Dally M Points

[system]

Dally M Points

Raiders v Tigers – Judge: Andrew Johns

3 R Farah (WTI)

2 D Shillington (CAN)

1 B Ryan (WTI)

 

[tiger05]

Fair call.

 

[stryker]

Not saying that these players didnt play well but for mine

Josh Duggan should have scored = He had spiders all over him all day long ran the ball back hard and made some crucial tackles at the back.
Robbie Farah should have scored = His work around the ruck area and his defense were the best I've seen from him in ages.
Benji Marshall should have scored = Had a quiet game by his standards only, what he did do was of high quality scored a try with great backing up, set a few up with very selective passing and defended well - I'm sure I saw him make 4 tackles in a row there at one stage.

 

[innsaneink]

Not saying that these players didnt play well but for mine

Josh Duggan should have scored = He had spiders all over him all day long ran the ball back hard and made some crucial tackles at the back.
Robbie Farah should have scored = His work around the ruck area and his defense were the best I've seen from him in ages.
Benji Marshall should have scored = Had a quiet game by his standards only, what he did do was of high quality scored a try with great backing up, set a few up with very selective passing and defended well - I'm sure I saw him make 4 tackles in a row there at one stage.

Farah got 3 pts

 

[ron_burgandy]

well i wonder what more marshall had to do to poll atleast 1 point

2 try assists
3 line break assists
1 try
1 line break

 

[hybrid_tiger]

Marshall was quiet for 60 minutes, so those stats are scary.

Honestly, one game we are going to fire and play well in attack and defence for the whole 80 minutes and we will put 70 points on some poor team.

 

[Marshall_magic]

Dugan was easily the best player on the field, JoEy has been up to his old tricks again.

 

[stryker]

Dugan was easily the best player on the field, JoEy has been up to his old tricks again.

Agreed I think it should have been 3 - Dugan, 2 - Farah, 1 - Marshall

 

[Juro]

Dally M points are so seriously flawed! I've said it before and I'll probably keep on saying it - The whole points system is backwards!!

You give 3 players points (3, 2, 1) regardless of how they played and the rest of the 31 players get nothing. You could have a game where everyone plays perfect, but over 90% of the players get nothing. Or you could have the most ordinary game ever played, and one guy walks away with 3 points because he sucked the least.

What happens if you are in a side with 3 superstars? You will struggle to get a point, no matter how you play. If you are the only decent player in a team, you'll pick up 3 points every time your team wins.

Please, give every player a score (out of 5, 10, 100, whatever) and add that up at the end of the year. That way players are judged on their own performance, not the performance relative to everyone else.

Who invented this mess???

 

[tiger_sean]

Dally M points are so seriously flawed! I've said it before and I'll probably keep on saying it - The whole points system is backwards!!

You give 3 players points (3, 2, 1) regardless of how they played and the rest of the 31 players get nothing. You could have a game where everyone plays perfect, but over 90% of the players get nothing. Or you could have the most ordinary game ever played, and one guy walks away with 3 points because he sucked the least.

What happens if you are in a side with 3 superstars? You will struggle to get a point, no matter how you play. If you are the only decent player in a team, you'll pick up 3 points every time your team wins.

Please, give every player a score (out of 5, 10, 100, whatever) and add that up at the end of the year. That way players are judged on their own performance, not the performance relative to everyone else.

Who invented this mess???

That sounds like a much better system to me.

 

[Marshall_magic]

Dally M points are so seriously flawed! I've said it before and I'll probably keep on saying it - The whole points system is backwards!!

You give 3 players points (3, 2, 1) regardless of how they played and the rest of the 31 players get nothing. You could have a game where everyone plays perfect, but over 90% of the players get nothing. Or you could have the most ordinary game ever played, and one guy walks away with 3 points because he sucked the least.

What happens if you are in a side with 3 superstars? You will struggle to get a point, no matter how you play. If you are the only decent player in a team, you'll pick up 3 points every time your team wins.

**Please, give every player a score (out of 5, 10, 100, whatever) and add that up at the end of the year. That way players are judged on their own performance, not the performance relative to everyone else.**

Who invented this mess???

Problem with that is it will favour guys who play all 24 games, over guys who play say 20\. If you play 24 games and score 7/10 you score 168 points, if someone misses 5 games, they'd need to average close to 9/10 to beat them. If they did that, and added up the best 15 games of the player (I think that's a fair representation of their season), it would provide a more balanced result, based on performances, not how many games you play.

 

[MacDougall]

I say just say minimum 15 games, then highest average score per game. Though your idea is alright as well.

Say for instance Brett Kimmorley has a grand total of 181 points and plays 22 games this season, he gets an average score of 8.23, then Johnathan Thurston gets a score of 154 and plays 17 games he gets a score of 9.06, even though he has a lower aggregate, he played less games so he has a higher average score.