Carlton's draw

[Dan26]

The subject of the uneven draw seems to crop up quite a bit here from time to time. Now personally, I have no problem with the teams that any club is drawn to play once or twice. I beleive this is irrelevant. At the start of any year, no one knows how good or bad any of the other teams are going to be, so the difficulty of the draw is hard to work out.

So, I don't have a problem with the allocation of blockbuster games and all that, because the difficulty level of your opposition over a long period of time will be the same for all teams.

I do, however, have a problem with the venues, in particular, the venues for Carlton's 22 home and away games. Carlton's 22 match season can be shown accordingly:

8 MCG games - neutral
1 Colonial stadium game - neutral
9 Optus oval games - home ground advantage
4 interstate - disadvantage

This means that taking out the neutral games, Carlton has 9 games where they have an advantage and only 4 where they are at a disadvantage. Their overall advantage is +5.

To show how big this advantage is, lets imagine team X is a "middle of the road" team. Team X wins all their home matches, lose all their away matches, and win half their neutral matches. They could win all their home ground advantage matches (say 7), lose all their disadvanatge matches (say 7) and win half of their 8 neutral matches. This would leave team X on 11 wins, which is where they should be.

Let's suppose that Carlton were a middle of the road team. In actual fact, they are much better than that, but lets suppose they were an 11 win team.

If this was the case, they would win their 9 home ground advanatge matches, lose their 4 disadvantage matches, and win half of their 9 neutral matches. This gives Carlton 13.5 wins, when hypothetically they should only be an 11 win team. That's effectively an extra 3 wins.

In reality, Carlton are probably a 14-15 win team, which means the draw should inflate them to 16-18 wins. The problem is that Carlton get this treatement every year, because, as a Victorian team, they get minimal intersate travel, but get the BONUS of having a home ground advantage to complement this. Teams like Richmond, Collingwood, Essendon, Melbounrne, St.Kilda etc etc, don't really have a home ground advanatge, so the minimal intersate travel doesn't help them, because there is no home ground advanatge to complement it. But Carlton get the best of both worlds, which is very unfair. And they get this every year.

What's the answer? Perhaps making them play at all 6 intersate venues. Carlton has travelled less than any other team over the last 10 years, and they are the ONLY team that has never had to pay at the full quota of venues. Even Essendon, in 1997 had to play intersate 6 times. Surely, in the interests of fairnes, it's time that Carlton had to travel 6 times. They have never had to do it before.

 

[Blues2001]

What are you talking about???

It was your decision (and Collingwood etc.) to move to the MCG. If you wanted to stay at Windy Hill you could have. You chose the MCG as your home ground (and then Colonial) so you have the same number of home games as we do. I can't believe you wasted yor time writing all that. Don't you get it??

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

If other Vic teams have to travel interstate 6 times in the season every few years or so, then I have no problem with Carlton doing it. I do however have a problem with us having to do it because we are perceived as having more of a home ground advantage than others. We have 11 home games officially. 9 of those are at Optus Oval. The other teams all have 11 home games. The venue shouldn't be important. All teams have had the chance to choose their home grounds. Some have chosen to go for the bigger crowds and more money while the Blues have chosen to maintain their asset.

I hardly think that one game at Colonial is classed as being neutral particularly if we are playing a team that plays several games there. Home ground advantage is based on familiar territory and local knowledge and every club has that. How many Colonial games does Essendon play? These would only be classed as neutral if they play somebody else that plays its home games there.

Starting to sound like that Dan24 person who used to post in here!

He was famous for showing his anti-Carlton leanings!

 

[goatmaster]

Tha name has change but the dribble is the same.

 

[Dan26]

ODN's,

This has nothing to do with the fact that I barrack for Essendon and I hate Carlton. That is totally irrelevant. I think Carlton should be made to play at all 6 interstate venues next year NOT because of the uneven draw, but because they have never had to do it before. You even agreed with that in your post. Good to see.

Blues2001,

We moved from Windy Hill, because it was small, hard to get to, and it would cost millions to bring it up to standard. The club wisely moved to the 100,000 MCG and the 52,000 Colonial to complement their massive support. It has turned out to be a great move, as Essendon has thrived off-field as well as on.

There's no doubt Carlton in the past have benefitted finacially from playing games at a ground they own. I'd wouldn't want to move if I was them either. However, a club of Carlton's massive following would be perfectly suited in theory to a ground such as Colonial stadium. A club as great as Carlton deserve to have a better ground. Unfortunatley, because they own Optus Oval, they are reluctant to move. This is perfectly understandable, but it would be better for their supporters if Carlton played a combination of home games at Colonial stadium and the MCG.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

What's better for Blues supporters is that the Blues win matches. If Optus Oval helps us to win more matches, then that is better for us. I would rather miss a match because of lack of seats and have us win than possibly watch us lose at Colonial. Human nature.

Still doesn't answer what you are saying about us playing mostly neutral matches or home matches. Colonial is NOT a neutral venue for us. Neutrality is not based on the size of the stadium. I would suggest that Essendon would play a majority of their matches at Colonial or the MCG. You and others constantly infer that Carlton receive favourable treatment from the AFL all the time. Well if this is true, I think we should arrange for this years flag to go to us. We obviously own the AFL, so can do what we want. I for one feel very relieved. I can just sit back and watch it happen.

 

[WCE2000]

Dan, that was pure waffle. I think the draw is even in terms of home ground advantage's to various sides.

 

[RogerC]

Yep, I guess if Optus Oval is home, everywhere else is away. She way I see it, Melbourne is home (be it Optus Oval, Colonial or MCG) and interstate is away. On those terms, most clubs come off about even. Except the Kangaroos, who made their choices.

Brisbane, I notice, have 12 home games. Not 11 and some transferred match - 12 home games. That can't be fair, can it?

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's:
You and others constantly infer that Carlton receive favourable treatment from the AFL all the time.

I have never said this.

The AFL don't give Carlton preferential treatment regarding the draw on purpose. It just works out that way, due to the fact that the Blues are the only Victorian team (along with Geelong) who have a home ground advanatge, yet, being Victorian, they will play a lot of away games at neutral venues such as the MCG and Colonial stadium.

You say that Colonial is not neutral for Carlton. I disagree. I think Optus Oval and Shell stadium are the only home ground advantages left in Victoria. Playing at Colonial with Carlton supporters occupying half the ground is hardly a disadvantage. If you want to get technical, you might be slightly worse off at Colonial than you would be at the MCG, but the difference is minimal. Colonial is shared by 4 clubs and hosts over 45 matches a year. For all intents and purposes, it is a neutral ground, especially when two Victorian clubs are drawn to play there.

I fully understand Carlton wanting to remain at Optus. It means more wins. I don't blame them. If I were the AFL, I wouldn't schedule Carlton to play at 6 interstate venues in 2002 on the basis of their dream draw. I think that's the wrong basis to make that decision. However, I WOULD schedule them to play at all 6 venues on the basis that they have travelled less than any other team over the last ten years. But in 2003, they would be back to their usual 4 interstate games, or whatever the league average is.

If I were the AFL, I would also encourage Carlton to play less games at Optus. Collingwod reached a stage where they were only plaing 2-3 games at Victoria Park per year, such was their crowd drawing capacity. I'm not suggesting anything that drastic, but perhaps a cut back from 9 games to 7 would be a good thing. I actually think it would be good for the competiton, if a big club such as Carlton were playing 4 or 5 home games, instead of 2 at the MCG. Carlton deserves a better venue, but the Blues love cash, and playing home games at a ground you own is great for the club coffers.

Look, I don't blame Carlton one bit. I am just blaming circumstance, that the Blues get the +5 advanatge in the draw I was talking about in my opening post on this topic.

In a perfect world, where money was not an issue, the 4 big clubs (Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond) would all be playing 7 home games at the MCG and 4 home games -the smaller ones - at Colonial. But it's not a perfect word so this will probably never happen.

ODN's, this is not a Carlton bashing exercise. It's not Carltons fault they get a dream draw every year. I just think it's worth discussing, because it will give them an extra 2.5 wins, mathemtaically every year. Good luck t them. I'm sure they'll be able to milk the advantage for a few years yet, but I believe strongly that a great club like Carlton should play more home games at the MCG. Is that not a fair comment?

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by Dan25:


ODN's, this is not a Carlton bashing exercise. It's not Carltons fault they get a dream draw every year. I just think it's worth discussing, because it will give them an extra 2.5 wins, mathemtaically every year. Good luck t them. I'm sure they'll be able to milk the advantage for a few years yet, but I believe strongly that a great club like Carlton should play more home games at the MCG. Is that not a fair comment?

Yes it is a fair comment. However, when you started the thread you were talking about how Carlton "should" play more games interstate because they have more of a home ground advantage than other clubs. So I'm not sure how the topic of whether should Carlton play more home games at the MCG came up.

Whether or not they should play more games at the MCG is Carlton's issue.

Too many games are played on the MCG as there is, thus the surface is not up to the standard it could be.

[This message has been edited by Same Old's (edited 02 April 2001).]

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by Dan25:


In a perfect world, where money was not an issue, the 4 big clubs (Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond) would all be playing 7 home games at the MCG and 4 home games -the smaller ones - at Colonial. But it's not a perfect word so this will probably never happen.

In a perfect world every club would have their own home ground like it used to be.

[This message has been edited by Same Old's (edited 02 April 2001).]

 

[Dan26]

Same Old's. This is what I said:

Originally posted by Dan25:
What's the answer? Perhaps making them play at all 6 intersate venues. Carlton has travelled less than any other team over the last 10 years, and they are the ONLY team that has never had to pay at the full quota of venues.

I said they should play interstate more BECAUSE of the fact that they have travelled less than any other team.

I appreciate what you are saying about everyone having their own ground. I suppose in a perfect world, that would be ideal. But given that tere are only 4 Victorian venues, my "perfect world" would consist of all 9 Melbourne teams (99 home mathces in all) sharing both Colonial and the MCG, relative to the crowd drawing capacities of each team. This is only 50 matches at each of Colonial and the MCG (no different to how it has been in the past). Geelong would play a handful of their bigger drawing games at the MCG.

Logistically, it could certainly be done in theory. If the Kangaroos were to continue playing 4 home games out of Melboure, you're only looking at 45-50 matches at each venue which is no different to what we have seen at the MCG over the last few years. Even this year, the MCG hosts well over 40 matches - over 60 if you include curtain rasiers



[This message has been edited by Dan25 (edited 02 April 2001).]

 

[Worm4]

I've got an idea.

Let's get rid of the weaker clubs ( North Melb for a start ) and have a 30 round season and lose the Ansett Club. That way, all teams can play home and away, and dispell any doubt regarding the draw.

On one other note, I reckon most sides have been favoured considerably by the draft by way of concessions ( Collingwood, St Kilda, Melbourne to name a few ) and also, the AFL looks after Sydney more than Carlton by scheduling more home games there than any other side in the competition.

 

[Lionel Lyon]

Originally posted by Worm4:
I've got an idea.

Let's get rid of the weaker clubs ( North Melb for a start ) and have a 30 round season and lose the Ansett Club. That way, all teams can play home and away, and dispell any doubt regarding the draw.

I would prefer relocating the Roos and some other Vic clubs (but *NEVER* just to close them down), but still expanding to a 30 round season (put Ansett Cup money into the minor premiership). Footy season's too damned short. League's got a 26 round season, and soccer 30, so we should follow suit. Team lists could then be expanded to allow for player fatigue etc.

 

[Pessimistic]

Welcome Back Dan. One year older and one month wiser.
Sure carlton have a home ground advantage, But didn't essendon move to colonial to build up one there ? Making the opposition fans sit up on level 3 is a good way to keep them away from the action.

 

[GoEagles]

Happy Birthday Dan! A year goes slowly in BigFooty

Lets compare Carlton having 9 neutral games, 9 home games and 4 interstate games to the Eagles with 11 home games, 1 neutral games and 10 interstate games. I know it's the 'expanded VFL' and if you don't like it get out, but It's just interesting to imagine how the Eagles or Fremantle would travel if they had 11 games at home, plus 1 neutral, travelled 4 times and the other 6 games played in Perth/around WA - I think they would get at least half of those 6 games as wins.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by GoEagles:
Happy Birthday Dan! A year goes slowly in BigFooty

Lets compare Carlton having 9 neutral games, 9 home games and 4 interstate games to the Eagles with 11 home games, 1 neutral games and 10 interstate games. I know it's the 'expanded VFL' and if you don't like it get out, but It's just interesting to imagine how the Eagles or Fremantle would travel if they had 11 games at home, plus 1 neutral, travelled 4 times and the other 6 games played in Perth/around WA - I think they would get at least half of those 6 games as wins.

The Eagles have 10 "advantageous" games, 10 disadvantageous games and 2 neutral games. Their advantageous games equal their disadvantageous games, so it is perfectly fair.

Most other Victorian clubs are also treated fairly. Teams like Essendon, Collingwood, Hawthorn, Richmond etc, play about 4 disadvantageous games (i.e interstate) and 4 advantaegous games (i.e versus an interstate team in Melbourne). The games against other Victorian clubs are considered neutral.

So, clubs like Collingwood, Hawthorn, Essendon, Richmond usually have about 4 advantageous games, 4 diadvantageous games, and about 14 neutral. Therefore, the advantageous cancel out the disadvantageous, exactly the same as the West Coast.

Carlton, however, get a big advantage. But West Coast are no better off than any of the other Victorian sides, bar Carlton.

By the way, I turned 25 back in December but I didn't want to lsoe my post count. However, I lost my post count last wek due to an indiscretion so I am now using "Dan25"

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

This is still unrealistic. Surely neutrality or advantage is based as much on familiarity as it is on supporters. So what if Carlton supporters equal supporters from another team they are playing at Colonial? If that other team plays at Colonial 6 times a year and the Blues play there only once, then surely we are at a disadvantage in that game? The amount of supporters or the size of the ground are not an issue. If they were then Essendon and Collingwood would be at an advantage at every Victorian game because of their supporter bases.

Carlton once shared their ground with Fitzroy, Hawthorn and Bulldogs at various times, so I guess that was 2 neutral Princes Park games each year. If you choose to share grounds then you have to take the consequences. Carlton have been astute enough to keep their home ground viable and have spent a great deal of money to upgrade the facilities. Why should they leave?

Why don't we just make all teams carbon copies of each other? Personally, I miss the individualism of the clubs and their grounds. I love the suburban ground. Made the footy seem more real somehow and therefore less commercial.

 

[Worm4]

I'm sure a few of you Carlton supporter's can agree with me here so consider these facts :
1. Carlton games in Perth are now considered home games and are not a disadvantage
2. Games twice against Collingwood and Essendon are considered away games - not neutral games. The idiots out there who consider these neutral need to wake up by checking the amount of times these sides play at the G compared to us over the past decade. Remember the more times a team plays at one ground, the greater the advantage. You can't say that Essendon DONT have an advantage by plating there twice. I've said this before on another site - I would love to play Essendon at Princes Park at least once per year just to put them back on their ass.
3.Games against St Kilda and Footscray at Colonial are now also considered away games. We've only played their twice ever. Where is the neutrality in that !
and lastly 4. We may not have travelled 6 times in any given year but I can tell you that we have done it 5 times in most as opposed to teams who have played 3-4 in other years. What goes around comes around. To whoever started this topic, please back up your theory by providing the entire list of times a team has travelled over the border from 1987 and I think you will be proven somewhat surprised by the results.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by Worm4:
1. Carlton games in Perth are now considered home games and are not a disadvantage

Ha ha, never quite thought of it like that but....okay, I'll buy that. We certainly seem to like it in the Wild Wild West.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Worm4:
I'm sure a few of you Carlton supporter's can agree with me here so consider these facts :
1. Carlton games in Perth are now considered home games and are not a disadvantage
2. Games twice against Collingwood and Essendon are considered away games - not neutral games. The idiots out there who consider these neutral need to wake up by checking the amount of times these sides play at the G compared to us over the past decade. Remember the more times a team plays at one ground, the greater the advantage. You can't say that Essendon DONT have an advantage by plating there twice. I've said this before on another site - I would love to play Essendon at Princes Park at least once per year just to put them back on their ass.
3.Games against St Kilda and Footscray at Colonial are now also considered away games. We've only played their twice ever. Where is the neutrality in that !
and lastly 4. We may not have travelled 6 times in any given year but I can tell you that we have done it 5 times in most as opposed to teams who have played 3-4 in other years. What goes around comes around. To whoever started this topic, please back up your theory by providing the entire list of times a team has travelled over the border from 1987 and I think you will be proven somewhat surprised by the results.

You idiot. Essendon play 4 home games at the MCG. Carlton usually play 2 or 3. What's the difference? If you havn't worked that out, it means that the MCG is NOT Essendons home ground. We play there 9 times this year and Carlton play there 8 times. You can't get any more neutral than that.

ODN's, you can say all you want, but you can't convince me that Colonial is not a neutral ground. If Carlton havn't played there before their match this year, how will that affect the outcome? It is played in perfect conditions, with both clubs supporters, on a ground which is "nornmally" shaped. Look, I just don't considered it a home ground advanatage okay. You are entitled to disagree, but I just believe the ground is neutral when two Vic teams play there. I als considered Wavelrley a neutral ground, even though Essendon only played there 2 times a year and it was a home ground for Hawthorn and St.Kilda at the time.

As for this worm character, I still can't beleive he thinks the Blues play 4 away games agaisnt Collingwood and Essendon. What a dill. Carlton play as many games at the MCG as Essendon. Carlton play 8, Essendon play 9. That's virtually no differecne.

 

[The Dutchman!]

ODN - getting sick of agreeing with you you Carlscum!

Worm - Essendon has a home ground advantage at the G? You'd like to play Ess at Optarse but not give us a neutral game (ie: MCG) let alone a home ground advantage (ie: Colonical)You Sir, are an idiot.

Eagles supporters: 11 genuine home games (except perhaps against Carlton hehehehe) and 1 away local derby - should be enough to make the 8 (minimum) each year if good enough.

Dan, give it a bloody rest. Sure Carlton have the benefit of a "genuine" old style home ground but honestly who gives a fat rat's clacker? Just means they make less money due to its pissweak size and go further into the financial hole...

 

[Worm4]

Originally posted by Dan25:

As for this worm character, I still can't beleive he thinks the Blues play 4 away games agaisnt Collingwood and Essendon. What a dill. Carlton play as many games at the MCG as Essendon. Carlton play 8, Essendon play 9. That's virtually no differecne. [/B]

You've just lowered yourself with the name calling but I guess that is the character of this board so I wll go along with it. The MCG has more of a home ground advantage to sides such as Essendon, North, and Collingwood than it does to Carlton because of the fact that those sides EASILY play more games than Carlton there. Perhaps not as much this year, but I do remember one particular year ( 1999 perhaps ) when Essendon actually played 16 games at the G compared to our 5. If it means that the more games you play there builds up a home ground advantage, well then this is a perfect example. And remember, open your eyes a little when it comes to making statements about this topic. Everyone knows that Essendon plays the G better than Carlton because it plays there more...simple fact.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by Dan25:

ODN's, you can say all you want, but you can't convince me that Colonial is not a neutral ground.

HA HA HA HA HA. Now there is a surprise. Dan can't be convinced. Doesn't matter how much logic you use.

Dan, I thought the jump in I.Q from 24 to 25 may have improved the situation a little but...ah well, sorry for the blind faith.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by The Dutchman!:
ODN - getting sick of agreeing with you you Carlscum!

Stop it Dutchman, I'm getting all misty eyed here....(sniff)