden Boot.

 

The discussion about that was had at the time the award was announced, but Sinfield was a worthy winner and I was delighted to see him win the Golden Boot. It's rather a shame that you don't seem able to share that view.

[Red Willow]

Teams with a variety of match winners such as Wigan or Warrington fare less well than a team with 1 or 2 star players.

 

I'm not sure it shows the best player in the whole comp.

[nathanwood7]

I agree the award has failed to grip the imagination of rugby league fans and it's not hard to see why when Jarrod Sammut is rated in the top 5 players.

 

Has Sammut been better than any Warrington players this year or does he just stand out in a very mediocre Bradford side? The history of the award has been littered with strong scores for the key playmaker in some of the more average teams (Brough, Chase, Dureau, Dobson, Saummut etc).

 

Unfortunately our competition does not have the week-in week-out intensity of the NRL and therefore having a parallel award which recognises performances every week on an equal weighting, is flawed. A performance in a "big game" (i.e. v one of the big teams, or in a semi final or play-off match etc) should have more weighting in deciding the player of the year, than being the star man in a 60 point thrashing of London Broncos. 

[Martyn Sadler]

Teams with a variety of match winners such as Wigan or Warrington fare less well than a team with 1 or 2 star players.

 

I'm not sure it shows the best player in the whole comp.

In a team game it's impossible to have any foolproof system to find the best individual player. There is always going to be a degree of subjectivity about people's judgements.

 

That's why we award points over the whole season, so that performances back in February, for example, aren't totally forgotten.

 

By doing that, the cream tends to float to the top.

 

Your point about teams with multiple star players is certainly one that we are conscious of.

 

That's why we also have a team medal table, which Wigan are winning convincingly at the moment.

 

And, just for the information of Larry the Left, Wigan won this medal last year and Shaun Wane was quite emotional and very grateful for having won it, and gave a very gracious speech when it was awarded to him.

[Larry the Leit]

Your point about Farrell is no longer correct. When the award began in 2008 we had a provision that being sent off disqualified a player from the award, but that provision was removed because it was too sweeping, partly because a player could be sent off but then be found not guilty.

 

You second point is presumably about Kevin Sinfield winning the Golden Boot.

 

The discussion about that was had at the time the award was announced, but Sinfield was a worthy winner and I was delighted to see him win the Golden Boot. It's rather a shame that you don't seem able to share that view.

 

Fair enough about the eligibility, reference sending offs etc.  I wasn't sure on this, and checked on Wikipedia before posting, it seems that that source is a little out of date on this.

 

You see Kevin Sinfield as a worthy winner, I do not.  It'd be a shame if everyone agreed with everyone else Martyn. Danny Brough won the award when at Wakefield, despite being a petulant little so and so, hardly the best player in the competition back then and in no way shape or form the fairest.

[Larry the Leit]

 

I agree the award has failed to grip the imagination of rugby league fans and it's not hard to see why when Jarrod Sammut is rated in the top 5 players.

 

Has Sammut been better than any Warrington players this year or does he just stand out in a very mediocre Bradford side? The history of the award has been littered with strong scores for the key playmaker in some of the more average teams (Brough, Chase, Dureau, Dobson, Saummut etc).

 

Unfortunately our competition does not have the week-in week-out intensity of the NRL and therefore having a parallel award which recognises performances every week on an equal weighting, is flawed. A performance in a "big game" (i.e. v one of the big teams, or in a semi final or play-off match etc) should have more weighting in deciding the player of the year, than being the star man in a 60 point thrashing of London Broncos. 

 

Jarrad Sammut is a great player, but at times he's pretty much carried Bradford whereas the better sides share their workload.  I'm not sure whether he should attract more or less points for that feat.

 

There are plenty of blowout games in the NRL.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Larry the Leit

[Larry the Leit]

Incidentally where did the Golden Boot winner come in the Albert Goldthorpe Medal table last year?

[Ant]

Personally I like the medal table, sure it might favour a player who stands out in a club with less game breakers BUT the award is for the single player that stands out in a game, week in and week out

It isn't which player from each team, it's which player from EACH GAME. So for a player to top the table it means they have stood out week in and week out as a fine and fair player against all opposition, home and away.

Whether its Liam Farrell in a team if stars, or Jarred Sammut single handedly carrying the Bulls the points awarded reflect the players impact on the game, and in my opinion make it a worthy prize

[Martyn Sadler]

I agree the award has failed to grip the imagination of rugby league fans and it's not hard to see why when Jarrod Sammut is rated in the top 5 players.

 

Has Sammut been better than any Warrington players this year or does he just stand out in a very mediocre Bradford side? The history of the award has been littered with strong scores for the key playmaker in some of the more average teams (Brough, Chase, Dureau, Dobson, Saummut etc).

 

Unfortunately our competition does not have the week-in week-out intensity of the NRL and therefore having a parallel award which recognises performances every week on an equal weighting, is flawed. A performance in a "big game" (i.e. v one of the big teams, or in a semi final or play-off match etc) should have more weighting in deciding the player of the year, than being the star man in a 60 point thrashing of London Broncos. 

When you talk about the week-in week-out intensity of the NRL, it's worth mentioning that Isaac John couldn't force his way into Wakefield's team, but since going back to the NRL he has played in Penrith's last three games, and they have won them all, with John having scored three tries in one of them. I suspect he has won several points in the Dally M Medal award table, although it's surprisingly hard to find that out.

 

Sammut would be at least as good as John, if back in the NRL, so I think your criticism of him is harsh.

[nathanwood7]

Jarrad Sammut is a great player, but at times he's pretty much carried Bradford whereas the better sides share their workload.  I'm not sure whether he should attract more or less points for that feat.

 

There are plenty of blowout games in the NRL.

 

I wasn't trying to pick on Jarrad Sammut - it's a wider point I'm trying to make. Also, I think it's widely accepted that the NRL is a more intense competition, something which has only been exasperated by the top 8 play off system which has led to the decent teams being able to cruise through the regular season without having to be at their best each week in full knowledge that they will be in with a shout of the Grand Final at the year end.

 

It depends what type of award you want I guess, but I believe the award has failed to capture the imagination of the wider rugby league public, and part of this is down to a credibility issue when you look at some of the names who are or aren't in the top scorers. 

[Dave T]

form team according to this award (as at June 2nd):

 

1 - Tomkins

2 - Carney

3 - Crooks

4 - Ratchford (centres seem to pick up very few points in this, so I went with him as he has played there this year)

5 - Dixon

6 - Sammut

7 - Dobson

8 - Paea

9 - Houghton

10 - Crabtree

11 - Farrell

12 - Paterson

13 - Wilkin

 

Does anybody genuinely believe this is the form 13 after 16 rounds?

[hindle xiii]

form team according to this award (as at June 2nd):

 

1 - Tomkins

2 - Carney

3 - Crooks

4 - Ratchford (centres seem to pick up very few points in this, so I went with him as he has played there this year)

5 - Dixon

6 - Sammut

7 - Dobson

8 - Paea

9 - Houghton

10 - Crabtree

11 - Farrell

12 - Paterson

13 - Wilkin

 

Does anybody genuinely believe this is the form 13 after 16 rounds?

How come Brough isn't in there when he leads the table?

 

Are you Steve McNamara?!

[Dave T]

How come Brough isn't in there when he leads the table?

 

Are you Steve McNamara?!

Read the first line (the bit in brackets) 

 

Blame this website!

[Barry Badrinath]

I agree the award has failed to grip the imagination of rugby league fans and it's not hard to see why when Jarrod Sammut is rated in the top 5 players.

 

Has Sammut been better than any Warrington players this year or does he just stand out in a very mediocre Bradford side? The history of the award has been littered with strong scores for the key playmaker in some of the more average teams (Brough, Chase, Dureau, Dobson, Saummut etc).

Funny you should mention sammut,when warrington rinsed bradford a few weeks ago, we got the 3rd and 2nd place points, sammut was given the 1point.

 

Now, bear in mind, it was a very one sided game after the first ten minutes, and during that game, i'm pretty sure sammut came up with numerous knock ons, a couple of ###### kicks that went dead and also i think gave away penalties for incorrect play the ball on two occaisions.

 

He was a big part in bradfords inability to claw back into the game.

 

And he got one 1 point, in the reporters opinion, he had performed better than the other 15 warrington players.

 

Likewise last week, a slightly more close game in parts for warrington versus sintellins at the magic weekend, jordan turner inexplicably found himself in the scoring, myler and ratch for warrington, and jordan turner(presumably cos he'd scored 2 tries) got the other as well.  Why? riley had scored twice, one a personal best, waterhouse scored two, Turner was at fault for a couple as well.

 

Now you might think this is a bit unusual, but its not. Go back to 2011 when we were putting hammerings on everyone, it was a regular occurence to see on on monday morning

3pts WArrington player

2ptsWarrington player

1pt Token gift point for player who's had 60 points put past them.

 

I understand why martyn started this competition, but the awarding of points and scoring is highly questionable when you see sympathy points being handed out like that.

[RSN]

form team according to this award (as at June 2nd):

1 - Tomkins

2 - Carney

3 - Crooks

4 - Ratchford (centres seem to pick up very few points in this, so I went with him as he has played there this year)

5 - Dixon

6 - Sammut

7 - Dobson

8 - Paea

9 - Houghton

10 - Crabtree

11 - Farrell

12 - Paterson

13 - Wilkin

Does anybody genuinely believe this is the form 13 after 16 rounds?

You could probably argue cases for Tomkins, Crooks, Brough, Ratchford, Houghton Crabtree Farrell and Paterson.

[Dave T]

For me the big flaw in this is award is that it doesn't reward consistency. A player could get a fair number of man of the match awards yet be dire in the other games and still make the top of the table.

 

To be top after 16 games, 7 MOM performances would do, and 9 shockers is fine. It may be easy for a player to do well against lower teams and get the mom, but it is how they do in the big games that is really important.

 

Personally, I'd prefer this award to have a player rating for each game and sum these up and get an average (minimum game criteria etc). That way somebody who is an 8/9 out of 10 in every single game of the season would rightly be in with a chance.

[hindle xiii]

Read the first line (the bit in brackets) 

 

Blame this website!

Yeah, my bad. Stupid me/LE.

 

Although you didn't answer my follow-up question?!