just going by his stats, i would put some money on him for sure. but darnell mee and rillie would have to be close to.

(dame adelaide gets some good talent!! if only we could keep them)

And to think, Victoria cut this guy. His old journal posts are worth a read - he held back a bit when he arrived at Victoria because he didn't want to be seen as being too selfish ..... and they sacked him 'cause they interpreted this as his being unable to play! Their loss, our gain. Well spotted again, Mr Smyth!

I think Darnell Mee for his overall game will also warrent some attention as will Wethers

was it townsville who let him go? - fools

I think it will come down to Mee, Rychart, Wethers and Smith.

I think they decide MVP on a game by game voting system similar to the Brownlow.

I can't think of many games where Rychart wouldn't have been in the top 3 performing 36ers.

However, same can be said of the others I listed. Will Saville and Campbell steal more votes from Mee than Maher and Farley steal from Rychart?

You would imagine Maher would poll well and would have also been a contender (if not the favourite) if he had played 32 games.

With the MVP voting, it used to be that each coach assigned 10 points to the opposing team at the end of each game. So, if A.Gaze destroyed you, he might get 7 and Copeland 2 and Bradtke 1 (and that's it). Or you can give 1 point to 10 players.

Has the system changed?

I think it's 10 votes that the coach can give for BOTH teams, with a maximum of 5 to any one player.

(Mod: Nice of you to join us once in a while!)

I'd like to see each of the Sixers main three players get something. Maher was a great chance at MVP before missing a few games and Dusty may be Adelaide's best shot now.

I'm hoping that Farley can get the scoring title in these last few games. He's a fraction behind Brian Wethers. Farley has 2 games to go while Wethers has 4. Willie has really picked up in the absence of Maher, elevating his rebound and assist stats as well as his usual scoring.

Didn't Farley getted pipped at the post for the scoring title the last time he was with the 36ERS?

Yeah, by Randy Rutherford wasn't it? Something like 24.3 to 24.9.

:-) - I have to pop in every so often, wouldn't want you forgetting me now.

You could try the technique Libertine uses so people don't forget him -- find geriatric fetish websites and send them to people on his MSN list... charming lad.

Didn't cat win the scoring title last year or before from matty nielson?

Well, the MVP voting forms actually ask both coaches to award votes to both the visiting and home teams.

I think it is still a maximum of 10 votes, with a max to 5 to one player.

Well done to Yogee for re-wording my post. You've done an excellent job :-).

To put my 2 cents worth in, i'd have to say Wethers would get it as he's got the least amount of competition on his team, the only down side is he's on a losing side. Generally I guess he'd be second on most counts but there simply isn't anyone on his team that will really take points off him. Dusty has to compete with Farley and Maher, Mee has to compete with Campbell and Sav, Rillie with Brown, Newley and Calvary, Smith with Bruton, Sandford and Roberts so it's going to be tough to go past Wethers, especially as he stands out because of his scoring.
Could be wrong though...

Do they go purely on the after-game votes from the coaches though? Surely there has to be some modifier related to the success of the team?

Or does that come in the allocation by coaches. i.e., if Adelaide won, would Breheny favour the 36ERS heavily with his votes? Would a coach ever routely give all 10 votes to players on his own team regardless of the outcome?

He could be a little like Renae Camino from the AIS who polled in 15 games inthe ABC player of the year, but finished about 7th with 25 votes.

Hunter have won around half their games though, compared to the AIS winning just 3 games all season. I think Wethers is a good shot at winning it.

The 36ers could easily have 3 in the top 10 though!

Sorry Hoop Addict, serves me right for not reading your post thoroughly.

I do apologise :)