AFL Round 13 Tips & Predictions 2026: Anytime Goal Scorer Value Picks & Odds

Footylab verdict

Value, strong. This one clears the rule-grid comfortably: Footylab has him at 43.5% to snag a goal, while the price implies 30.8%, a 12.8 percentage-point edge (and anything 10+ is ‘strong’). For a ruck/around-the-ball type, that’s the kind of gap you usually only see when the market is underestimating how often he drifts forward or gets cheap ones off repeat entries.

Footylab verdict

Value, small. The edge is there, but it’s not a smash: 33.8% rated to score versus 25.3% implied by 3.95, an 8.5-point gap. That’s above the 5-point trigger for a ‘value’ tag, just not in the ‘strong’ bracket.

Role and scoring route

This is the kind of ATS angle that lives and dies on role. Wines can get you there through a forward rotation, a stoppage surge goal, or that classic mid who sneaks forward when the defence is ball-watching. The opponent profile and Port’s overall scoring environment both lean positive, which is why he’s on the list at all.

Footylab verdict

Value, small. Footylab rates him a 42.5% chance to hit the scoreboard, while 2.90 implies 34.5%: an 8.0-point gap, which clears the 5-point value trigger.

Why he makes sense here

This is the kind of ATS pick that’s less about being a pure forward and more about being involved in a healthy scoring setup. Geelong’s attack environment grades well, and his opportunity profile is strong enough that you can see multiple paths: resting forward, arriving late at the top of the square, or cashing in when the Cats get repeat looks.

Footylab verdict

Value, small. The model has him at 46.7% to kick a goal, versus 40% implied by 2.50. That’s a 6.7-point edge, enough to trigger a value call (5+), but not the 10+ needed for ‘strong’.

Footylab verdict

Value, small. Footylab has him at 34.3% to score, while 3.50 implies 28.6%. That’s a 5.8-point edge, just over the 5-point threshold for a value tag.

How it gets there

This is a role-and-run ATS profile: Geelong’s scoring environment looks decent, his opportunity indicators are positive, and the match context isn’t screaming “low-event slog”. He doesn’t need to be the focal point; he just needs a couple of forward-half chains where he’s the one receiving out the back or hitting a running shot.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. Yes, he’s likely to score, but 1.01 implies 99.0% and Footylab has him at 65.0%. That’s a 34.0-point gap the wrong way, well beyond the 10-point ‘strong’ threshold.

What the price is really asking

This isn’t a comment on his goal-kicking ability. His base goal rate and recent form are excellent, and the role/opportunity profile is exactly what you want for ATS. The issue is the market is pricing him like a formality, and footy just doesn’t work like that: one quiet quarter, a defensive matchup that sticks, or a game script that spreads the goals around, and you’ve got no room to breathe.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. The market is treating this like a near lock: 1.02 implies 98.0%, while Footylab has him at 52.9%. That’s a 45.1-point negative gap, miles past the ‘strong’ ripoff line.

The football reality check

He’s a key target with a monster goal profile and strong recent form, so nobody’s arguing he can score. But ATS is still a single-goal bet, and key forwards are the most supply-dependent players on the ground. If Brisbane control territory, if entries come in ugly, or if the Suns’ scoring is shared, the “one goal is guaranteed” assumption gets shaky fast.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. This is the kind of number that should set off alarms: 1.61 implies 62.1%, but Footylab rates him at just 9.9% to score. That’s a 52.2-point gap against you, comfortably ‘strong’.

Why the model is so low

Defenders can pop up for the odd cheap one, but the underlying setup here is ugly for an ATS ticket. The team attack environment is poor, his opportunity/role indicators are low, and recent scoring form isn’t giving you a “he’s been sneaking forward” narrative to lean on.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. The price is doing the classic key-forward thing and going way too short: 1.04 implies 96.2%, while Footylab has him at 50.9%. That’s a 45.3-point negative gap.

What’s being missed

He’s clearly a major scoring threat on profile: elite base goal rate, strong recent form, and the kind of role that keeps him around the dangerous areas. But that’s exactly why the market crushes these prices. A single goal still needs supply, and even the best spearheads can get iced out by game script, weather, or a defence that forces the ball elsewhere.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. 1.26 implies 79.4%, but Footylab has him at 34.2% to score. That’s a 45.2-point gap against the bet, well into ‘strong’ ripoff territory.

The role problem

This is where the market can get cute: a player with some scoring history, a friendly opponent profile, and suddenly the price assumes a forward’s job. But Footylab’s read is that the scoring chance is much more modest, even with decent team attack context and reasonable recent form.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. The market is asking you to believe in a near certainty: 1.07 implies 93.5%, while Footylab rates him at 51.9%. That’s a 41.6-point negative gap.

Scoring profile vs price

On pure profile, you get why he’s popular: strong base goal rate, excellent recent form, and a role that can absolutely produce a goal. But ATS isn’t about “can he kick one?”; it’s about “is this price paying you for the ways it can go wrong?” At 1.07, the answer is no.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. 1.28 implies 78.1%, but Footylab has him at 34.3%. That’s a 43.9-point gap against you, easily ‘strong’.

Why this gets overbet

This is a classic “name tax” ATS price. The opponent weakness indicators are there, and his role/opportunity profile is decent, but none of that justifies a number that assumes he scores almost every week. He’s not being priced like a midfielder/forward who can snag one; he’s being priced like a permanent forward pocket in a dominant side.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. 1.51 implies 66.2%, while Footylab has him at 20.7%. That’s a 45.6-point negative gap, which is a ‘strong’ ripoff call by the rule-grid.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. The odds are doing too much: 1.09 implies 91.7%, while Footylab rates him at 51.7%. That’s a 40.0-point negative gap, firmly ‘strong’.

Great player, brutal quote

He’s got the profile you want: elite base goal rate, strong recent form, and plenty of opportunity to be the one finishing the work. But 1.09 isn’t “he’s likely”; it’s “he’s basically guaranteed”. Against a decent opponent and in a game where scoring can spread, that’s just not a bet you want to be paying for.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. 1.09 implies 91.7%, but Footylab has him at 53.5%. That’s a 38.2-point negative gap, which is a ‘strong’ ripoff.

The matchup isn’t the issue, the price is

His recent scoring form is excellent and the underlying goal profile is strong, so the “can he score?” part is easy. The problem is that the market is pricing him like a certainty in a rivalry-style game where momentum swings and defensive attention can change quickly.