We have a 3 way tie for the MSD Lucky Find: Hugh Greenwood, Jack Sinclair and Aaron Mullett. I have a few ideas of resolving this tie: Award the title to all 3 players (like in the Brownlow) Award the title to the highest average out of the 3 (like in the Giant Tap) Have 1 more round to break the tie.
Weeeellll this is an interesting issue to have. I like the idea of highest average, because it shows the player was more valuable to their team. But then maybe it should actually be aggregate score from games played, as a true indication of worth to the team.
I'll have a look at both... Hugh Greenwood: Av. 86.6, score Post-MSD: 550 Jack Sinclair: Av. 81.5, score Post-MSD: 596 Aaron Mullett: Av. 81.13, score Post-MSD: 610
Not so in my opinion, By that reasoning you are saying the bloke who can play 20 games averaging 70 is a better "lucky find" than the bloke who play 13 games averaging 107, and then gets injured.... However the judges decision is final and accepted....
Actually no chops, because 20x70 = 1400 while 13x107 = 1391 (maybe you picked a bad example!!!) What we're saying is that the player who scores the most points for the team is the most valuable - it makes sense to me!
nah mate the example is fine. I'm not very good at getting my point across. I understand what you're saying that 1400 is better than 1391 and that's fine. But I'd rather have the bloke av 107 in my team, as a lucky find, than the bloke av 70, as a lucky find. And I'didn't vote in the poll and it appears 5 other people agree with me.. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree....
I only heard @JPK's idea of awarding for most points contributed after I set up the poll... might set up another poll though for fairness. Sinclair won the tiebreaker round so all 3 have a winning condition (with Mullett's being later realised) and the winner's winning condition will in future be used to resolve ties.