The road to Tel-Aviv : The clear path ahead
The season favourite
“Arcade” did not just jump from the top 10 to the top 3: it quickly reached the first spot in the odds, and remained the favourite for the entire season.
Like in previous articles, we have reported the bookmakers’ top 5 contenders for the win at four different moments in the season:
- On January 22, after Duncan was revealed as the Dutch artist
- On March 11, a day after the last 2019 song was released
- On April 15, a day after the London Eurovision Party, in the middle of the promotion season
- On May 3, a day before the beginning of rehearsals
| Position | January 22* | March 11 | April 15 | May 3 |
| 1st | 🇷🇺 Russia | 🇳🇱 Netherlands | 🇳🇱 Netherlands | 🇳🇱 Netherlands |
| 2nd | 🇸🇪 Sweden | 🇷🇺 Russia | 🇷🇺 Russia | 🇷🇺 Russia |
| 3rd | 🇷🇴 Romania | 🇸🇪 Sweden | 🇨🇭 Switzerland | 🇨🇭 Switzerland |
| 4th | 🇦🇺 Australia | 🇨🇭 Switzerland | 🇮🇹 Italy | 🇮🇹 Italy |
| 5th | 🇩🇰 Denmark | 🇮🇹 Italy | 🇸🇪 Sweden | 🇸🇪 Sweden |
| 🇳🇱 Netherlands | 8th | 1st | 1st | 1st |
*Ukraine may have been in the top 5 at the time, but after their withdrawal in late February they were taken off the odds websites such as Oddschecker or the Eurovisionworld odds page, and we have not found any article from the time with Ukraine’s odds’ history
A day after the reveal of “Arcade”, Duncan gave the first live performance of the song, on Dutch TV. It was an acoustic version, more intimate in its finale than the actual entry was. But it was enough to convince fans and bookmakers that Duncan had the vocals and the stage presence to get a victory.
His performances with the Eurovision version in preparties like LEP, or at home in Amsterdam’s Eurovision in Concert (where he closed the show), just confirmed his position as the most likely winner. It looked like Eurovision 2018 would repeat itself, with a clear season favourite and a few challengers behind. Who were they, though ?
Sergey’s return
The first challenger was Russia, with Sergey Lazarev coming back for a revenge. In 2016, he was the season’s favourite but Ukraine and Australia ended up above, bolstered by their stronger jury support.
After the uptempo, dark pop, dancing vibes of “You Are The Only One”, Lazarev brought a more emotional, male power ballad to Tel-Aviv, with “Scream”. Rumours had been going on about his possible return before a confirmation in early February, giving Russia the top position with the bookmakers for a long time, before The Netherlands gained the edge.
“Scream” was another product of the so-called “Dream Team” of Philipp Kirkorov and Dimitris Kontopoulos, who had also composed Sergey’s 2016 attempt, and quite a few other famous Eurovision songs, either together or apart (“Shady Lady”, “Hold Me”, etc.). Kontopoulos is also behind the latest two Cypriot entries, including this year’s “Shh” by Theo Evan.
More dramatic than Sergey’s previous attempt, “Scream” was not performed at any Eurovision pre-parties but still had at least one live performance in Germany, to remind everyone that Lazarev was a good performer. It remained the runner-up in the odds for almost the entire season (with a little dip to third place for a few days in April, as it drifted until Eurovision in Concert, before shortening again).
Swizterland’s dirty dancing
The one entry that managed to overtake Russia for a few days, with a few bookmakers, was Switzerland’s entry.
Internally selected by SRG SSR, “She Got Me” was sung by Luca Hänni, who had also co-composed it along with a few other musicians, including Laurell Barker (who had also co-written the British and German entry in the same edition). Hänni was a former winner of Germany’s version of Idol, and was a seasoned performer. The song itself, with its slightly Mediterranean sound and its structure made for dance breaks, was described by some as “a male Fuego”. Both the song’s videoclip, and Hänni’s performance in Amsterdam’s Eurovision in Concert confirmed this status. The publishing of a mashup video of “Fuego”, “She Got Me” and two other 2019 entries (Malta’s “Chameleon” and Cyprus’ “Replay”) also pushed fans to the comparison.
The first live performances showcased Luca’s dancing skills, but also the shaky vocals he would need to take care of before the actual competition. This kind of act is always demanding, and people were not abandoning the idea of a Swiss victory ; but odds started drifting after Amsterdam, and the momentum of “She Got Me” was slowly fading week by week.
Some money on Italy
Number four in the odds for most of the season, Italy had usually been a powerhouse since its return in 2011. In 2018, despite lukewarm expectations for most of the season, they managed to grab a spot in the top 5 with the emotional performance of “Non mi avete fatto niente”, doing better than in 2017 when Francesco Gabbani’s “Occidentali’s Karma” had been the season favourite.
This time, the winner of Sanremo (who accepted to go to Eurovision) was Mahmood. His victory at the Ariston had been tainted by outcry and politics: in Eurovision parlance, he was a “jury favourite” that had overtaken “the people’s favourite”. Sanremo’s first night showcased it perfectly: 19th out of 24 for the demoscopic jury, but 1st for the press. The general public (the televote this time) had warmed up to his song “Soldi” by the time of the Duet’s Night (night four out of five), ranking him 13th then, and finally 7th in the Final. But the favourites of the televote were Il Volo, Ultimo, and Loredana Bertè. Her failure to reach the superfinal pushed the Artiston audience to a very vocal outcry, as fans of the time will remember…
In the end, with the complicated calculations of Sanremo’s system, Mahmood got 39% of the votes in the superfinal, against 36% for Ultimo and 26% for Il Volo. His victory was heavily driven by the jury, with 64% of its votes coming to “Soldi” (while Ultimo, the televote winner, only got 49% of the televote). In a tense political period, Italy’s far-right Home Minister Matteo Salvini had even tweeted to publicly state his disapproval of the results, with some racist undertones…
“Soldi” was not a bad song though, and it ended up enjoying a commercial success in Italy and abroad. Eurovision-wise, it benefited from several live performances thanks to its national selection, and already had a good gimmick to make it memorable (on top of its overall quality): the clapping in the chorus.
In Sanremo, it was performed by the orchestra, and later on by the audience. In pre-parties, the public followed along and in every Eurovision party since, it has become a natural thing to do. This, added to the modern blend of pop and R&B, made sure it would stand up in Tel-Aviv.
Sweden was also seen as a potential challenger, although odds for Sweden are usually, structurally high. John Lundvik’s song “Too late for Love”, with its gospel inspirations, would bring something not very common to Eurovision, but the idea that Sweden was a jury-pleaser with low support from the televote was already well-ingrained in the Eurovision fan community, and made it a less likely challenger even during the season.
So, when the rehearsals came, we were in a situation close to that of the previous years: a clear season favourite, with a few challengers. Would one of them manage to beat The Netherlands, by a bare margin (like in 2016) or by a strong one (like in 2017)? Would a mysterious dark horse rise from the dark like Cyprus did in 2018, and this time do what “Fuego” could not? Or would the favourite win again? In truth, the final events were a strange mix of 2016 and 2018.
The finish line: Hidden victories and Dutch glory
Rehearsals began on Saturday, May 4th, with the first half of the first semi-finalists. The main favourites, however, were in the second semi-final, and no entry surprised fans and journalists in the first two days, except perhaps for Czechia and Australia, although only the latter saw its odds truly shorten because of it.
Switzerland rehearsed for the first time on the third day, before lunch break, and although the performance was promising, it started to drift with the bookmakers, from 8/1 before the rehearsals, to 25-20/1 before the actual show. Russia’s rehearsal, on the last day, had a similar effect with even more drift, while Sweden started to shorten. They did not bring any surprise (as always, the Eurovision staging was a carbon copy of the Melodifestivalen staging), but John Lundvik felt like a stronger contender in comparison.
Australia’s breakthrough in the first semi-final
On May 14th, the first semi-final was broadcast live from the Expo Tel-Aviv. Virtually all of the contenders at that point were in the second semi-final, but the show still brought a surprising guest to the club: Australia, who performed in the 12th spot on the night.
Kate Miller-Heidke had won Australia Decides 2019 with a very “acrobatic” performance, standing still and elevated on the Gold Coast stage, looking like a giant wedding cake, while a dancer on a flexible pole floated left and right behind her. It was impressive, but it had lost most of its novelty by the time the actual contest had started.
But in Tel-Aviv, Kate was accompanied by two floating dancers, and was also elevated on a flexible pole herself: no longer fixed in place, she was ready to float around too, in synchronisation with her dancers. The bending supporting poles were hidden through most of the performance, through well-placed camera shots and the addition of an augmented reality Earth on some cuts, with a halo just thick enough to obscure them.
The reveal of the poles as the Earth rolled away, at the beginning of the bridge, and the later magnificent shot of Kate and her dancers lunging forward, the camera diving towards them, and the nightly Earth rotating further back in the distance, clearly made an effect.
Australia ended up winning the semi-final, but in a true Eurovision fashion, “Zero Gravity” was neither the public’s favourite (that was Iceland, performing right after, although Australia was a close second) nor the juries’ (which was Czechia, 30 points ahead of Australia, which ended up third, behind Greece too).
This performance made Australia’s odds shorten for a day, and although they drifted back a bit with most bookmakers, it was enough to push Australia to become the top challenger to The Netherlands after the second semi-final.
Favourites performing in the second semi-final
Still, this was just one contender. The next show had all the others: The Netherlands, still favourite to win as the show approached, but also Switzerland, Sweden, Russia, and Italy in the Big Five.
The first contender to perform was Switzerland, in 4th position. A bit early, but ready to shine between two female ballads, a powerful one from Moldova and a much more minimalist one from Latvia. With red lightning, a collection of different camera framings (including a square 1:1, and a very tight 13:3 according to our calculations), good dance moves and good enough vocals pushed it through qualification, and, eventually, to the bookmakers’ runner-up position.
Sweden performed in the 8th slot, and Russia later on, in the 13th. Sergey Lazarev’s staging of “screens and mirrors”, although well-directed, did not convince bookmakers. After the show, both entries would drift away from the top 3, with “Scream” even leaving the top 5.
After Russia came Albania then Norway — which, at the time, was 16th in the bookmakers’ rankings with a very low probability of winning the contest. KEiiNO’s performance on the Thursday had them shorten their odds but they did not really break into the top 5, even on the Saturday.
But after the storm of Norwegian joik, came the calmer yet growing wave of “Arcade”. The performance started with a very long shot, from a crane camera, floating above the crowd in the dark, slowly approaching the stage. Duncan was sitting in the centre, and the camera gently drifted as it approached to the left. That shot lasted 30 seconds. The performance, in total, only used 21 different shots (making it an average of 8 seconds between cuts over three minutes), centred on Duncan playing an electronic piano. There were wide shots, close shots (fading into a blur at the end of each chorus), with everything wrapped in a dark blue atmosphere, reinforced by Duncan’s outfit.
The spherical lamp going down from the ceiling added a warmer, lighter element to the dark environment. This intimate source of light was quickly replaced by the powerful projector behind the piano, cutting around Duncan’s silhouette, and then the laser projections from the other side of the arena, dwarfing Duncan (seen from the back this time), and plunging the arena back into something colder, yet liberated by the final notes of “Arcade”.
The favourite had performed. Duncan qualified easily, and was the second to be announced. So did Sergey, John Lundvik, and Luca Hänni.
The full results of the semi-finals were only published a few days after, but “Arcade” had been remarkably consistent: 140 points from the public, 140 points from the jury. With 280 points, The Netherlands had won the semi-final, but just like Australia, they were neither the public nor the jury’s favourite. The televote had gone to Norway, with The Netherlands in second place, 30 points behind. The juries had favoured North Macedonia, but the top 3 was relatively close, with 155 points for “Proud”, 150 for “Too Late For Love” from Sweden, and 140 points for “Arcade”.
These results would end up being a very accurate prediction of the Final’s results.
The road to the final
Producers had a tough choice when deciding the running order for the Final, held on May 18th. The Netherlands, Russia and Sweden had all drawn “First half” slots for the Saturday show. The other contenders (Italy, Australia and Switzerland) would be in the second half. But three strong entries in the first half is always making things difficult: performing too early is usually seen as a “death sentence” in terms of results, and it is easier to pack good songs towards the 20-26th positions than it is to do so between the 8-13th slots.
Russia was sacrificed on the altar of the draws, and made to perform in slot #5. Sweden and The Netherlands were put later, in #9 and #12 respectively, very good positions in absolute terms (especially for a strong ballad like “Arcade”), right after a commercial break for Sweden, and still separated by two entries (Slovenia and Cyprus) to make sure they each had enough space to shine.
Performances were relatively similar to the semi-finals, as usual, although Eurovision fans will easily recognise the Grand Final performance of “Arcade” due to Duncan’s variation on his “Carry me home”, right before the first pre-chorus.
In the second half, the contenders were all after the 20th entry, with Italy in #22, Switzerland in #24 and Australia right after at #25. Both Italy and Switzerland had shortened after the second semi-final, fighting for the runner-up position with the bookmakers and the fans. And indeed, while Gabbani’s performance in 2017 had been disappointing and felt disjointed with the arena, Mahmood did the trick. His presence and dancers filled the stage, the hand-clapping did not feel gimmicky and was well-presented by good camera angles (especially in the second chorus), and the modern production worked well live.
After all the songs had performed, and after a few interval acts (which included 2018’s runner-up Eleni Foureira, and her song “Fuego”, although not performed by her), the voting sequences started. And, for the first time since the new system was put in place in 2016, neither the jury nor the televoting winners were announced and honoured as such during the sequence…
The jury votes — Minsk calling
The broadcast of the 2019 jury votes remains (in)famous in the fan community for being erroneous. The points given during the show were not the exact jury results of that year, and the jury winner that was announced was not the real jury winner. In reality, the valid results of every valid jury were accounted for and presented truthfully. The only issue came with Belarus.
In an interview with Tut after the first semi-final (the largest independent news website in Belarus, now closed after a crackdown by the Lukashenko regime), the five members of the Belarussian jury had revealed a lot of information about their favourites (which included Australia and Czechia), and their thoughts on some entries from the semi-final. Having learnt of the interview, the EBU decided to fire the jury before the final, and to use a formula of “aggregated results” instead. When the jury points started to be revealed on the broadcast, fans awaited in anticipation for the details of these “aggregates”: would they represent the top 10 of the entire jury scoreboard?
After the twelve first juries, it felt like 2018 again, with no country clearly ahead: Italy was first, with 69 points, then came Russia (61), The Netherlands (59) and tying for fourth place, Sweden and North Macedonia (57), who had just received 12 points from Austria.
With the following juries, The Netherlands rose further up (they were among the first juries to vote, so potentially 12 points behind), North Macedonia took the lead, and Azerbaijan joined the pack. Then, the 19th jury, Belarus came in. And their votes made no sense at all.
The “aggregated results” used to replace the votes from Belarus gave points, almost exclusively, to countries on the right-hand-side of the scoreboard, and gave their first points to Spain (6), and to the host Israel, with a resounding “douze points”. The crowd cheered, but fans were dumbfounded. This was not on trend with the rest of the votes, and being almost at the halfway point, it could not appear more clearly off.
Later on, Eurovisin fan “Euro bruno” realised that this “top 10” matched perfectly with the “bottom 10” entries of the aggregated results of the juries from Russia, Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. These, along with Belarus, were all the countries of the Third Pot used for the semi-final allocation draws. These pots are built to contain countries with similar voting patterns, so it was not illogical to think that the aggregated results of the juries of all the other countries in the pot could be used to simulate a result for Belarus.
After calculating the aggregate top 25 from these juries (Belarus taking part in the final, they could not vote for themselves, even though the other four countries could), someone, somewhere, made a human error, and the rankings were inverted, thus giving 12 points to the worst-ranked song, Israel (the only points they would get from the juries…).
On the evening in question, though, fans were none-the-wiser (although suspicious of these specific points). During the rest of the voting sequence, North Macedonia stayed in the lead, with Sweden never too far behind. After a while, The Netherlands caught up with Italy but they remained close. With the very last juries, Sweden started to fill the gap separating it from “the former Yugoslav republic”, and the final announcement felt like one of these legendary close calls from the old age of Eurovision (1988, 1993, 2003, etc.). Israel, announcing their points last, had given 6 points to Sweden, enough to put them ahead of North Macedonia with 239 points against 237. With only their “douze points” left to be revealed, it was clear they would either go to Tamara Todovska, bringing her the jury crown, or to Duncan Laurence, thus leaving Sweden slightly ahead while creating a very close top 3.
They went to The Netherlands, and on the night, Sweden appeared as the jury winner. But in the days that followed, the EBU admitted that there had been a mistake with Belarus, and corrected the results on their website. This was the difference in the jury top 5 :
| Ranking | Announced Top 5 | Announced points | Corrected Top 5 | Corrected points |
| #1 | 🇸🇪 Sweden | 239 | 🇲🇰 North Macedonia | 247 |
| #2 | 🇲🇰 North Macedonia | 237 | 🇸🇪 Sweden | 241 |
| #3 | 🇳🇱 The Netherlands | 231 | 🇳🇱 The Netherlands | 237 |
| #4 | 🇮🇹 Italy | 212 | 🇮🇹 Italy | 219 |
| #5 | 🇦🇿 Azerbaijan | 197 | 🇦🇿 Azerbaijan | 202 |
Sweden was only the runner-up (once again), and North Macedonia, competing for the first time under its new name, had actually won the jury vote of Eurovision 2019.
More importantly, it had won the jury vote thanks to a wider support than Sweden, having only won top votes (12 points) from 6 juries, while Sweden had earned “douze points” from 10 different juries. Behind them, The Netherlands and Italy also had earned 6 top marks each, spreading the jurors’ favourites even more.
And that is how the jury winner was never announced in the broadcast. But the same fate happened to the winner of the televote, although for different reasons.
The new televote results — Norway lost in the night
2019 was the first year of the current system of announcing the final results at Eurovision: after three years of revealing the televote points in the order of the televote rankings, it was decided to follow the juries’ ranking. This way, instead of announcing a number of points, and putting suspense on who would get them, the hosts would announce the next country yet to receive points in the scoreboard, and the mystery would be around how well it did.
In terms of entertainment, it ended up being more engaging: you know when which country will receive its points, you know when your turn is coming, and you can quickly estimate (or for the more maths-inclined people, calculate) how much you need to beat the current leader. Additionally, the mystery about the public points for each country could create dramatic moments, with entries ranked highly by the juries, thus announced later, potentially gaining only a handful of points, if any. Some saw that as great entertainment, others as an issue. There was one issue everyone would agree on though: it would not necessarily tell the audience who had won the most points from the televote ; who was the winner of the public. And this was made very clear in its first use.
The lowest-ranked entries with the juries earned their points first, and a new meme was born when Bar Refaeli announced to Germany that they had received, “I’m sorry, zero points.”
The 12th country to be announced was Norway, 15th in the jury ranking, with only 47 points. The announcement of the public votes was teased for a few more seconds, with a camera shot open on the Norwegian delegation.
Norway, are you ready? Because you got… two hundred and ninety-one points! […] Congratulations, you’re in the lead.
Bar Refaeli
Suddenly, Norway was in the lead, with 338 points. Any Eurovision fan knew that this was not enough to win the contest. But most fans wondered: would 291 points from the public be enough to win the televote? In 2016 and 2017, this was more of a runner-up score. In 2018, this was not far from what Israel had received. The audience would not know until the end. But in reality, they were never told: yes, “Spirit in the Sky” had won the televote. The hosts could not announce it when fourteen other countries still had to receive their points: but they would not announce it either once the actual winner had been announced.
Thus, just like the jury winner Tamara Todevska, KEiiNO were left out of the limelight of winning a full vote during the evening.
The final results — Duncan’s winning game
More countries were announced, until only the top four of the juries were left. Italy, number four, received 253 points, and took the lead. It looked like a four-way race at that point, between Italy, Sweden, North Macedonia, and The Netherlands.
Duncan Laurence was next in line to get some points, but the announcement was made very quickly, and very matter-of-factly, over a split screen: TV audience never saw The Netherlands rise up to first place in the scoreboard. “The Netherlands are getting from the public 261 points”. There were some cheers, but nothing too loud. Duncan looked thankful for the points, but still tense (and so did his delegation).
When the scoreboard went back on screen though, The Netherlands were 27 points above Italy, with 492 points (in reality, after the Belarus correction, they were 26 points above, 498 to 472). With North Macedonia and Sweden left to receive their votes, it was likely heading into the direction of a Swedo-Dutch duel for the final victory moment.
North Macedonia, indeed, only earned 58 points from the public. We were left with Sweden, the jury winner (or not really), needing 254 points to win. The split screen came back, in a now mythical scene in Eurovision history: Duncan Laurence on the left, John Lundvik on the right, and the humiliation of only getting 93 points.
It became a meme, and a cruel one. It showcased the pressure put on artists by these production decisions, and became an evidence of the difficulty of finding the right balance between entertainment and a wholesome working environment for artists. And now most Eurofans remember John Lundvik’s face more than Duncan’s.
The members of the Dutch delegation hugged each other. Then Duncan walked out of the green room, which was in a separate building to the arena, and re-appeared next to the stage, where the hosts and Netta were waiting for him. The moment he grabbed the trophy, he could not help but shout “Yes!”, probably relieved after such an intense voting sequence.
Asked to give a few words, he was brief, but echoed the words Ilse had about him months before, when the Dutch public knew he was their artist but had not yet heard the song.
This is to dreaming big.
Duncan’s words after his 2019 Eurovision victory
This is to music first. Always.
Thank you!
Then, the hosts thanked the viewers, the EBU, Jon Ola Sand, KAN, etc. They left the stage to leave Duncan on his own, for his winner’s reprise. For the first time in years, this final performance was done without the props or the choreography of the original staging. Duncan stood on the stage and started singing alone, in the dark at first, then with a special backdrop of blue triangles on the LED screens. He was joined by his delegation mid-performance, including his backing singers.
And that was the road to victory for “Arcade”: another clear season favourite, whose victory was, in the end, quite narrow. Second in the televote (by 30 points), third in the jury vote (by 10 points), it was, like in 2016, a show of consistency. With top marks from only six juries, and two televotes (Belgium and Romania), it became an all-rounder kind of winner, managing to be good enough with enough voters.
Later on, the song “Arcade” exploded on social media trends, especially on TikTok, and earned a new life in America in the early 2020’s. It has become a song that many people know of, without knowing its Eurovision history. It remains fondly remembered by Eurovision fans, and it brought a victory to The Netherlands, rewarding a very dedicated country and fanbase. It also brought the contest to Rotterdam, where it would stay for two years. Not because of a double victory, but because of a worldwide pandemic. Eurovision 2020 could not take place, but the contest came back, stronger, louder, in 2021.
My memories of this victory
2019 was the first season in which I attended a Eurovision event: Amsterdam’s Eurovision in Concert. I distinctly remember Duncan closing the concert, and later on “Arcade” (not performed by Duncan this time, but played on speakers), closing the afterparty.
He was my favourite, and I was happy about his victory. I had also followed Sanremo and Mahmood’s triumph there, and discovered a taste for Norway’s joik while attending the preparty. In general, I was pleased with the results of 2019. I also remember my friend Miki, from North Macedonia, telling me about cars honking in the streets as the jury results poured in in their favour.
When the Belarussian votes came through, though, I remember thinking that it had been made on purpose. That the EBU had willingly given points to low-ranked entries, to save Israel from the humiliation of getting no jury points while hosting, but also to ensure these “fake results” would not decide the winner. It made me sure that the final results would be very close.
In the end, they were close, but not too close. Even with the pre-2016 system, The Netherlands would have won.
Did you follow the contest back in 2019? What are your memories of this experience, and of Duncan’s path to Eurovision victory? Tell us more in the comments below or on social media, at @escxtra! And be sure to check us again next week, to read about the victory of “Zitti e Buoni” in Rotterdam, and how Måneskin triumphed over one of the strongest line-up in the contest’s history.
