Josh Daicos captured in telling reaction after brother Nick 'steals' Brownlow Medal vote

Collingwood star Nick Daicos was motoring towards the Brownlow last year when a knee injury sidelined him for the last three games and ultimately saw him drop from leading the count to third. And in 2024, the race for the Brownlow Medal seemingly was between him and Patrick Cripps. But in the end, it wasn't even close, as the Carlton star won with a record tally on Monday night.

Cripps polled 45 votes on Monday night, including 12 three-vote games out of the 24 rounds beating Daicos by seven votes - although the Pies young gun's tally of 38 would have won any other Brownlow count in history. However, many believe Daicos' tally should have actually been one fewer, with a case of mistaken identity seemingly at play in the Pies' King's Birthday clash.

In that game Collingwood's Jack Crisp polled the three votes as expected, following on from his 10 coaches votes. John Noble was handed two votes and Daicos one. However, both of them were peculiar choices and in the case of Daicos, one where he was almost certainly mistaken for his brother Josh.

According to the AFL Player Ratings, Noble (two votes) was 24th overall, while Daicos (one vote) was 16th. Incredibly Daicos polled despite being subbed out with just 15 disposals in an uncharacteristically quiet game for the Pies star. Meanwhile, his brother Josh was by most accounts the second-best player on the field.

He finished with a game-high 34 disposals, and per the coaches, was the second-best player on the ground (seven coaches votes). Despite this, he didn't receive a vote.

And as the votes for the King's Birthday clash were read out on Monday night, his brother Nick was visibly taken aback as his name was called out to receive the one vote. He immediately looked over to his brother Josh, who pointed at himself, asking the table if he heard correctly that it was his brother who was awarded the point and not him. And the AFL world was equally stunned by what appeared to be a case of mistaken identity.

Should the Brownlow Medal voting system be changed?

The possible Daicos mix-up was far from the only head-scratching vote revealed on Monday night, with some questionable decisions again opening up the debate around whether the system needs an overhaul. It's long been recognised that the Brownlow system - which is voted on by the umpires alone - favours midfielders and gives extra weight to players who get their hands on the ball the most, such as Daicos and Cripps.

But after Cripps recorded the most votes in Brownlow history, many have called for change stating that his record-breaking 45 votes would suggest he has had the greatest season in AFL history, a statement seemingly no one in the AFL world believes. His incredible tally was a mix of some incredible performances and also some questionable inclusions.

For example, in Round 13 the Carlton star received two votes against Essendon despite ranking as the 11th-best player on the ground per the AFL's Player Ratings system. In that game he also only kicked at 14 per cent efficiency and finished with 19 disposals, yet was still incredibly rated as the second-best player on the ground by the umpires.

In total, there were 17 instances in which a player polled three Brownlow votes but zero from the coaches. And many believe the AFL Coaches Association Award is a better barometer for the best player of the year, and there's clearly a divide in what the coaches and umpires look for.

RELATED:

• Big Ken Hinkley development after ugly fallout over Port's finals exit

• AFL great questions Geelong's delayed Max Holmes decision in loss

Last year, former AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan admitted it would be beneficial for umpires to look at stats before awarding their Brownlow votes, rather than going purely off feel. But McLachlan said "there’s no way in the world anyone should contemplate changing it" and taking the voting out of the hands of umpires.

“Generally, the best players win, and it’s the beauty of the thing," he said on SEN radio. “Should you give them some baseline data to work with, that could be debated … but it’s an umpires’ vote and that’s absolutely right from my point of view – it’s created this mystique and uncertainty. I don’t know what people want … the formula works.”