It looked like Nick Daicos had an insurmountable lead after Round 20, but the contenders have come hard for him in Round 21, in particular a Goal Coast duo.
|
Pos |
Player |
Club |
Votes |
Odds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
N. Daicos |
Coll |
26.75 |
$1.95 |
|
2 |
N.Anderson |
GC |
24.00 |
$4.80 |
|
3 |
M.Rowell |
GC |
22.25 |
$14 |
|
4 |
B.Smith |
Geel |
21.00 |
$17 |
|
5 |
C.Serong |
Fre |
20.75 |
$51 |
|
6 |
M.Holmes |
Gee |
20.00 |
$81 |
|
7 |
Z.Butters |
PA |
19.75 |
$151 |
|
8 |
J.Dawson |
Adel |
18.75 |
$6.00 |
Best Bet
Last week, Rowell was our best bet at $21, with his odds crunched into $13 after Round 21. But following a monstrous performance, it’s Noah Anderson who gets the nod this week at $5.
Whether it’s Rowell or Anderson, the Suns have a game in hand, and with both players currently on the podium, this angle becomes more relevant each week.
Anderson is just one best-on-ground performance behind Daicos, who faces Hawthorn this week. It’s a side he has historically struggled against, so this round presents another big opportunity for one of the Suns midfielders to close the gap.
Lay
If you’ve read this article before, you’ll know there’s a consistent theme — laying Jordan Dawson.
He was solid in Adelaide’s win over the Hawks but managed just 21 disposals. It wasn’t a dominant display.
Dawson does re-enter the top eight on the leaderboard, but at $6, he still looks well off the pace.
Value
He’s flying. Another best-on-ground performance in Geelong’s demolition of Port Adelaide has pushed Max Holmes to outright sixth on our leaderboard.
Geelong now face Essendon in Round 22. Just eight weeks ago, Holmes was best on ground against the Bombers with 36 disposals and a goal. In Round 24, they play Richmond, a side he also dominated with 36 and a goal.
The polling history is a concern, which explains the price, but the Geelong speedster has a very favourable run home.
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.
