As humans, we all display bias on a daily basis whether we are aware of it in our decision making or not. Conscious and unconscious bias affects every decision we make and that extends to the Brownlow and how umpires interpret the game and votes.
Over the past number of years, the perception has been that the Brownlow has become a midfielders award and that the number of votes received by the winners has been continually increasing, as evident by the record highest votes achieved twice in the last 4 years (36).
Obviously the voting system has not changed over this period so is there a reason why we are seeing the vote tally change and higher votes are being received by the winner?
One possibility is that this is due to unconscious bias on the umpires behalf due to the increased media attention in the game. The AFL has become a 24/7 media giant in recent years and it is impossible for the umpires to ignore the outside noise of who is considered the best players in the game and the favorites even if they are not consciously aware of this while casting their votes.
Where some players are constantly in the media spot light, is this creating bias in the voting system in which these players 'stand out' more when they are on the field and in the eyes of the umpires and in turn they receive a greater number of best on grounds?
As the voting system has not changed, i would argue that the number 1 reason for the higher votes has been an increase in 'Best on Ground' 3 votes received by the media spotlight players. Where as in the past, some of these games were only worth a 1 vote or 0 and the overall votes were spread out amongst more players.
The below stats are from the top 10 vote winners each year since 2000. There is a clear change in the votes received by the winner, the top 5 players and there are less key position players which are placing in the top 10.
This change seems to have occurred around 2010, so what happened in 2010 and since then which has caused this change in voting?
Graph 1: Votes received by the winner. As we can see, since 2000 there has been a clear increase in the votes received by the winner. From 2010 onwards, in only 3 seasons did the winner have less than 30 votes. Compared to 2000-2010, where in only 3 seasons did the winner receive 30 votes (including 2010). So what is the reason for this change in the last 10 years where the outcome is inverse in comparison to the previous decade?
Graph 2: Average votes received by the top 5 per year. Again we can see, from 2010 onwards there has been an increase in the votes received by the top 5 overall vote placers. With 2021 being the highest average votes at 31.2 for the top 5. From 2000 - 2010, the top 5 overall placed players did not average over 25 votes amongst them once and from 2011-2021, the top 5 averaged over 25 in 8 seasons.
Graph 3: Average votes received by the 6th-10th placed players. Again, from 2010 onwards, we can see that the players that place 6th-10th in the overall voting are also receiving more votes. Before 2010, the average votes over this group did not reach 20 once over that decade. From 2011 to 2021, in 7 years they averaged above 20 votes.
Graph 4: The number of key position players in the top 10. Prior to 2010, there was 8 seasons in the data pool which included more than 2 key position players in the top 10. From 2010 onwards, in only 2 season was there at least 2 in the top 10 (last one being Grundy in 2019 with 23 votes). What is the reason for this change which adds to the perception it has become a midfielders award? Is it simply that pre 2010, the game included players like Pav, Brown, Riewoldt, Goodes (included as a KPP), Chad Cornes and Franklin who placed a number of times in the top 10. From 2010 onwards, we had Franklin again, Gawn, Grundy, Sandilands and Goldstein. Is it simply that the game does not have any 'old fashion' CHFs in the game anymore? As in recent years, the majority of key position players that place in the top 10 are ruckman.
So the question is, since 2010, has the influence of the increased media in the AFL caused a change in how the umpires cast their votes and the results are a result of unconscious bias?
Or alternatively, is this change from 2010 onwards the result of the expansion teams with Gold Coast joining in 2011 and GWS in 2012? As the talent pool was further spread amongst a greater number of teams, did this highlight the 'stars' of the game more and therefor resulted in those players receiving more votes?
Or is there another reason for this change?
Over the past number of years, the perception has been that the Brownlow has become a midfielders award and that the number of votes received by the winners has been continually increasing, as evident by the record highest votes achieved twice in the last 4 years (36).
Obviously the voting system has not changed over this period so is there a reason why we are seeing the vote tally change and higher votes are being received by the winner?
One possibility is that this is due to unconscious bias on the umpires behalf due to the increased media attention in the game. The AFL has become a 24/7 media giant in recent years and it is impossible for the umpires to ignore the outside noise of who is considered the best players in the game and the favorites even if they are not consciously aware of this while casting their votes.
Where some players are constantly in the media spot light, is this creating bias in the voting system in which these players 'stand out' more when they are on the field and in the eyes of the umpires and in turn they receive a greater number of best on grounds?
As the voting system has not changed, i would argue that the number 1 reason for the higher votes has been an increase in 'Best on Ground' 3 votes received by the media spotlight players. Where as in the past, some of these games were only worth a 1 vote or 0 and the overall votes were spread out amongst more players.
The below stats are from the top 10 vote winners each year since 2000. There is a clear change in the votes received by the winner, the top 5 players and there are less key position players which are placing in the top 10.
This change seems to have occurred around 2010, so what happened in 2010 and since then which has caused this change in voting?
Graph 1: Votes received by the winner. As we can see, since 2000 there has been a clear increase in the votes received by the winner. From 2010 onwards, in only 3 seasons did the winner have less than 30 votes. Compared to 2000-2010, where in only 3 seasons did the winner receive 30 votes (including 2010). So what is the reason for this change in the last 10 years where the outcome is inverse in comparison to the previous decade?
Graph 2: Average votes received by the top 5 per year. Again we can see, from 2010 onwards there has been an increase in the votes received by the top 5 overall vote placers. With 2021 being the highest average votes at 31.2 for the top 5. From 2000 - 2010, the top 5 overall placed players did not average over 25 votes amongst them once and from 2011-2021, the top 5 averaged over 25 in 8 seasons.
Graph 3: Average votes received by the 6th-10th placed players. Again, from 2010 onwards, we can see that the players that place 6th-10th in the overall voting are also receiving more votes. Before 2010, the average votes over this group did not reach 20 once over that decade. From 2011 to 2021, in 7 years they averaged above 20 votes.
Graph 4: The number of key position players in the top 10. Prior to 2010, there was 8 seasons in the data pool which included more than 2 key position players in the top 10. From 2010 onwards, in only 2 season was there at least 2 in the top 10 (last one being Grundy in 2019 with 23 votes). What is the reason for this change which adds to the perception it has become a midfielders award? Is it simply that pre 2010, the game included players like Pav, Brown, Riewoldt, Goodes (included as a KPP), Chad Cornes and Franklin who placed a number of times in the top 10. From 2010 onwards, we had Franklin again, Gawn, Grundy, Sandilands and Goldstein. Is it simply that the game does not have any 'old fashion' CHFs in the game anymore? As in recent years, the majority of key position players that place in the top 10 are ruckman.
So the question is, since 2010, has the influence of the increased media in the AFL caused a change in how the umpires cast their votes and the results are a result of unconscious bias?
Or alternatively, is this change from 2010 onwards the result of the expansion teams with Gold Coast joining in 2011 and GWS in 2012? As the talent pool was further spread amongst a greater number of teams, did this highlight the 'stars' of the game more and therefor resulted in those players receiving more votes?
Or is there another reason for this change?
Last edited:
