In last week’s column, I mentioned in passing that recent Brownlow medalists have tended to drop off a bit the following year after winning it.
That got me thinking a little bit, so I decided that this week I’d take a look into it.
Going back to 2009 should give us enough data to start with:
Gary Ablett’s scoring went down the first time after he won it, and up the second time.
SuperCoach scoring data only goes back to 2005, so I can’t tell you what happened to Chris Judd’s output after he won it in 2004, but his scoring went down ever so slightly after he won it in 2010:
It was only by 3 points, however, so I’d call that staying stable rather than a big up or downward swing.
Dane Swan went up a few points, but, again, it wasn’t what you would call a significant change:
For reasons that I’m sure most reading are familiar with, the situation around the 2012 Brownlow is a little messy, so I’ve decided to make my life easier by skipping over that year.
In 2013 it was won by Gary Ablett again, whom we have already covered, so moving on to 2014:
Priddis’ output stayed stable the following year.
In 2015, Nat Fyfe won the first of his two Brownlows:
Both years he won it, his average dropped due to injury concerns the following season.
Dangerfield’s average actually went up the following year:
While 2018 was not quite so kind to Dustin Martin:
Tom Mitchell never took to the field in 2019, so we’ll never know how he would have gone, but his average has never been quite the same since his return:
Finally, last year’s winner has also had some well-documented injury concerns this season:
There was also a widely held view that the shorter quarters of 2020 really suited his game (much like Max Gawn and Jake Lloyd).
One thing that did occur to me was that it might have something to do with the age at which they win it, but the data doesn’t seem to bear that out:
Injury seems to be a fairly common theme with the players whose scoring dropped the following year, but not in every case.
What should we make of all this? To be honest, I’m not really sure.
Players tend to win Brownlows when they have a really good year, and regression to the mean is often a thing after an athlete has had an exceptionally good patch. We as SuperCoaches also have a tendency to start players who have just had a really great year, because, well, they were really great the previous year.
Does this mean we should swear off picking the reigning Brownlow medalist in our starting squads? The more recent data might suggest that we should, but then again, that’s a small sample size. You would also no doubt raise a few eyebrows if you said in a preseason Rate My Team thread that “I’m not starting Player X, because he won the Brownlow last year.” Then again, if you had done so over the last few years, at least, you would have turned out to be right.
The only answer that I can give you, I’m afraid, is that I don’t have an answer.
Got any thoughts on players having post-Brownlow drop-offs? Let us know in the comments below!
Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom
I think the issue is whether you feel that the player had a season above what FD might call their true level of ability, or had reached a new level.
Two good examples for me this year we’re Petracca and Steele. I think a lot of people didn’t start them in 2021 because we weren’t sure if what we saw in 2020 was their true level, or whether they had an extraordinary year. I know I was more interested in Oliver, Bont and Zerrett because they had shown that level over a longer period of time.
The Brownlow can represent an extraordinary good year for a player who has performed above what we have seen before from them. Dusty, for example, great player, but was always unlikely to repeat his Brownlow year for a full season. Not saying that spitefully. More so that it was extraordinary even by his standards, and you would expect teams to find ways to counter him the following season. Titch, on the other hand, has the reputation of not hurting teams, so maybe less change in tactics against him, and was more likely to be strong in the year following his Brownlow. We will never know. Just speculation.
If Bont wins this year, next year he will be an interesting pick. Is he approaching his true level? Will teams find more ways to combat him? Is he destined to spend more time forward anyway? He might be a real test case for the theory!
Miller will be another ponderous selection next year. Are we seeing his true level, or is he having just a great season that he will find difficult to replicate next year. I’m probably in the latter camp, but we will see when team reveals start in early next year.