There’s finally some separation in the Brownlow leaderboard after Round 17, but we still find three players listed above $50 in our top-eight.
|
Pos |
Player |
Club |
Votes |
Odds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
N. Daicos |
Coll |
21.50 |
$2.50 |
|
2 |
N. Anderson |
GC |
18.00 |
$9.00 |
|
3 |
C. Serong |
Fre |
17.25 |
$17 |
|
4 |
Z. Butters |
PA |
17.00 |
$81 |
|
5 |
B. Smith |
Gee |
16.75 |
$5.00 |
|
6 |
M. Holmes |
Gee |
16.25 |
$67 |
|
7 |
H. McCluggage |
BL |
16.00 |
$51 |
|
8 |
J. Dawson |
Ade |
14.75 |
$4.00 |
Best Bet
Only injury stops him from here, based on current form.
Another massive outing from Daicos — he’s had 30+ disposals and a goal in four of his last five, and looks a lock for three votes in the win over Carlton.
Even better: he faces Gold Coast this week, a side he’s polled three votes against in each of their last three meetings. A big chance to put a gap on Noah Anderson in what could be a Brownlow-shaping game.
Lay
Hard to believe Dawson is still on the second line of betting.
Don’t expect him to poll in the Crows’ win over Melbourne. He had a team-high 25 disposals but didn’t hit the scoreboard and only managed 8 contested possessions and 3 clearances.
He’s been a handy poller in the past but nothing extraordinary. Hard to see him stacking up against the likes of Daicos, Anderson or Smith from here.
Value
Tossed up between Max Holmes ($67) and Zak Butters and landed on the Port Adelaide star.
Butters is still near the top three in the count despite a wild price of $81. He was solid against Brisbane but unlikely to poll.
The big opportunity comes in Round 18 when Port host West Coast. If Butters goes big and picks up three votes he could jump into outright second. If that happens, he won’t be $81 next week.
The Voting System - Why We Use a Weighted Average Approach
We use a weighted average system for Brownlow voting to improve accuracy and fairness in assessing player performances. The traditional 3-2-1 method limits vote allocations to whole numbers, often forcing a clear distinction between players whose performances may have been nearly identical. By contrast, our weighted system allows for decimal-based scoring (e.g., 2.5, 1.5, 0.5), providing a more nuanced reflection of each player’s impact on the game.
This approach maintains the same total vote count per game (six votes) but offers greater flexibility in how those votes are distributed. As a result, it reduces arbitrary decision-making and captures subtle performance differences more effectively. Ultimately, this leads to more precise predictions and a leaderboard that better mirrors how games are perceived by fans, analysts, and the broader football community.
