AFL Round 12 Tips & Predictions 2022: Anytime Goal Scorer Value Picks & Odds

Footylab verdict

Value, strong. This one clears the rule-grid comfortably: Footylab has him at 43.7% to snag a goal, while the $3.85 price implies 26.0%, a gap of 17.8 percentage points (anything 10+ is ‘strong’). In a match that turned into a Swans scoring party (170–56), the appeal wasn’t subtle: Sydney’s attack environment and Richmond’s defensive profile both rated highly in the build.

Footylab verdict

Value, strong. Footylab rated him a 46.5% chance to kick one, versus 32.8% implied by $3.05, a 13.7-point edge (strong is 10+). In a tight one (Geelong by four, 88–84), this is the type of runner/utility scoring profile the market often underestimates.

Footylab verdict

Value, strong. Footylab had him at 42.0% to score, while $3.50 implies 28.6%, a 13.4-point gap that hits the strong threshold. Even though Brisbane fell 78–103, the pre-game profile still made sense: decent team attack conditions and a role/base goal rate that supports a midfielder/forward type popping up.

How it happens

This is the “mid who can hurt you” angle. The model’s base goal rate and opportunity signals suggest he gets enough looks across a game to make one goal a realistic outcome, even if he’s not living inside 50.

Footylab verdict

Value, strong. Footylab’s 45.9% versus the $3.05 implied 32.8% is a 13.1-point edge, comfortably ‘strong’. With Sydney piling on 170 in the final score, the broader logic held: strong Swans attack environment plus a Richmond weakness profile that didn’t scream “lockdown”.

Footylab verdict

Value, strong. Footylab makes him a 45.9% chance to kick a goal, while $3.05 implies 32.8%, a 13.1-point gap (strong call). This is one of those midfield-led AGS spots where role and match context do the heavy lifting, not “he’s a forward so he scores”.

Role and match context

The model’s opportunity/role score is strong, and the match context rating is high too. That combination usually points to a player who gets forward enough, often enough, to turn one chance into one major.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. This is the poster child for “too short to touch”: Footylab had him at 65.0% to score, but $1.01 implies 99.0%, a massive -34.0 point gap (strong ripoff). Yes, he’s an elite goal threat on profile, but the market price leaves basically no room for the normal randomness of footy.

The football case (and why it still doesn’t justify $1.01)

Everything in the inputs screams ‘likely scorer’: elite base goal rate, strong recent form, and a big role. But even with all that, a one-goal outcome is never 99% in the real world. Weird game flow, early attention, a couple of misses, or just the ball living elsewhere can beat you.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. Footylab’s at 65.0%, the $1.02 price implies 98.0%: a -33.0 point gap, which is a strong ripoff by the rule-grid. Even with a premium key-forward scoring profile, that’s a number you’d only want if you believed a goal was basically guaranteed.

Availability and structure matters

The big issue here is that availability directly impacts the whole forward-line picture. If the medical update has him sidelined, the bet is dead anyway; if he plays under any kind of limitation, the “near certainty” price looks even sillier.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. Footylab had him at 51.3% to score, but $1.07 implies 93.5%, a -42.2 point gap. Fremantle won 103–78, but the price still asked you to believe a goal was almost automatic.

Why the model still likes him (just not at this price)

The goal-kicking profile is strong: base goal rate, recent form, and position profile all point to a genuine threat. That’s exactly why he’s often short. The problem is the market has pushed it to a level where you’re paying for a result that still fails a lot.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. Footylab has him at 51.9%, while $1.07 implies 93.5%, a -41.6 point gap. That’s not a small disagreement; it’s the market pricing him like a near lock when Footylab sees plenty of miss probability.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. Footylab rated him a 43.5% chance, but $1.18 implies 84.7%, a -41.3 point gap. In a close match (Carlton 88, Geelong 84), the market still priced this like a near formality.

What has to go right

The model acknowledges he can score: recent form and base goal rate are both solid, and the explosiveness indicators suggest he can turn limited looks into a goal. But the opportunity/role score isn’t screaming “guaranteed forward focal point”, which is what you’d want at $1.18.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. Footylab’s 51.9% versus the $1.13 implied 88.5% is a -36.6 point gap. Even in a high-scoring, close contest (Bulldogs 97, Pies 93), that’s still a big “market too short” flag.

Matchup shape

McStay’s scoring profile is respectable across base rate, recent form and position profile, but none of that turns him into an 88% proposition. Key forwards can get iced out by supply, by matchups, or by the ball simply not sticking.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. Footylab has him at 53.2%, while $1.12 implies 89.3%, a -36.0 point gap. He’s absolutely capable of scoring, but the market is charging like it’s almost inevitable.

Fitness and role context

The model still rates his scoring profile highly across base goal rate, recent form and opportunity. The issue is that any physical limitation can turn “gets chances” into “plays deeper, moves less, gets fewer looks”, and that matters when the price is this tight.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. Before the bounce, Footylab had him at 32.4% to score, while $1.40 implied 71.4%. That’s a 39.0-point gap — strong ripoff territory by the 10-point rule.

How it played out

The final scoreline (St Kilda 67 - 119 Hawthorn) shows the Hawks had plenty of scoring, but that doesn’t automatically make every individual ATS ticket a good one. This is the trap: team points can flow without a specific player being a reliable finisher.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. Footylab’s at 65.0%, while $1.02 implies 98.0%, a -33.0 point gap. Even with Sydney’s attack humming (170 points on the night), the market price was still asking for near certainty.

Why it’s still an avoid

Amartey’s scoring profile is strong across base goal rate, recent form and position profile, and Sydney’s team attack environment was rated highly. But 65% is not 98%. A key forward can have a good game and still miss the one-goal mark if the goals are shared around or the finishing is off.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. Footylab had him at 48.2%, while $1.20 implies 83.3%, a -35.1 point gap. Even in a match that finished 97–93, the market priced this like a near formality.

The scoring profile vs the price

Daicos can absolutely hit the scoreboard, and the model agrees: opportunity/role and base goal rate are healthy for a mid/half-back who can push forward. But that’s still not an 83% outcome. You’re relying on the right moments, not a guaranteed set of shots.