Toast Welcome to the Temple of Bontempelli, please take off your shoes and pay your respects

[House_of_Dahl]

So my seven year old (son) just walked around the shopping centre with a head/hair band to be like the Bont. What could I say

 

[Fossie 32]

So my seven year old (son) just walked around the shopping centre with a head/hair band to be like the Bont. What could I say

#BeMoreBonti

 

[go you pups]

Bontempelli drifted this week in Brownlow betting

Weird

Should definitely get 1 or 2 from the weekend

 

[SlimShaddy]

Bontempelli drifted this week in Brownlow betting

Weird

Should definitely get 1 or 2 from the weekend

Clearly the markets are still reeling from the uncertainty caused by Brexit.

 

[dogwatch]

Bontempelli drifted this week in Brownlow betting

Weird

Should definitely get 1 or 2 from the weekend

Probably has something to do with the form of the leading candidates. According to the AFL's Brownlow Predictor five players ahead of Bont got 2 or 3 votes on the weekend while Bont got none. They have him 9 votes behind Dangerfield and Parker and 8 behind Martin.
http://www.afl.com.au/brownlow-medal/predictor

Not sure if they or the umps seriously take into account the fairest part of "fairest and best" any more, but if they do it would certainly help Bont.

 

[go you pups]

Probably has something to do with the form of the leading candidates. According to the AFL's Brownlow Predictor five players ahead of Bont got 2 or 3 votes on the weekend while Bont got none. They have him 9 votes behind Dangerfield and Parker and 8 behind Martin.
http://www.afl.com.au/brownlow-medal/predictor

Not sure if they or the umps seriously take into account the fairest part of "fairest and best" any more, but if they do it would certainly help Bont.

Lol that performance from Bont on the weekend wasn't voteworthy

The only player who I think will pip Bont for the 3 is Stevens, surely Bont gets 1 or 2 with Smith and Wallis in the mix also, but Wallis kicked late goals with the heat out of the game, so may go against him

 

[Doggy Dan]

Lol that performance from Bont on the weekend wasn't voteworthy

The only player who I think will pip Bont for the 3 is Stevens, surely Bont gets 1 or 2 with Smith and Wallis in the mix also, but Wallis kicked late goals with the heat out of the game, so may go against him

Thought Lynch was better than all 3 to be perfectly honest. In a losing side he was rather immense!

 

[dogwatch]

Lol that performance from Bont on the weekend wasn't voteworthy

The only player who I think will pip Bont for the 3 is Stevens, surely Bont gets 1 or 2 with Smith and Wallis in the mix also, but Wallis kicked late goals with the heat out of the game, so may go against him

Coaches' votes for the weekend (in brackets: what that would equate to in Brownlow votes):
Parker 6 (1), Dangerfield 10 (3), Martin 10 (3), Sloane 4 (1), Bontempelli 4 (1)
So the bookies seem to be on the money (as always).

 

[go you pups]

Thought Lynch was better than all 3 to be perfectly honest. In a losing side he was rather immense!

Was good early then faded

No way he polls, would've had to have kicked at least 5 or 6 to be in the mix as his side was beaten soundly

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I'm confused - I thought the umpires' votes were confidential and not to be revealed until Brownlow counting night. They might have totally different ideas about their "bests" to those of so-called experts watching from the sidelines or commentary box. I remember hearing about an ump questioned (retrospectively) on why he didn't give Westy (I think it was) 3 votes as he had over 40 possessions and the ump said, "I didn't notice him".

So, the whole thing is rigged, or, the umps wait to be told or influenced who to vote for. Mind you, with the AFL posting its regular Brownlow Predictor, it would be a brave umpire who voted against the will of the AFL. The AFL doesn't like surprises.

 

[Morris Major]

Pretty sure the Umps put their votes in immediately after the game in the rooms, so the predictor in theory wouldn't have any influence.

 

[go you pups]

Pretty sure the Umps put their votes in immediately after the game in the rooms, so the predictor in theory wouldn't have any influence.

They're supposed to and they don't look at stats either apparently

I'm a grassroots umpire and I talk to my fellow umpire/s after the game who they thought played good games (sometimes we ask Boundaries/Goalies too if it was a hard game to put votes down) then we come to some agreement and put the votes down, only time I recall I didn't agree with an umpire on votes was an U16s game about 5 years ago and it was a youngster I was umpiring with. We generally have an idea of who played well though but if it's close then we just give votes on either consistency or game influence.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I still think it would be very hard for AFL umpires to be subjective and impartial, totally. Umps get to know players and probably like/dislike some, even if it's subconsciously. Plus at AFL level there is so much noise and trumpeting around certain players that they draw positive attention whether they play well or badly. Not so much rigged as perhaps "steered" towards certain players. Still, if there's a better system I'd like to hear it.

The gambling aspect worries me too.

 

[Butane]

Bontempelli drifted this week in Brownlow betting

Weird

Should definitely get 1 or 2 from the weekend

But Dangerfield locked 3 votes meaning everybody else drifts again.

 

[Some Idiot]

They're supposed to and they don't look at stats either apparently

I'm a grassroots umpire and I talk to my fellow umpire/s after the game who they thought played good games (sometimes we ask Boundaries/Goalies too if it was a hard game to put votes down) then we come to some agreement and put the votes down, only time I recall I didn't agree with an umpire on votes was an U16s game about 5 years ago and it was a youngster I was umpiring with. We generally have an idea of who played well though but if it's close then we just give votes on either consistency or game influence.

They do see stats on the scoreboard sometimes when the stats are shown - pretty hard to avoid and I've seen umpires looking at the screen when stats are up there.

 

[Boristown]

They do see stats on the scoreboard sometimes when the stats are shown - pretty hard to avoid and I've seen umpires looking at the screen when stats are up there.

I hate it when the free kick numbers are up on the screen when the umpires are walking out and we happen to be leading the stats (not that it happens much anymore, cheers Brad). I'm like 'here come the square ups'.

 

[House_of_Dahl]

I hate it when the free kick numbers are up on the screen when the umpires are walking out and we happen to be leading the stats (not that it happens much anymore, cheers Brad). I'm like 'here come the square ups'.

Yeah I've always thought it a ridiculous notion that the free kick count should be roughly even...You aren't handed out a quota at the start of the game - if you give away a free you give away a free! Only time I can almost accept the square up is when the umps give away a howler free.

My other gripe is that teams with a champion reputation (eg Hawks) do seem to be given an easier run with the umps sometimes - I think it's just psychology not malicious, but still annoying.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

The Hawks play for frees close to goal, it's a deliberate practised tactic.

 

[Scary_Foot_9]

Keep in mind the umpires when someone becomes the heavy favourite become a bit contrarian. Selwood also has history of polling very well even when playing with other dominant mids, in 2008, 09, 10 with GAJ at his height he polled 19, 16 and 21 votes respectively. Danger is a deserving favourite but I think the smart money would be on someone like Shuey or Bont. If he continues his form in the last month he can do it.

 

[Dancing Dougy]

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Sir Bont is a half decent game away from taking the #4 position in the player ratings. What an incredible feat! In utter awe that this superstar on the rise is in the RW&B.

1 Patrick Dangerfield
Geelong Cats
Points:
709.8
Trend:
NO CHANGE

2 Robbie Gray
NO CHANGE 620.5

3 Scott Pendlebury
NO CHANGE 613.6

4 Nic Naitanui
NO CHANGE 596.6

5 Marcus Bontempelli
CLIMBING 595.4

 

[threenewpadlocks]

There's actually been a couple of academic studies on Brownlow votes. Actually fascinating to look at in all honesty.

One takeaway is that doing statistical analysis players who have an uncommon hair colour (red, blond) or are bald receive more votes than they "should" (in relation to their performance by conventional statistics). Quite interesting.

Another takeaway is that if a player consistently polls badly or well, above or below their "statistical prediction" they are likely to continue doing so in future years.

What interests me about Bont is that he underperformed in the Brownlow according to advanced statistics (AFL Player Ratings Points), but taking the above point, demonstrated that if here's thereabouts as BOG, he's more likely to get the 3 rather than the 2 (4 3's and 0 2's last year). Combine the fact that his output is similar to last year in terms of AFL Player Ratings Points, but it's largely come about more "conventionally" (ie winning more than 25 touches more often this year as opposed to being a gun metres gained inside midfielder with minimal touches like last year), which means that he might not underperform in Brownlow votes in relation to AFL Player Ratings Points - maybe his increase in raw disposal numbers will help him this year. Combine with the fact he is a tall, eye-catching player who already has shown gets 3's rather than 2's when it could be one or another and he could make a good run at the Brownlow.

It's just a shame that Dangerfield is about seven votes ahead of the field at this stage of the season (he's on about 27 votes right now and someone like Dusty would be 2nd with about 20 votes). Take him out of the field and I reckon Bont is a real smokey to finish 2nd in this year's Brownlow.

 

[ossie_21]

Be interesting to see how the umps viewed Bont's 25 touch, 2.2 game v Dusty's 38 touch but little else game. Bont got 10 votes from the coaches, yet AFL HQ seem to be fapping over Martin's season. Doing well, yeah...but I'll take 20 Bontified disposals over 30 of Dusty's any day of the week

 

[Dav1d]

There's actually been a couple of academic studies on Brownlow votes. Actually fascinating to look at in all honesty.

One takeaway is that doing statistical analysis players who have an uncommon hair colour (red, blond) or are bald receive more votes than they "should" (in relation to their performance by conventional statistics). Quite interesting.
.

I was having this discussion a few weeks ago & I said that it explains how Shane Woewodin won it in 2000

Bontempelli might want to think about dyeing his hair for the last few rounds...could suddenly storm home

 

[immortalmike]

Be interesting to see how the umps viewed Bont's 25 touch, 2.2 game v Dusty's 38 touch but little else game. Bont got 10 votes from the coaches, yet AFL HQ seem to be fapping over Martin's season. Doing well, yeah...but I'll take 20 Bontified disposals over 30 of Dusty's any day of the week

Don't agree Dusty uses the ball very well. It's not his fault he is surrounded by potatoes.

 

[compact72]

Who cares about the Brownlow. Its a tainted medal anyway