Eurovision 2017 is now a fading memory. But as delegations and broadcasters begin plotting their moves for Eurovision 2018 in Portugal, they’re pouring over the surprising and frequently controversial results from Kyiv. Cue Australia.

This year Australia’s Isaiah Firebrace, 17, placed a respectable ninth in the grand final with his song “Don’t Come Easy”.

Of the 173 points Australia earned in the grand final, 171 of them — a whopping 99% — came from the juries. And if it were up to televoters, Australia would not have qualified from its semi-final. Shock! Horror!

GRAND FINAL: AUSTRALIA’S JURY-TELEVOTE SPLIT

The song scored well with juries across Europe in the grand final, with 29 out of the potential 41 international juries awarding Australia points. Juries in the Czech Republic, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and the United Kingdom each awarded Australia 10 points. When purely considering the jury vote, Australia placed fourth.

However, it didn’t come easy for Australia in the televote. The public awarded Isaiah just two points (courtesy of Denmark, which, coincidentally, fielded a contestant with Australian roots). This placed Australia 25th in the televote, just above Austria. That’s next to last.

Australia’s jury-televote split in the grand final was larger than any other country. It’s thanks to the juries that Australia managed to reach the Top 10 for a third year in a row.

SEMI-FINAL 1: JURY-TELEVOTE SPLIT

Semi-Final 1 tells a similar story, with Australia earning a total of 160 points and finishing in sixth position. The juries placed Australia second with 139 points, ranking Isaiah behind only eventual winner Portugal. The Czech, Slovenian and Swedish juries even awarded Australia twelve points.

Australia ranked 15th with the televote, earning just 21 points (six of those points came from Iceland). That put Australia above only Slovenia, Latvia and the Czech Republic with televoters. Under the pre-2009 voting system, which relied solely on televoting, Australia would not have advanced to the final.

How do you explain the difference?

It’s obvious that the juries approved of the boy from Oz, who delivered sultry vocals and some decidedly polished staging courtesy of creative director Sacha Jean-Baptiste.

Their love continues a trend. Over the three years that Australia has been a part of the contest, juries have always ranked Australian performances higher than televoters did in the grand final. In 2015 Guy Sebastian’s “Tonight Again” ranked fourth among the juries, but sixth in the televote. In 2016, Dami Im’s “Sound of Silence” won the jury vote in a landslide, but finished fourth in the televote. Isaiah’s gap — fourth place vs. 25th — marks the biggest disparity yet.

Some say that Australia enjoys a leg-up with the juries owing to the country’s noted pop music industry, which, like Sweden, punches well above its size. It’s widely agreed that Australia brings a stamp of quality and ambition to the contest that encourages other countries to up their game. Still others say it’s not a matter of Australia having a halo with the juries. To them the juries simply appreciate quality and talent, which Australia brings.

In either case, it’s clear that televoters don’t appreciate Australia as much. This may be down partly to the lack of an Australian diaspora across Europe.

Australian media outlets were quick to blame Australia’s poor televote result on the “Australian” streaker who, wearing the country’s flag, crashed Jamala’s performance during the interval. Although the culprit was later identified as an infamous Ukrainian streaker posing as an Australian, The Australian newspaper speculated that this offensive display may have discouraged European televoters from voting for Australia.

At least British comedienne and former Australia’s Got Talent judge Dawn French saw the funny side, tweeting:

David Knox, owner of Australian television website TV Tonight, has a simple explanation: Australia’s poor televote stemmed from “Don’t Come Easy” being an “ordinary ballad amongst a sea of others”.

In previous years, Australia may have benefitted from the novelty of their participation. This year’s televote score may reflect Europe’s waning enthusiasm for Australia’s inclusion in the contest. Even last year the UK’s commentator Graham Norton slammed Australia’s participation, telling British tabloid The Sun that the Eurovision Song Contest should “get rid of Australia” (despite Australia eventually placing a respectable fourth in last year’s televote).

Do you think Australia deserved their place in the grand final? Do you think juries have a bias towards Australian entries? Let us know in the comments section below!

Total
223
Shares
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Steve
Guest
I see some people blaming the streaker for the lowly 2 pts but that’s just a poor excuse. Here’s why: the voting had been open for well over 30 mins when it happened and closed soon thereafter. Unless you think there was going to be flood of votes for Australia at the last minute, it was a non-factor. Here’s 2 reasons why I think the juries gave such high votes for a mediocre song and even worse singer. 1. His performances in the jury semi-finals and jury grand finals were better. His embarrassing vocal snafu occurred during the public semi-finals.… Read more »
Stephen Podesta
Guest

His Snaffu as you called it would not of mattered to the result in the end TV did not like his performance or song.

Juzza
Guest

I think Australia is underrated by the televote because it’s not in Europe. It will take time before some members of the public embrace Australia’s involvement and stop viewing it as an outsider. In the meantime those people are more likely to vote for more familiar neighbours, whereas I think the jury is more open minded about Australia’s participation.

Azaad
Guest

The song was constructed to appeal to juries, not the public. Same as with Denmark, Czech Republic, Malta and Sweden…face it. Australia bring quality and are appropriately rewarded for it for the most part. Yes, there’s some inflation but only by a few places at most. Russia could literally send Electro Velvet and still make the top 10 if we’re talking about overrated countries.

Jogral
Guest

Australia needs to leave Eurovision and start the Asia-Pacific spin-off as soon as possible. They would never be able to host because they’re too far away so what’s the point?

João Teles
Guest
i think everything has been said by now, EBU needs Australia so they tell the juries to overrate them as much as they can, this year was the clear proof of that, it’s right in front of our eyes, you only don’t see if you don’t want to. the thing is: tele-voters couldn’t care less about this song because it was forgettable, boring, the singer had no charisma and he wasn’t even that great vocally, so it’s no surprise they failed spectacularly in the tele-voting. To be honest, they shouldn’t even had qualified, let alone, getting top 10 in the… Read more »
Zebb
Guest
I’ve had this entry amongst my top 5 and still listen sometimes to it. Would I vote for it? No, having two far better favourites to win. It took a road of a good filler for me, being liking aussie song for the first time – sometimes it’s fine to have a laid-back well produced ballad. ?olourful stylish visuals were fitting song and even if it looked selfish a bit – to call it how some people did sounds a bit racist. Hilariously though how countries imitate how good they’re towards aboriginals, when I’m so well introduced to how fake… Read more »
#Sorry
Guest

There is nothing outstanding in “Don’t Come Easy”. It’s basic ballad, with cheesy lyrics. Isaiah’s voice is great, but he failed badly in semis. The performance was just a regular X-Factor show, with giant selfies on the back. There are millions of songs like this.

Briekimchi
Guest

Australia has been over-rated by juries every year since they have entered. The Dami Im placing was ridiculous but Isaiah might have been even worse. I have to say, there is something sinister behind it. There is no legitimate reason for Australia’s entry this year getting the votes from the jury that it did (and I was actually a fan of the song before the live performance!).

ESCaddict
Guest

On my first listen, I thought “Don’t Come Easy” was just a generic ballad. After many listens I grew to appreciate its quality. By the time of the contest, it was in my Top 10.
Presumably the juries are listening to the songs well ahead of the contest so they knew what a great song it is. For the bulk of the televoters, who only heard it once or twice, it was “meh”.
So the result is juries liked it while televoters were indifferent.

Áustria
Guest

All three of Australia’s songs so far are too slick and soulless for me, which makes it for me one of the last inspirational countries in Eurovision. They remind me of Russia, just without their steroids.

Polegend Godgarina
Guest

The public didn’t vote for it because it was a forgettable ballad with the worst performance you could think of. Tired backdrop, random movements on stage, vocals not outstanding enough.

EBU needs Australia’s money though, so they sneaked into the top ten.

Shijie
Guest

If EBU needs money?why don’t they just invite China already

Polegend Godgarina
Guest

The backlash would be too much, people are still complaining about Australia

Charli Cheer Up
Guest

Australia’s a Westernised country with a lot of European influences. China is just a competely different culture. It would be even more awkard if they took part. I reckon Canada should be the next country to enter.

CookyMonzta
Guest

Is it just my imagination, or does anyone else remember Raquel Galdes’ “Stop Haunting Me”? That was her entry for the Malta ESC 2015 which was won by Amber’s “Warrior”. Raquel failed to qualify for the MESC final. Isaiah’s song is quite reminiscent of Raquel’s song, and I thought Raquel’s song, with that accent of hers, was way better.

CookyMonzta
Guest

I assume you’re insinuating that, the sooner Australia fails to qualify for a Grand Final, they’ll be finished at ESC. That remains to be seen.

Stephen Podesta
Guest

I think that as soon as Australia is knocked out of the top 10, Australia will say good bye, why pay good money for nothing. Australia has to do Asia vision and they don’t have the money to do both.

EF0912
Guest
A variety of factors all favour Australia in the jury vote: 1) They send these generic songs with space for vocal tricks. 2) Many jury members are probably signed to Sony and Australia always uses Sony – they would have had some influence in some (not all) juries. 3) Because ultimately, it’s Australia. The sad truth is that if performance was sent by countries like Estonia, Georgia and Finland, it would not have placed well with juries. The EBU love having Australia in the contest because they add extra money so they want to keep them keen. It is fishy… Read more »
Stephen Podesta
Guest

The disparity was only in 2017 with Isaiah, guy came 6th and Dami 4th in the Televotes, hardly a massive disparity.

L'oiseau
Guest
I don’t believe in a conspiracy of the jury and the EBU. I was jury myself twice before televote and there was not such thing as interference. The process is very closely monitored by auditors. Today the juries are from the music business. They look into production value of the entries. That is why they valued Australia or Sweden because the production is flawless. We also don’t know how the jury performance was but he might have nailed it. Off point: why is that the Swedish jury gave 12 to Australia in the semi and changed the 12 to Portuguese… Read more »
Stephen Podesta
Guest

So why the disparity between televotes and Juries.
I have always believed the both look at the songs differently, juries the technical side of it and televotes the feel good factor, that’s why both are necessary.
If the televotes and juries voting was on par then the difference in votes would be very small indeed and there may be more than 1 winner, which should not happen.

Mattias Sollerman
Guest

Unless someone actually asks the jury members, we will never know.

CookyMonzta
Guest

What this demonstrates is that it is highly possible that we may soon enough be confronted by a song that is number 1 in either the televote or the jury vote, only to get NO points on the other scorecard, and still finish in the top 10.

CookyMonzta
Guest
When a country builds a reputation for sending fairly good if not excellent songs, that country is likely to be rewarded by the juries if the next song is decent but doesn’t quite measure up to the song sent the year before. Isaiah Firebrace’s “Don’t Come Easy” fits this scenario when compared to Dami Im’s “Sound Of Silence”. For the juries to be broken, Australia would have had to send a very lousy song. In a case like this, the voters pick up on comparisons more quickly than the juries. Isaiah’s song obviously compared poorly against Dami’s, the result being… Read more »
Darth Thulhu
Guest
Juries in the same industry are not only willing, but sometimes eager, to publicly vote-up the latest Sony Music product, talking about “global music relevance”. Moreover, juries in the same industry are quite willing to echo-chamber-repeat empty name-dropping mantras like “the stage production was by Sacha Jean-Baptiste!” without any actual comparative analysis of what actually got put onto the actual live stage. The name-dropping alone gives a positive halo. (All of this is less conscious corruption than it is unconscious Groupthink, and it operates on behalf of any nation that regularly hires out name-drop-worthy members of the international music industry,… Read more »
John Egan
Guest
Aside from his horrible vocal in both live shows? Because Australia’s not in Europe. The first year they were gifted a spot in the Grand Final. Last year and this year they had to qualify out of their semi-final–which probably annoyed Europeans who feel they are taking a slot from longer-term, actual European countries. Even with a great song, brilliant staging and amazing performance, Dami Im managed an average Grand Final televote score of 4.66. In her semi-final she averaged 8.36 televote points. Guy Sebastian’s televote average was only 3.38 points. The more Eurovision voters have to think about the… Read more »
Danni
Guest

The juries had a criteria and Australia was filling it – good production, catchy melody of some kind, quality staging and great voice (minus the vocal hiccup.) This just shows that objective hit potential is merely theoretical and doesn’t necessarily mean it will become a hit.

PP
Guest

WE have that some countries are overrated by juries every year like Australia, Sweden, Malta, many times in past Azerbaijan, Israel, Ukraine and in last few years in that groups joins The Netherlands and Belgium.
If Omar from Slovenia sing his song On my way for Australia, he would go to final and in final would be in TOP 10 .

Phlo
Guest

I really don’t see this song as a bad one. Still, it’s not a sufficiently good one to rank that good.
Regardless of this song, or the subject, I really don’t know why a jury has to vote. Let’s bring it back to the people. Those who are watching and voting. The system was sooo much better when only the public voted.

Mimiyania
Guest

Australia was my 2nd place and I was really disappointed when they were so underrated in the televoting. I voted for them two times, but they ended up 12th in our televote. That’s pretty close to getting a point… I didn’t like the song as much, but Isaiah’s voice is just breathtaking.
I would love if Australia continued to participate, because they always bring a talented performer with a modern song. Isn’t the contest about the songs, and not politics? Then I don’t see a problem in Australia’s participation. I would be really happy if they could stay a permanent contestant…

Lewis Hamilton
Guest

Very well written article. Hopefully Australia puts up a much better performance than Isaiah. What a bore. No wonder the Europeans gave us 2 points!

Charli Cheer Up
Guest

That Ukrainian streaker might be to blame but I think his note crack at the semis might’ve left a lasting impression on the grand finals. I do agree that they placed high on juries because of this new reputation they have of sending great modern entries like Sweden in recent years.

Loin de La Bas
Guest

Isaiah is undoubtedly a talent. But Australia ranked low in televote due to “no Australian diaspora” is bullcrap. Because if that was the case, Dami Im would have ranked low last year.
This is a generic, manufactured, forgettable song that does not appeal to the public, that’s all. Plain and simple.

Loin de La Bas
Guest

And if the trend continues of Australia sending a basic song and saved by the juries again, I feel like anti-Australia sentiments will show up within the Eurovision public. This is already showing this year for the first time as they couldn’t accept that their favourites have to give up the spot for a country that they didn’t vote for.
Be careful Australia.

Mark
Guest

We (Australians) didn’t like the song either. Blame the Record Label who controls who Australia sends to Eurovision.

Polegend Godgarina
Guest

If you have no diaspora+neighbors but you have a great song, you won’t end with 2 points. Look at Malta 2005. Isaiah’s performance sucked, period.

Pant7
Guest

The song was plain bad. I think jury voted for it because if Australia wins they need to pick a European host, and they want to be the ones picked. This year Australia didn’t even deserve qualification.

Dimitrios Daskalakis
Guest

Even if Australia did win they’d never get to host. It is way too far and expensive for so many artists to travel to. Ranking Australia high amongst juries was purely about consolidating money flow for Eurovision.

Mark
Guest

I’m Australian and I agree that we didn’t deserve to had qualified.

Fatima
Guest

” And if it were up to televoters, Australia would not have qualified from its semi-final. Shock! Horror!”
Well, no Sebastian, this isn’t a shock because he sang the most appalling bum note in the last minute of his song in the televote semi, and then made it worse by tying to style it out. In the jury semi, he was much cleaner.

Mark
Guest

They should have never sent him.

escterrace
Guest

I am biased because i loved the song and i have it on my phone,to say thank god for the juries!In my opinion this was australia s best song.Best performance??well….not that much!And i am not talking about the boy s voice.he has a unique voice.The problem was probably with the staging!I prefered something more like the video clip!
ps:wiwiblogs,i appreciate your job but clearly this year you have thrown so much hate towards australia!it s almost disrespectfull

Briekimchi
Guest

I actually agree!
Based on studio version, this was Australia’s best entry so far. Unfortunately, whereas both Guy and Dami elevated mediocre songs, Isaiah (along with his staging) ran this into the ground.
On a side note, I feel that Wiwibloggs are MORE than respectful towards Australia despite the fact that they receive such obviously inflated scores at Eurovision. =P

AngieP
Guest
There’s always a favourable behaviour towards Australia especially by the juries. But let’s be honest: They bring quality. That doesn’t mean they should be always awarded with high points. The difference between the juries and the public is simple. Televoters don’t care if it’s Australia. If they like it, they vote for it otherwise they don’t. Juries seem to take more into account that it’s Australia. It’s not that Australia doesn’t have diaspora. For me it’s a silly explanation. First, if a song places in the top 5, it’s there thanks to sth more than just the diaspora. To do… Read more »
ms
Guest

Overrated by the jury !
Underrated by the public !
but ninth at the grand final = a little overrated

Stan
Guest

It’s hard to understand the voting 🙂 Let’s not interpret too much into this. You would expect the jury to go for more contemporary songs, technical skills, production value or hit potential. They’re supposed to be professionals… Australia did tick quite a few of those boxes. Maybe not 4th, but still good enough.

Niel
Guest
I understand that are a lot of opinion that the jury vote are biased towards Australia. Personally I liked their representative for 3 years in a row ( but not so much for Isaiah ). I do concur the jury decision to place Australia in those position. But one problem that Australia face is that they are competing in a different continent. Even though they won, They did not get to host the next year edition, but rather nominating a city for next year. Furthermore, they are in as a invited capacity fron the EBU. So, I think that they… Read more »
Regina Phalange
Guest

It’s extremely obvious that the juries are biased over Australia and give them many points, no matter what. Other than this, juries>>>>>televoting.

KYLLITO
Guest

Yes it is extremely obvious. Agreed. But why? The reason I believe is because there is a concerted effort for Australia to perform well so that they can launch ASIAVISION. I have no doubt this is the case. And even though the juries are supposed to be independent, that is hardly the case.

Ethan1994
Guest

Except that it’s not “extremely obvious” that they are “biased”. That is literally just guesswork, with no proof whatsoever.

ninasublatti
Guest

the last time i checked australia was not in europe

Davve
Guest

Last time I checked neither is Armenia, Azerbaijan and Israel.

Diga
Guest

Not to mention Morocco, a country which has competed and is a non-European country.

Jogral
Guest

Again this silly argument. Israel is in the Middle East but it’s an official EBU member since the 50’s and inside the EBU geographical area. Besides, Israel could never compete with Arab Countries who don’t even recognise Israel as a nation. Armenia, Azerbaijan (as well as Russia, Turkey, Georgia and even Cyprus) are transcontinental countries, OFFICIAL EBU members and inside the EBU geographical area. Australia is neither an official EBU member (merely an associated member) and neither inside the EBU geographical area. It is a totally different case and not comparable to Israel, Azerbaijan, etc.

Deli
Guest

Oh. I want also say: justice for Finland!

Deli
Guest

Australia may bring some quality to the contest but their all songs are very much manufactured. No edge, no soul. People get it while juries follow some mythic radio-friendliness

Loin de La Bas
Guest

Agree agree!

Leo M
Guest

I reckon there was a conspiracy that EBU told juries to rank Australia high and guide them to the final, because if they had not made the final they probably would have lost a lot of viewers and with Russia already gone, they did not want to lose any more ratings. No surprise they did bad with viewers, the novelty of voting for Australia at Eurovision has worn off.

Purple Mask
Guest

In my opinion, Isaiah sang quite badly to the TV audience (especially in SF1). However, the jury performances (which are separate) might have been better vocally. Combine this with a classy song structure, and the marks go up. I personally disliked how the background LEDs reproduced his face, but obviously the juries loved it. It did look “professional” – I acknowledge that much.

Nikos
Guest

This should’ve finished 20th or so in the final (or even not qualified with that pitchy performance in the SF). I was in such shock when the juries started throwing all these points at it. The song was well-produced and not bad, but it was a bit monotonous and lacked emotion. This was not in the same league as Dami Im.

4li3n
Guest

I’m here to say poor Finland! So unfair!

Liame
Guest

I find since Aus join ESC Finland and Iceland never qualifier to Grandfinal.

Erasmus
Guest

To be honest this is my fave Australian entry, Dami was to screamy for me, and Guy’s song was a bit too funky for me. And the staging was perfect here, I mean those colors(rose and ligjt blue, almost turquise) were amazing! But yeah he was a bit overrated with the juries for me he deserved around 15th place overrall.

Matt
Guest

One theory I thought of yesterday was that if a song is viewed as good not great (i.e. say 8th in most people’s minds), then it’s going to receive a decent number of jury points but zero televoting points because televoters are generally going to only vote for their top one, two or three favorites.

Adrian
Guest
I kind of agree with you, because this is a song that is not that divisive and may not have enough attraction to the televoters to vote for it. But if every jury ranks it around 6-8, the average ranking will be quite high, which will receive many juries points, like only 12 countries didn’t give Australia any points, wide support. And some other divisive songs, like Romania and Croatia, may have more die-hard fans that will vote for it, but if one or two juries rank it around last place, it will destroy their chance for receiving any jury… Read more »
Shona
Guest

I don’t think the juries were biased. Isiah is talented and his vocals were flawless. I think he was quite comfortable in performing those vocal feats which are not as comfortable for other singers. Vocally he was very right with the song given to him thus earning him jury votes. But of course the song was meh and forgettable. Got no hook like with Moldova so did not do well with the televoting.

Polegend Godgarina
Guest

His vocals were flawless? Did you actually watch the shows?

Flynn
Guest

The song in my eyes was a pretty slick radio hit and I think that’s partly what the jury voted on, the jury also just seem to love male led ballads that don’t have gimmicks or dramatic style changes like Croatia and Hungary did (see Estonia 2012, Norway 2014, Cyprus 2015 and Israel 2016). These types of song don’t typically do too well with televote because they’re kinda flat and boring and don’t bring the divaness that a female balladist might.

It is also likely some juries are being paid off but Malta, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden are all guilty too.

Adrian
Guest

That’s an interesting observation, maybe the juries have seen a lot of all the women power ballad, and just want some laid back male ballad (which does not fare well with the public). Another point is that Isaiah’s song is very contemporary and chart-friendly, which is often what the juries are looking for.

Flynn
Guest

They definitely seem to prefer these laid back male ballads almost every single one does significantly better than it does in televoting, Germany 2012 is one of the very few exceptions. Females still get rewarded like Moldova 2013 and Netherlands 2015 but there are more times where they haven’t such as Albania 2015 and Poland 2015 or they aren’t rewarded as much (only a couple places higher than televote)

Polegend Godgarina
Guest

It’s cute to know that the juries vote for radio-friendly songs. Screw the attempts at bringing quality and art like Hungary did, the juries want radio fodder!

Flynn
Guest
Yeah, there have been quite a few gems lost in the semis because juries overrated a particular act like with Australia we lost Georgia who gave a strong and powerful performance for a boring song you could easily find on the radio by some awful teen idol. I mean the televote can be as bad sometimes as long as there is something visual there I mean Russia last year was pure garbage and I’d rather Bosnia and Herzegovina go through instead of them. It’s the absolute worse though when it’s radio-friendly and has visuals like Sweden this year, like they… Read more »
Polegend Godgarina
Guest

FINLAND. That’s the robbed one. Georgia was 13th in televote so it didn’t deserve to pass, but Finland was a televote qualifier. Same with Estonia and Switzerland in the other semi, they had to stay there in favor of Denmark’s bland screamfest (its televoting average in the final was 21.49 – which means they were bottom 5 for virtually everyone) and Austria’s nul points in televote. Tragic. Let the public have the voice, period.

Flynn
Guest
I don’t think it should be 100% televoting because there are plenty of songs they vote highly for which are just plain awful like Poland 2016 and the jury do help certain songs that deserve it like Czech Republic 2016 and Moldova 2013. Another problem with 100% televoting is it doesn’t solve the problem we have with the jury where certain countries are clearly advantaged I mean look at Russia they’ve maybe entered 2 decent/good entries in their last 10 contests yet consistently high in televote. There is also Serbia who entered an average song last year got 12 in… Read more »
Ethan1994
Guest

Jo and Marc, how does this jury result show “corruption” or “clear bias”? I’m genuinely curious as to how you work that out.

Jo
Guest

What’s the reason to put Australia 4th? 2nd in the semi-final?
I’m also genuinely curious to know that.

Ethan1994
Guest

Maybe they just liked it? I liked it. Not one of my favourites, but certainly better than half the things that scored better than Australia in the televote (especially Romania, wtf)

Honestly, results like this are why I like having juries in this contest. It’s interesting to see the disparity, what the music experts like and don’t like vs what the general public likes and doesn’t like.

Jo
Guest
Australia definitely wasn’t the worst of the night, but why songs like “Origo” were ranked so low? You can’t deny the quality behind that song. In the semi-final, the juries ranked Finland and Belgium below 10th, which is quite weird since Norma John’s performance was flawless and “City Lights” has quality and it is radiofriendly. I liked “Don’t Come Easy” before the contest; it was in my Top 10. However, the song falls flat when I watch the live performance. It also flopped really hard on the charts, even in Australia. I disagree when people say that “Tonight” and “Sound… Read more »
Davve
Guest

His performance wasnt televoting friendly. The guy does not have much charisma and the stage seem to own him instead of the other way around,

I think he simply did not own his song…

Anyway placing ninth overall was deserved… His song was better than most …

Congrats Australia

ninasublatti
Guest

i think the uk should pull out of this competition nobody likes us and we get 0 points every year why do we even bother when we always come last everything is political sorry

rm
Guest

I agree, the UK deserved so much better in the televote this year.

James
Guest

When was the last the UK received zero points?

James
Guest

*last time

Polegend Godgarina
Guest

2003 was the only time the UK got 0 points. These Brits are overreacting, and it’s just because the bookies overrate them to the high heavens so they end up with disappointing results.

Stan
Guest

Looking at the final ranking, i don’t really see big injustices. Also not for the UK. Just look at it again, now the enthousiasm is over. It’s a song contest not ‘weirdest facial expression’ grand prix

Zebb
Guest

Calling yourself a brit where have you forgot some orthoepy and punctuations?

Lindsey
Guest

We have only ever had 0 points once and that was 14 years ago and we got over 100 points this year. Why comment when you clearly don’t watch eurovision?

Stephen Podesta
Guest
The Judges have a set of criteria they have to judge on and there is no middle ground, I feel that there is some bias towards Australia, but 2015 and 2016 were very good acts and deserved there points. 2017 song was not good, but he does have a very good voice and the females loved him. The Televote was very strange because leeding up to he competition the feed back on him and his song was better from the public. It need to be noted that Isaiah performed well on the jury performance but not well on the public… Read more »
Polegend Godgarina
Guest

The judges only vote based on personal taste and EBU direction. If they actually had criteria to follow, we wouldn’t have the results we got this year.

Áustria
Guest

It was a bad song that was terribly performed.

The jury score is a travesty. Any other country would have bombed, but Australia gets pampered.

Marc
Guest

Indeed!
So much corruption with Ebu and juries.