AFL 2020 Brownlow Medal

[Gift]

At the end of the day, its about who the most important players that influenced the game.

Disagree. Its about picking who you think the umps will give votes to.

 

[JuniorWatch]

Disagree. Its about picking who you think the umps will give votes to.

Anyone got any thoughts about what kinds of biases, apart from players from winnings teams, the umps went with this year?

 

[NYRB]

Disagree. Its about picking who you think the umps will give votes to.

How do you explain the Newnes bet after he polled 1 vote? I think the context of the game situation is important as well. Newnes was far from the Top 5 players on the ground that night against Freo. I used to think of the Brownlow as the best 3 players on the ground irrespective of the game situation but my thinking has changed a bit after tonight. It's the best 3 players who tried to improve their team chances of winning. Tried to Influence their team to a win v Best Individual Performances are two totally different things.

biggest snub of the night has to be curnow rd 12 33 disposals 16 contested 10 clearances 6 inside 50s 3 rebound 50s 0 votes
Newnes got 1 vote for 12 disposals and kicking a goal after the siren

I think for me looking to 2021, it might pay worth having a look to the umps who have a history with a player. Nic Nat, had a terrible history in polling history and quite a few posters on here mentioned that and rightfully stayed away from him. He broke his duck of polling away from WA but it's clear his style of rucking doesn't attract votes. If he was a ruckman that nagged a goal or two on a more frequent basis, than you may consider him to be in votes in future.

 

[TheJanuaryMan]

Okay: my overall analysis based on my counts. Bear in mind these are done in "real time" and not reviewed - once they are done they are done with no alterations:

- 12 games with 3-2-1 in correct order

- A further 18 with 3-2-1 in incorrect order. These two are actually down on past years so some further review needed there to see what I missed in some games.

- Some of the correct predictions for 3 votes would have netted anyone who followed big money. Jack Graham's 3 in rnd 15 v Freo opened at $21. Other bigger ones were Jeremy Cameron's 3 v Freo in rnd 14 ($7 on the day of the count) and Toby Greene's 3 in round 1 v Geel opened at $5. In Round 1- the real "What Could Have Been"- I had Darcy Byrne-Jones getting 3 v Gold Coast. He polled 2. After being $41 to get the 3.

- My count correctly predicted Natanui (I had him polling 4); Whitfield (also had him polling 6) would be among many fancies to really underpoll despite there being some buzz around both.

- 13/18 Team Votes correct. Among these: Sheed (was still $8 on the day of count); Simpkin (was $21 at one point and jumped at $5); Pendlebury (was over $2 most of the season) and Cripps (also over $2 most of the season). I had Greene finishing 2nd at GWS but his win was at $4.50 - fortunately I hedged on him. I had Walters one behind Fyfe at Freo and that was also a Sliding Doors moment late in the count when Fyfe polled a 3 and Walters 2 - reverse those and Walters was $13 to win their count - instead he lost by 2.

- Sportsbet's very generous #BYOB on Billings to poll less than 5 at $11 was gold. I had him polling 4 so unloaded on this. He polled 2. Just on Sportsbet - they rejected my BYOB of "Rising Stars - Rankine; Serong and Georgiades to poll exactly 1 vote each only" and they are probably glad they did now.

The ones I got wrong:

- Sam Menegola was one I overpolled terribly and that is one of my worst mistakes in all the years I've been doing the counts. Bontempelli also underpolled considerably from my predictions as did Jarrod Witts. The latter is one I have overpolled a few years now and lesson well and truly learned there.
- I had Neale winning well but not by THAT big a margin. Staggering margin in this kind of season.
- Some of my 3-2-1's were all over the place so will be reviewing those carefully to see what I missed.


Overall - I really apologise to all on Menegola as he killed some of my multis and know he did to many. If anyone followed me on those I really apologise. One I got badly wrong.
In general though - I hope some did make some coin from my predictions particularly some very juicy 3 vote results.

As I say every year - if you are going to wager on the Brownlow and take it seriously: Do A Count In Real Time and STICK TO YOUR THOUGHTS. Don't over-review and overthink it. The umpires get one chance to do it right and one only. Don't bother trying to go back months later and do retrospective counts as all the value is often sucked out.

To all who participated this year - it was a great thread. So many newer ones joining with a level of research I haven't seen on here in years. NYRB Gazza Guru Jack 321 Young Gun #6 Sausage Legs and heaps more - fantastic work with such research and willingness to put the proverbials on the line to put the thoughts out there. We all got some right. We all got some wrong - but at least many of you were willing to put it out there and that is the spirit of this thread.

Reckon this thread overall came out in front on the year and that is the main thing. Hopefully a few tailed me on the very first post of this thread with my pre-season predictions.

Cheers
TJM

 

[HTPunter]

Good: Got Naitanui right, Macrae over Bont

Bad: Menegola underpolling (for me) nullified a lot of profit, Greenwood overpolling (had him on 5 if he was lucky) ruined a couple of multis with Rowell in it

Pretty much everyone would have had a variation of the top 4 too which was good for punters.

 

[NYRB]

Sam Menegola was one I overpolled terribly and that is one of my worst mistakes in all the years I've been doing the counts. Bontempelli also underpolled considerably from my predictions as did Jarrod Witts. The latter is one I have overpolled a few years now and lesson well and truly learned there.
- I had Neale winning well but not by THAT big a margin. Staggering margin in this kind of season.
- Some of my 3-2-1's were all over the place so will be reviewing those carefully to see what I missed.

I also wish to apologise to the posters on here who followed me for a few of my reviews on Menegola. Although I didn't have as many votes for Menegola as TJM did in his predictions, I was confident he would poll over 9+ votes. I had Menegola listed down for a 3 against the Saints.
I quoted Gary Rohan as a $12 shot (2nd favourite) to get the 3 there, and Mengola at around $1.22 to get best on ground.

My preview listed Gary Rohan for the 2 votes but not by a clear margin, thought that last goal of the game would have left a last impression on the umpires.

If I was your guys bookie, you guys would have cleaned me out.

 

[Gift]

How do you explain the Newnes bet after he polled 1 vote?

Its pretty straight forward. The umps thought Newnes deserved 1 vote.

They are just normal people who are hired to umpire and given some kind of guideline on how to do votes.

Its not like they are football deities or mensa candidates that specialise in choosing the "most important players that influenced the game" as you mentioned.

Thats why theres random results every year and its fun trying to predict the votes.

You can pick and choose about Newnes getting the 1 vote because of the situation of the game but I could counter heaps of other examples why it didnt go the same way. There is an element of randomness to it with heaps of umpires doing votes.

However at the same time, there is a lot you can predict as well.

 

[TheJanuaryMan]

Its pretty straight forward. The umps thought Newnes deserved 1 vote.

They are just normal people who are hired to umpire and given some kind of guideline on how to do votes.

Its not like they are football deities or mensa candidates that specialise in choosing the "most important players that influenced the game" as you mentioned.

Thats why theres random results every year and its fun trying to predict the votes.

You can pick and choose about Newnes getting the 1 vote because of the situation of the game but I could counter heaps of other examples why it didnt go the same way. There is an element of randomness to it with heaps of umpires doing votes.

However at the same time, there is a lot you can predict as well.

The biggest thing about that game for me is Curnow not polling at all. Every outlet had him clear best afield and even when watching - I thought this was about the easiest 3 vote game I'd seen to that point. Staggering he got none.

 

[Gift]

The biggest thing about that game for me is Curnow not polling at all. Every outlet had him clear best afield and even when watching - I thought this was about the easiest 3 vote game I'd seen to that point. Staggering he got none.

What I realise now is that the umps are focussed on umpiring and doing Brownlow votes is secondary in their minds. They can barely bounce the ball properly so all their thought would be on that so they dont get demoted lol

After watching the Carlton/Freo and Collingwood/Adelaide game multiple times I thought Curnow and Laird were clear BOGs in those games but both got no votes.

I feel the reason for this is that both Curnow and Laird are small mids so the umps can miss them if they are focussed on umpiring. Cripps/Fyfe are massive so you cant miss them. Also Cripps was matched up on Serong for most of the night so umps probably noticed the size difference and could clearly see that Cripps was destroying a kid lol

 

[Gazza Guru]

I don’t think that anyone should be apologising for mistakes. We all made them with some guys and it happens every year.
As TJM said, if we do the work and put it out there we can’t be criticised for getting some guys wrong. It would be safer to keep all of our thoughts to ourselves but much more fun sharing ideas and having some banter with other like minded people on here.
TAB have already put up the 2021 winner market. Some good odds there which can be thought thru over the next few months.
I will keep an eye out for when TJM starts a new thread for next year.

 

[NYRB]

When you have 3-4 umpires casting votes on a game, you just know that there will be some inaccuracies or different interpretations. If you get a larger group allocating votes, you get a more consistent result. Its the ability to see the game from the view of the umpires well that counts and there will be some fluctuations and surprises at time. You will get some abnormalities along the way, umpires who don't recognise player, umpires that may interpret different players wrongly. With the way games are umpired these days, who would want to trust umpires making 100% correct call in football matches let alone making 100% correct decisions on allocating votes on a Brownlow? Some umpires may expect a certain expectation from a player, some will overestimate a player etc In a way, the unpredictability of it makes it a great betting event. If you gave me a $1.0X for the ANZAC day winner/Western Derby Winner/Showdown/Ian Stewart Medal/ Dream Time Medal/Goodes-Oloughlin medal winner or a dominant performer in a game to poll 3, I still wouldn't take it. I think of it as if you have 44 players on the field and you can narrow it down to 8-10 choices, obtaining odds of around $3 to double digits its then up to you to make the judgement of what you should take.

Think if you can get a balance of what you favour against the crowd, added in with the right odds you think he is worth, then thats where the value lies.

Like doing a group project or a group uni assignment, the more minds that come together, the more conclusive the answer will be.

 

[The_Steadier]

Better to go off you gut feel rather than be too overly statistical

I think it would be interesting to see if there is a half decent correlation between supercoach scores and votes.

I know supercoach scores are far from accurate as a measure of objective performance, but they do at least attempt to quantify the 'gut feel' type aspects along with the pure stats.

For instance, someone raised the example of newnes getting a vote for having a ho-hum game, but kicking the winner after the siren.

Supercoach attempts to account for such things by scoring such goals higher than garden variety ones, as distinct from the pure stats based approach of dream team.

(Ironically) my gut feel is that looking at game by game supercoach rankings and how much or little they deviate from (pure stats) dream team rankings could help tease out more of those games where umpires are likely to go with 'gut feel' decisions over stats.

Eg: if someone has a way higher SC score than DT score- they could be more likely to be in line for some brownlow umpire love.

 

[NYRB]

I think it would be interesting to see if there is a half decent correlation between supercoach scores and votes.

I know supercoach scores are far from accurate as a measure of objective performance, but they do at least attempt to quantify the 'gut feel' type aspects along with the pure stats.

For instance, someone raised the example of newnes getting a vote for having a ho-hum game, but kicking the winner after the siren.

Supercoach attempts to account for such things by scoring such goals higher than garden variety ones, as distinct from the pure stats based approach of dream team.

(Ironically) my gut feel is that looking at game by game supercoach rankings and how much or little they deviate from (pure stats) dream team rankings could help tease out more of those games where umpires are likely to go with 'gut feel' decisions over stats.

Eg: if someone has a way higher SC score than DT score- they could be more likely to be in line for some brownlow umpire love.

my model after having a deeper think about it, works better if I allocate points on the groups separately:

1. Defenders
2. Midfielders/Ruck
3. Forwards.

Then from there, its up to the punter to determine which couple of players from each game from those 3 groups. In some instances it may be all 3 mids. Some games it might be 2 mids, 1 forward. Some games it might be a defender, a forward and 1 mid. I think its a dangerous thing when mixing points , comparing defenders v midfielders.



As a side note, I have heard and read many things about the voting process. Have heard of umpires being able to access: stats, commentary information, video footage to review the game. They all things that can influence the vote.

Have heard from somewhere that an umpire mentioned in conversations at a family BBQ that he polled a particular player '5 x 3 voters' in a season.

Just don't rule out anything in a Brownlow voting count.

 

[TheJanuaryMan]

I reckon last night actually partly knocked the theory of "umpires use stats" on the head. Some huge games in terms of both stats and impact on game completely ignored.

 

[2121]

my model after having a deeper think about it, works better if I allocate points on the groups separately:

1. Defenders
2. Midfielders/Ruck
3. Forwards.

Then from there, its up to the punter to determine which couple of players from each game from those 3 groups. In some instances it may be all 3 mids. Some games it might be 2 mids, 1 forward. Some games it might be a defender, a forward and 1 mid. I think its a dangerous thing when mixing points , comparing defenders v midfielders.



As a side note, I have heard and read many things about the voting process. Have heard of umpires being able to access: stats, commentary information, video footage to review the game. They all things that can influence the vote.

Have heard from somewhere that an umpire mentioned in conversations at a family BBQ that he polled a particular player '5 x 3 voters' in a season.

Just don't rule out anything in a Brownlow voting count.

You can rule out the leak that comes out every year on brownlow day.

Petracca going to win the brownlow because hes up there with the lions count

 

[NYRB]

You can rule out the leak that comes out every year on brownlow day.

Petracca going to win the brownlow because hes up there with the lions count

Or the 3 votes given to Marley Williams in 2018 when he had 7 kicks, 7 handballs and 3 clangers over Ben Brown who kicked 6 goals.

Umpires are human, they make mistakes. Or in some cases, with huge amounts of money on the line, may try to possibly spot fix a game in terms of votes. I just wouldn't rule anything out in this day and age.

 

[Gift]

I reckon the umps have been told to not rely on the stats and only use them as a cross reference to not award stupid votes.

So they will still stick to who they think should get votes as a group of umps.

 

[Gift]

Or the 3 votes given to Marley Williams in 2018 when he had 7 kicks, 7 handballs and 3 clangers over Ben Brown who kicked 6 goals.

I still think to this day they thought Billy Hartung was Marley Williams because they had no clue who Billy was

 

[Sausage Legs]

Very happy with count.

The good: Neale winning, started backing at 12s down to even money. Steele top 10 at 12s, top 5 at 21s. Macrae top 10 at 5s. Boak winner without Neale. Nic Nat under 12.5, Luke Ryan to poll 3 at 34s, Simpkin rd 3 at 5s. The poll 10+, 15+ multis. Hit most of them. Neale polled 4 more than I thought but the rest of the top 10 I had everyone within a vote.

The bad: Didn't land any team multis although they are bonuses. Got a heap wrong Adams, Jed Anderson, Whitfield, cotch without dusty and Zak jones.
Overrated menegola like most but he didn't cost me bugger all.
The worst was TAB group E with Greene beating Cripps. I had Cripps on 10 which was fine but had Greene on a max of 9 where he got 12. I rotated a few multis here where I got a few good ones at odds but Cripps/or Greene cost me another 5k collect.

The positives were I refreshed my phone that many times I was near first to markets as we all see they get crunched easy. I generally like to level stake things but it's hard to on Sportsbet when they limit you to say 100 prof on singles. Just messy pending bets everywhere. Been doing it a long time and will continue to. Cheers to the main troops who keep the board alive with insight. Yewww.

When u get a few teams wrong like I did, this is exactly why it's good when not everyone agrees with you. Different ideas/constructive criticism is good.

 

[LionsOrDieTrion]

Or the 3 votes given to Marley Williams in 2018 when he had 7 kicks, 7 handballs and 3 clangers over Ben Brown who kicked 6 goals.

Umpires are human, they make mistakes. Or in some cases, with huge amounts of money on the line, may try to possibly spot fix a game in terms of votes. I just wouldn't rule anything out in this day and age.

I remember Joel Patfull getting 3 votes because he tagged Goodes out of a game where Goodes had 13 touches.

 

[NYRB]

I remember Joel Patfull getting 3 votes because he tagged Goodes out of a game where Goodes had 13 touches.

De Boer happened to pick up 1 vote in Rd 1 against Geelong in last nights count. He only 14 disposals, so you would imagine it would have been the tagging job he did on one of Dangerfield (16 disposals), Menegola (12 disposals), or Guthrie (11 disposals). My money would be on the role he played on Danger, since Menegola was unrecognised throughout the 1st half of the count. Guthrie had a stronger 2nd half of the season. I don't remember watching this game live, so I can't 100% sure say what happen. But given the reputation of De Boer, if you play a shut down role on a Brownlow medallist, I'd think it would have a key role in winning a match/influencing a game.

Like I said before, the context of the game is really important.

 

[Analysis Paralysis]

I am happy with the outcome but feel I could do some more work on risk mitigation and diversification of portfolio.

If they weren't so damn dry, I read some portfolio theory books.

Overall:

• 90 of 153 3-vote players right
• 10 games with order perfect, 22 games with right players wrong order, and 7 games with completely wrong players.
• I need to heed the lesson of classy players poll well, and others do not - Anderson (North), perhaps Menegola considering what he is up against, Adams v Pendles, for example.
• I was a bit lucky, but I think you need some.

Thanks to TJM in particular, and all other contributors. I've mentioned earlier how much fun I was having and now I can't wait for next year!

 

[Geeves Train]

Thanks for re-opening the thread as I always love coming on and reading how people faired after the count. Looks like it was an even night between punters and corps. I thoguht more people may have cleaned up but lack of posts after counts may suggest otherwise. Think the biggest learnings were:

1) Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Nothing is ever a lock and if can’t be treated that way

2) Could have been way bloody worse. Round 18 turned my night from break even to fill up and I’d suggest that was a common theme amongst most players with Mitchell, Fyfe, Bont, Dusty and Danger all getting crucial votes (some unexpected)

3) Teams voting was tough this year. Cherry picking heads to heads and groups was much easier

4) Don’t rely on multis, a great way to win big but again easy to lose if one little thing goes wrong. Bont T20 and Cripps not winning group cost me a stack BUT if you play 6 leg vote multis or multi up the groups it’s always harder than you think. A $2 group fav that open $4 might be extreme value but if you multi into another $2 pop you are still a 75% chance of losing. Really need to balance multis with singles to ensure ones you get right lock in a profit.

Next year will be interesting if the games shift back to 20 min quarters (or 18 as suggested). Was looking at this at back end of the year and players line Sam Walsh and Andrew Brayshaw will really benefit from extra game time where they gut run and get a stack of late touches.

Thanks to all who contributed and to TheJanuaryMan who drove this thread from page 1. Might to try find the best, worst, lock, value posts from maybe 20 pages back to see who nailed what.

Look forward to doing it all again next year. Will go back to glory days of multiple threads I would suggest given how much momentum this gained late this year!!

 

[Analysis Paralysis]

Anyone got any thoughts about what kinds of biases, apart from players from winnings teams, the umps went with this year?

Something a little interesting - votes to losing teams:

• 2017 - 19.2%
• 2018 - 16.9%
• 2019 - 20.1%
• 2020 - 16.2%

Three-vote players in losing teams:

• 2017 - 13.6%
• 2018 - 9.6%
• 2019 - 10.1%
• 2020 - 4.6%

It looks like 2020 was low-ish for total votes to losing teams, and definitely low on 3v to players on losing teams.

 

[Geeves Train]

Always fun seeing what people are sweating on. Feel free to share yours:

Best bet: Boak Top 3 $2.60

Worst bet: McGrath Top 10 $26 (injured round after bet went on) Tick in the sense that this was a terrible bet

Best roughie: Simpkin North $10

Biggest lock: Mundy vs Libba $1.40

Biggest lock better than $2:
Petracca most votes 11-18 $4.00 Half pay

Unpopular opinion bet:
Don’t think Macrae polls well at all Got this wrong, Bont was underpoller

Best result:
Steele winner w/o Neale (How did Steele not get 3 votes round 18 ) OR Crippsinto Mitchell tab groups

Worst result: Boak or Cripps underpolling (ffs Cripps)

Best BYO: Neale vs Crows $3.25

Sorry for after posting but if you can’t after post after Brownlow when can you