That Nat Fyfe’s name is on everyone’s lips heading into tonight’s Brownlow Medal is hardly surprising. The Fremantle star’s first half of the year was captivating and set a very high bar for the rest of the competition.
In the time since, the door has been slightly opened for challengers to emerge. Adelaide’s Patrick Dangerfield is among them, West Coast’s Matt Priddis has back-to-back potential and North Melbourne big man Todd Goldstein could win one for the rucks.
It’s far from a case of Fyfe’s medal, no more discussion needed.
But the long-haired midfielder is worthy of being the main discussion, especially considering that if the votes fall the right way in key matches – most of which fall earlier in the season – the medal could be locked up pretty early tonight.
Those key matches won’t be Rounds 2, 4 or 11, where literally everyone – according to the opinions of media, coaches, statisticians and that bloke at the back of the pub – believes Fyfe will poll three votes. A Royal Commission will be needed if he gets less.
You could almost throw Round 7 against the Western Bulldogs into the same category. The lone voices not giving Fyfe maximum votes in that game were the two coaches, who liked Tory Dickson. We can guess the umpires might want to go with a player in the winning team.
We’ll also leave out the matches where he didn’t play, he’s extremely unlikely to poll and a small handful of matches where his ceiling is probably one vote at best. He may still poll from this set of matches, of course.
But it will be the following seven that will have the largest say on whether he gets on the stage this evening.
Round 1 versus Port Adelaide
The night will start with a very intriguing match. To analyse Fyfe’s year, this column looked at pre-Brownlow media guides from both sides of the country (The Sunday Times gave Fyfe 31 votes overall, The Age 24), Champion Data match day ranking points (21 votes) and 3-2-1 altered votes from the AFL Coaches Association (28 votes).
Despite the optimism out west, Kim Hagdorn of The Sunday Times only gave Fyfe one vote in the season opener. The coaches, however, both gave him top marks.
The Dockers won the game and Fyfe had 31 disposals with a goal, but Matthew Pavlich (four goals in a low-ish scoring affair), Danyle Pearce (28 touches, two goals) and David Mundy (29 touches, 10 clearances) also have very legitimate claims. Anything from three votes to zero would be understandable.
Round 5 versus Melbourne
This was a thumping win for Fremantle, but many obviously played a role. The coaches couldn’t split Fyfe and Mundy, but Fyfe wasn’t even top three according to the statisticians.
He had 30 touches, eight clearances and a goal, while Michael Barlow and Clancee Pearce both topped him for touches and Chris Mayne – with 12 tackles and four goals – is a three-vote smokey.
You would suggest this one will either land Fyfe two or three votes, but it would be possible to receive less. Definitely a match to keep an eye on.
Round 6 versus Essendon
It was near enough to a five-goal win for the Dockers, although Brendon Goddard with 35 disposals could certainly steal a vote.
Among Freo players Pavlich again could move in with a four-goal haul, while Lachie Neale had 33 disposals and a goal. By comparison it wasn’t one of Fyfe’s best stat lines but observers were impressed. The Sunday Times says three votes, The Age says one, Champion Data says none.
Just don’t ask the coaches. They had three players tied for top voting in this one – Fyfe, Neale and Pavlich.
Round 8 versus North Melbourne
A big win for the Dockers means the votes will likely be all purple. With 37 disposals, Fyfe would be stiff not to get top billing.
Champion Data found the other two 30-plus ball winners – Barlow and Neale – were ahead of him, while The Age gave him only the two. This suggests there is risk of a teammate getting in the way. You might call it a danger game, perhaps…
Round 9 versus Adelaide
It goes without saying, but this one could well be the most crucial. It’s the actual Danger game, the most famous one-on-one duel of the season. How the umpires viewed it could have a very big say on the night.
Three votes for Fyfe would mean Dangerfield misses out. Three votes for Dangerfield could separate the pair later on. This won’t be the time to jump up and grab a beer from the fridge.
Adding to the drama – not that we really need to jog your memory – a serious case can be mounted either way. Both coaches gave maximum votes to Fyfe, but the Champion Data ranking points pointed to a healthy Dangerfield win.
Dangerfield had 38 disposals, 29 contested, one goal, nine clearances and six inside 50s. Fyfe had 40 disposals, 26 contested, one goal, 14 clearances, 10 inside 50s. He also went at a slightly higher disposal efficiency.
Round 13 versus Collingwood
Freo got home by seven in this one and Fyfe, with 32 disposals, two goals and nine clearances, does appear likely to get the three votes. But the journos are going against the coaches and stat guys on this one.
The Sunday Times is going with two and The Age with one. Neale did win more of the ball with 34 touches, a goal and 14 clearances to his name, making two votes for Fyfe a possibility.
Round 17 versus Richmond
Winning a Brownlow is hard. While it would be a great story for Fyfe to accumulate enough votes by Round 13 to have it in the bag, it’s likely he’ll probably need an extra push along late to fend off those challengers. The four-point win over the Tigers is his best chance for such an outcome.
He had 25 disposals, 10 tackles and a goal in a four-point win, which means this is realistically his last chance for a two or possibly three-vote game.
Champion Data ranking points would suggest he’s bound for three, but there was zero enthusiasm from the coaches and out west Hagdorn awarded him just one vote.
What do you think Roarers? Will Nathan Fyfe claim Charlie in 2015, or will one of these rounds cost him?
Balthazar
Guest
you could try typing "Matt Stevic" into google, as I just did. One of the first suggestions you'll come across is "Matt Stevic Hawthorn" and there are plenty of people who have recorded this kind of information. Staggering that it is one of the first suggested searches. AFL will of course continue to play these concerns down. I think however there could be balanced umpiring in the GF if Stevic was chosen and Margetts (who umpires WCE games, even though his sister works for the club) as well. Let's see who complains loudest
13th Man
Guest
Hope your wrong Johnno. didn't really care before we lost but now I really want Nat to win it. It would be a just reward for a great season! If Mitchell wins it I will be so disappointed, he is the cause of Nat Fyfe missing 2 games. that would be a joke.
13th Man
Guest
I think Neale is Fyfes main threat. Mundy as well. Personally I think he can get as high as 30 votes doing my calculations and 30 is well and truly enough.
AB
Guest
Deccas, do you have any facts to back up those assertions (i.e. that Stevic has a record of paying more frees to Hawthorn; and that Hawthorn's odds shortened when he was named one of the umpires for the Prelim)? I have never heard either of this things suggested before last Friday. I'm happy to be corrected though, if you can point to some evidence. If what you say is true (and not just an excuse made up by disappointed Freo fans since last Friday) then surely there must be some evidence of it.
bart
Guest
All of what you say is true, but there is plenty of them and prelims are up a notch on niggle etc but that had to be the worst umpiring i have seen this year, i watched the WAFL GF yesterday and i did not notice them, a sure sign they were doing a great job.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Cheers Frank.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Goldstein will be interesting to watch. Will the umpires reward a ruckman? There aren't a lot of North players who will consistently take votes off him.
deccas
Guest
Afl umps have a horrifically tough job. They have to run hard all night, make decisions very in a highly charged environment (with the crowd and the physicality of footy) and many afl rules are quite subjective, with really variable interpretations getting passed down from on high every other week. Its ridiculous. But saying that the odds shortened when stevic was named the ref for the hawks, even though that was after gunston had been ruled out. Stevic is by no means getting paid or anything, but he simply must have an unconcsious bias toward hawthorn, because he pays them free's at a consistently higher rate than anyone else
Kavvy
Guest
" I doubt very many bookies would have gone to the attention that this article does" - I wish that were true but it's probably someone's full time job those outfits make so much money
Balthazar
Guest
Because I love watching my team, I guess. But yes I have started to question it. It is very dispiriting watching what happened on Friday night and knowing it happens to your team more often than not. For the last 2 years, Freo's free kick differential by comparison with other teams is diabolical. And it's not easily explained. It is not a high tackling team, relying more on inferred pressure. I know the club has taken the issue up with the AFL on several occasions but it just seems to continue happening. So one thing I do know as a Freo fan is that if we win tight games it is not to do with positive bias from the umpiring group. Also, I never said the league is corrupt. I do think the AFL has not done nearly enough to avoid appointing umpires who are biased (maybe not even consciously but it comes through their decisions). Stevic gave Fremantle an equally rough time in the 2013 GF, as was widely reported at the time. He should not IMO be umpiring finals games between Fremantle and Hawthorn. Mind you many Port fans think the same thing from his efforts in the Prelim last year so maybe his overall record in finals involving Hawthorn needs to be considered Leigh Fisher is another. Every game he officiates against Freo gives rise to the biggest free kicks disparities. As the Royal Commissioner into Union Misconduct has recently found out, the perception of bias is as bad as the actuality. On that basis what is a player who was delisted by Ross Lyon doing officiating Freo games? Last year, the team was awarded 4 frees in total in a game in which they absolutely smacked the Bullies and Fisher was the presiding umpire. I also don't find your argument about "it happened to us against WCE" all that convincing. WCE is another team with a record of being very generously treated by the umpires. It serves to prove my point more than anything else. By the way, I wouldn't even be having this whinge but for your snipe about Freo fans being delusional. That's not the case. Oh and "unlike Friday night" is pretty poor too. The game was in the balance until Sheridan's howler and then the Hawks took advantage of a few more mistakes when Freo started taking risks to claw themselves back. It is self-evident that most of the contentious decisions - both in Hawthorn's favour and the decisions not made in Freo's favour - were made when Fremantle was working its way on top. That specifically is why Fremantle fans are so annoyed
Riley Pettigrew
Roar Guru
Fyfe for sure. If not it will be Hannebery or Dangerfield.
AB
Guest
No- one's denying that Hawthorn got the best of the umpiring decisions on Friday night, Balt. That's the way footy is sometimes. But for most rational football supporters, it's absurd to suggest that the umpires deliberately conspire for or against any given team. For example, Hawthorn clearly had the worst of the umpiring decisions in their QF loss against West Coast. A few Hawthorn fans on here (including me) whinged about it at the time. Same happened in Hawthorn's 2011 Preliminary Final loss to Collingwood, when a couple of crucial decisions in the last quarter probably cost Hawthorn a Grand Final berth (in a game that, unlike Friday night, was in the balance until the last 30 seconds). But you move on, and accept that umpires are human and make mistakes. If you can't accept that - if you really, genuinely believe the AFL is rigged - why do you bother following it? Or better yet, why not follow a team that the conspirators (who presumably decide the premiership each year in a smoke-filled room) want to win? And incidentally, if the competion is in fact rigged/corrupted, how was it that Freo was allowed to win all those close games this year? Has Ross been paying off the umpires? Or do Freo supporters only believe in conspiracy theories when they don't like the result?
johno
Guest
Fyfe won't win it, he'll come third or fourth. I think Dangerfield will win, or Goldstein. Or if it has to be a Sydney player then Kennedy
johno
Guest
Round 1 - Kim Hagdorn quoted.... almost fell off my seat laughing. Does anyone actually take him seriously? Nobody considers what he says. He grinds an axe against Freo from when they froze him out after his years of smearing the club. When they finally came good he had no idea why no one down there wants to give him the time of day. For that matter the Sunday Times is junk mail mostly.
KiwiDave
Roar Guru
Round 3 versus West Coast. Neale had 41 possies that game but he isn't a known vote getter and Fyfe was arguably second best on ground that game. He will be in line for 2 or 3 votes that game too
Frank O'Keeffe
Guest
What a great article. This article shows such a careful attention to the crucial games that Nate Fyfe participated in this year. I doubt very many bookies would have gone to the attention that this article does. I think anybody seeking to put money on Fyfe ought to consider the contents of this article. A great read. Thank you.
Balthazar
Guest
That is really not the case AB. If it was the case that Freo fans are "delusional", a fair proportion of the media wouldn't have had a meltdown about the poor umpiring of both games on the weekend, causing Wayne Campbell to do his "nothing to see here, OK maybe not our best games ever" routine. But I guess with Stevic on your side, you wouldn't recognise what it's like to be unfairly penalised. If Mitchell won it I'd indeed be annoyed as he is the single biggest cause of Fyfe losing half a season. For the record, I don't think Fyfe played enough games pre-injury to win it. Aside from Mitchell, I don't really care who wins it. Dangerfield maybe.
AB
Guest
Fyfe deserves it, but Mitchell is a decent smoky. He always polls well - he'll probably end up as one of the top five vote-getters of all time before the end of his career - and he's had one of his best seasons. A Mitchell win would have the added bonus of infuriating those delusional Freo supporters who seem to genuinely believe there is some sort of pro-Hawthorn, anti-Freo conspiracy at work every time a result doesn't go their way. Imagine Mitchell beating Fyfe by a single vote. The Roar's servers would go into meltdown!
KiwiDave
Roar Guru
You need to take into account who the umpires like and who they don't. Pavlich has received 0 votes in 2013 and 2014. What does that tell you? Neale is another poor poller. Pearce the same. Mundy and Barlow are the ones who attract votes and the ones with a realistic chance of taking votes off Fyfe. If it comes down to Fyfe, Pavlich and Neale as to who gets the 3 votes in an even performance in a game, 99.9% of the time Fyfe will notch the 3 because the umps like him over the other two.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
KiwiDave, of the first nine Round 3 is the only one he may miss votes in for mine. There's also a chance he goes on a string of three voters from Round 4-9, which would be something. Having another look this arvo I cannot see a way Fyfe has less than 23 by the end of the night, and that's looking at it from a super conservative viewpoint. So if anyone is to catch him they'll have to rack up quite a few votes.