Collingwood and Richmond request to play each other twice in 2013

[underthestars]

so if the pies, the blues, the bombers, and the tigers all get h&a against each other that leaves just two alternating fixtures for each, every year. it lessens the chances of each to play interstate, as it lessens their chances of interstate opponents. It means less travel, less recovery time needed, and more games at the victorian finals stadium. add the money it brings in, the publicity it brings in, and the afl will solidify a mini elite group of teams for the future.
what's the point in having a competition if you're happy to create an uneven playing field. for all the disadvantages the smaller clubs had in the past, at least they had the same fixture. it's a joke.
and the afl have happily allowed the situation to occur, and created the situation in the first place by adding new teams. now they are either complete nincompoops who didn't foresse how the equity of the draw would be totally compromised, or far more likely, they knew exactly what would happen, and fostered this inequity as it allows it to earn more revenue.
for a non-profit organisation, entrusted to promote the game, they sure have their principles completely out of whack.

 

[nikolasmia]

It's quite possible that won't be true at the end of the round (and therefore the season), you know.

It's also great to think that there are Richmond supporters giving thanks to GWS for dragging our average down enough to make their own below par crowd seem vaguely decent.



Well I don't know about Richmond, but I don't consider crowds of under 60K against Melbourne sides to be big crowds. Going back more than a decade, Richmond have been more likely to draw less than 60K against Collingwood than they are to exceed it. So it's not silly at all.

Now, you can reasonably argue that this is because Richmond haven't been any good. Unfortunately you don't get to guarantee you will be in the future, either. Also unfortunate for Richmond is the fact that they don't even make it into the top half of Collingwood games against teams that didn't make the finals. (6th out of 11 in case you're wondering).

Basically, the Collingwood admin is treating a second Richmond game as an asset that they think is going to increase in value in the next few years. And, although I think the Collingwood admin generally do a terrific job, their judgment when it comes to when assets are going to increase in value is, shall we say, questionable.

I like to take my kids and nieces to the football so taking them to a collingwood game and the resultant bad language bad manners and generally undesirable behaviour is not something that I look forward to dealing with twice a year.

Nevertheless I think posters should remember that it is Collingwood making the request to play richmond twice, and not the other way around.

As far as the magpies being unable to judge the value of assets, I agree, The decision to sell malthouse low and buy Buckley high will be one they regret , no doubt about that.

 

[Magpie Since 1986]

As far as the magpies being unable to judge the value of assets, I agree, The decision to sell malthouse low and buy Buckley high will be one they regret , no doubt about that.

If only we had Richmond's nous at selecting coaches...

 

[gaelictiogar]

It's quite possible that won't be true at the end of the round (and therefore the season), you know.

It's also great to think that there are Richmond supporters giving thanks to GWS for dragging our average down enough to make their own below par crowd seem vaguely decent.



Well I don't know about Richmond, but I don't consider crowds of under 60K against Melbourne sides to be big crowds. Going back more than a decade, Richmond have been more likely to draw less than 60K against Collingwood than they are to exceed it. So it's not silly at all.

Now, you can reasonably argue that this is because Richmond haven't been any good. Unfortunately you don't get to guarantee you will be in the future, either. Also unfortunate for Richmond is the fact that they don't even make it into the top half of Collingwood games against teams that didn't make the finals. (6th out of 11 in case you're wondering).

Basically, the Collingwood admin is treating a second Richmond game as an asset that they think is going to increase in value in the next few years. And, although I think the Collingwood admin generally do a terrific job, their judgment when it comes to when assets are going to increase in value is, shall we say, questionable.

Manic yesterday's attendance at much less than 60,000 and prabably about 15,000 below a reasonable par figure for the game at Essendon V Collingwood - which probably trends as the biggest draw in the game over the past 20 years - just shows how silly and pointless it is to analyse attendance figures without reference to the form and ladder potition of the sides involved and the expectation the fanbases have of success going into the game.

Many recent Pies V Tigers games have drawn short of a par attendance for the very same reason yestedays Bombers V Pies did......one side or the other in rotten form and with no chance on the ladder. It amazes me how often I have to point out this basic reality even to the brightest posters such as yourself who we assume are not just point scoring.

There is no match up in the game immune to sub 60K attendances if form dictates that one fanbase won't show up.

 

[biggiemediums]

I like to take my kids and nieces to the football so taking them to a collingwood game and the resultant bad language bad manners and generally undesirable behaviour is not something that I look forward to dealing with twice a year.

Nevertheless I think posters should remember that it is Collingwood making the request to play richmond twice, and not the other way around.

As far as the magpies being unable to judge the value of assets, I agree, The decision to sell malthouse low and buy Buckley high will be one they regret , no doubt about that.

That sucks that you can't take them to any Richmond games then.

 

[neroblack]

I like to take my kids and nieces to the football so taking them to a collingwood game and the resultant bad language bad manners and generally undesirable behaviour is not something that I look forward to dealing with twice a year.

Nevertheless I think posters should remember that it is Collingwood making the request to play richmond twice, and not the other way around.

As far as the magpies being unable to judge the value of assets, I agree, The decision to sell malthouse low and buy Buckley high will be one they regret , no doubt about that.

That's a good point, Richmond supporters do get quite frustrated when we beat you.

 

[Put a Lids on it]

Imagine the hate when were on the up as it's nice and strong already. Good times.

 

[MightyTiger]

Imagine the hate when were on the up as it's nice and strong already. Good times.

All this hate and we ain't even that good yet.

Let the hate flow fellas.

 

[Tassieboy]

I don't care if we don't play Carlton and Collingwood twice.

 

[neroblack]

All this hate and we ain't even that good yet.

This is why I like Richmond...they amuse me.

 

[manicmagpie]

Manic yesterday's attendance at much less than 60,000 and prabably about 15,000 below a reasonable par figure for the game at Essendon V Collingwood - which probably trends as the biggest draw in the game over the past 20 years - just shows how silly and pointless it is to analyse attendance figures without reference to the form and ladder potition of the sides involved and the expectation the fanbases have of success going into the game.

Many recent Pies V Tigers games have drawn short of a par attendance for the very same reason yestedays Bombers V Pies did......one side or the other in rotten form and with no chance on the ladder. It amazes me how often I have to point out this basic reality even to the brightest posters such as yourself who we assume are not just point scoring.

There is no match up in the game immune to sub 60K attendances if form dictates that one fanbase won't show up.

I'm not sure as to what we are actually arguing about.

I've only really been arguing against two points made often in this thread, and as per your post above, you must surely agree with me:

1. Richmond-Collingwood is not automatically a big crowd. As recent history shows, it is heavily dependant on good form by both sides to get anywhere above Collingwood's standard 60-65K crowd for Vic club matches.

2. The Richmond-Collingwood crowd from this year was by no stretch of the imagination a good crowd.

I completely agree with your bolded point above, however while I'm perfectly willing to accept a low turnout from fans to a meaningless Round 23 game when you expect a bad loss, I think it's a bit rich for one fanbase to decide in Round 2 not to show up.

Collingwood are clearly banking on Richmond coming good next year. Plus I think that they are trying to sow the seeds of a blockbuster early by making it public that they want those games next year. I sincerely hope that they succeed in making those games huge. There's nothing I like more than a huge crowd with a big opposition turnout. It's what makes footy in Melbourne special in my opinion. Just forgive me for being cautious about seeing it happen until I walk into the Southern Stand next year and look across to a chock-a-block MCC and Northern Stands.

 

[gaelictiogar]

I'm not sure as to what we are actually arguing about.

I've only really been arguing against two points made often in this thread, and as per your post above, you must surely agree with me:

1. Richmond-Collingwood is not automatically a big crowd. As recent history shows, it is heavily dependant on good form by both sides to get anywhere above Collingwood's standard 60-65K crowd for Vic club matches.

2. The Richmond-Collingwood crowd from this year was by no stretch of the imagination a good crowd.

I completely agree with your bolded point above, however while I'm perfectly willing to accept a low turnout from fans to a meaningless Round 23 game when you expect a bad loss, I think it's a bit rich for one fanbase to decide in Round 2 not to show up.

Collingwood are clearly banking on Richmond coming good next year. Plus I think that they are trying to sow the seeds of a blockbuster early by making it public that they want those games next year. I sincerely hope that they succeed in making those games huge. There's nothing I like more than a huge crowd with a big opposition turnout. It's what makes footy in Melbourne special in my opinion. Just forgive me for being cautious about seeing it happen until I walk into the Southern Stand next year and look across to a chock-a-block MCC and Northern Stands.

I would simply add that what you suggest is "Collingwood's standard 60-65K crowd" is in fact not standard at all and is just as dependent on you being top 4 as is any other crowd figure trending above average dependent on the team involved being better than average onfield. Crowds figures set while a team is top 4 is no more a "standard" than figures set while in the basement.

Is Richmond V Collingwood a guaranteed big crowd? No. we agree there.

Is any match up a guaranteed big crowd? No again.

It's a matter of language in truth. When people say "guaranteed crowd puller" they really mean "likely to draw bigger than most other match ups all things being equal onfield". Any quick trawl through the differing match ups can quiclkly tell us the 6 or 7 match ups most likely to trend as big draws. Richmond V Colingwood is among that group. I'm not arguing or being a fan of my club. I'm simply pointing to basic and frankly unarguable realities.

 

[Final Siren]

I'm responding to the assertions that you and other Richmond fans have made a number of times in this thread which are: that the Collingwood-Richmond crowd from this year was in some way good; and that a Collingwood-Richmond game will automatically be a big crowd.

I think it's pretty clear that both of those assertions are completely wrong.

It was a bigger crowd than the average AFL game. It was higher than the average crowd for all Richmond games. It was higher than the average crowd for all Collingwood games. It was higher than the average crowd for all MCG games.

These are all simple, obvious ways in which the crowd was "in some way good."

What you're trying to argue is that it was poor when you take into account certain factors, like excluding Collingwood's away games and non-MCG games, and ignoring others, like how it wasn't a special-event blockbuster game and Richmond were a bottom-8 side.

You can't have it both ways! Either take no factors into consideration, so it was an above-average crowd. Or take everything into consideration, and it's STILL an above-average crowd for a Saturday night non-blockbuster against a bottom-8 team.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Since 2007:
matches between Big 4 clubs - 5.97% of all matches, 11.77% of total attendance
matches between Big 4 clubs and others - 36.55% of all matches, 41.70% of total attendance
matches between other clubs - 57.48% of all matches, 46.53% of total attendance

No other group of four clubs produces such polarised results.

 

[Hawkk]

Since 2007:
matches between Big 4 clubs - 5.97% of all matches, 11.77% of total attendance
matches between Big 4 clubs and others - 36.55% of all matches, 41.70% of total attendance
matches between other clubs - 57.48% of all matches, 46.53% of total attendance

No other group of four clubs produces such polarised results.

Well considering matches between and amongst the 'Big Four' clubs are all played at the largest stadia, and where 75% of games consist of a dual crowd, that is hardly surprising. Clearly if West Coast and Adelaide had larger stadiums and the benefit of playing derbies for 75% of the season they're crowds would grow rapidly as well.

Just as a quick exercise how does Geelong/Collingwood or even Hawthorn/Geelong games since 2007 compare by comparison?

 

[KrakFiend]

If we go out in straight sets over the next couple of weeks, maybe we won't just get Richmond twice but could also get one of the expansion teams twice?

Tanking for a soft draw, the newest and sexiest form of taking.

No point winning a premiership if you're going to be handicapped the next season, making it hard to win the premiership. Right?

 

[TARANTULA]

If we go out in straight sets over the next couple of weeks, maybe we won't just get Richmond twice but could also get one of the expansion teams twice?

Tanking for a soft draw, the newest and sexiest form of taking.

No point winning a premiership if you're going to be handicapped the next season, making it hard to win the premiership. Right?

Why do you think we finished 14th in 2011. Look where it got us today

So thanks to the big 4 all keeping their return games incestuous, we will get teams like Hawks, Geelong, WCE, Freo and Sydney as returns then next year.

 

[manicmagpie]

It was a bigger crowd than the average AFL game. It was higher than the average crowd for all Richmond games. It was higher than the average crowd for all Collingwood games. It was higher than the average crowd for all MCG games.

These are all simple, obvious ways in which the crowd was "in some way good."

What you're trying to argue is that it was poor when you take into account certain factors, like excluding Collingwood's away games and non-MCG games, and ignoring others, like how it wasn't a special-event blockbuster game and Richmond were a bottom-8 side.

You can't have it both ways! Either take no factors into consideration, so it was an above-average crowd. Or take everything into consideration, and it's STILL an above-average crowd for a Saturday night non-blockbuster against a bottom-8 team.

Your argument is completely absurd, particularly when applied to a discussion about who Collingwood would like to request to play twice in order to maximise crowds. Do you really think that is somehow irrelevant to compare the Rich-Coll game in context to all Collingwood home games (7th out of 11), or all Collingwood games in Melbourne (11th/17), or all Collingwood games at the MCG (11th/14)? These are the figures that mean everything to this issue.

Collingwood has played 70 games over the last 5 years at the G, of which only 10 are 'special event blockbusters', while nearly 2/3 of the games are against teams that Richmond supporters routinely describe as 'small'. Yet the Rich-Coll game this year drew nearly 10,000 less than our medium term average at the G. It's not a one-off either, our average against Richmond is lower than the average against all others combined.

What can't be lost sight of is that Richmond and Collingwood were already given a big matchup this year - Round 2 at the G, and we couldn't draw an acceptable crowd to it. In effect, what we've requested for next year is the same early game and a return game late in the season. There is ample evidence to show that these "big 4" return games also often produce below par crowds. There is a very real chance that one or both of these games will be similarly poor. There's no doubt that Hawthorn deserve the 2nd game a lot more than Richmond but I reckon we don't need to request that one as it will happen anyway.

And speaking of having it both ways, can Richmond supporters really both talk their team up as being a big club, and then spend so long arguing that 57K against the biggest drawing club in the comp is a good crowd?

If Collingwood and Richmond get their 2 matches next year, particularly for the early one, are you really telling me that you think 57K would be a good crowd?

 

[Final Siren]

And speaking of having it both ways, can Richmond supporters really both talk their team up as being a big club, and then spend so long arguing that 57K against the biggest drawing club in the comp is a good crowd?

I think you're the only person in the thread denying Richmond draws big crowds. It's just such a weird argument. We draw big crowds even before you consider that we haven't made finals since 2001 and were tipped to miss again this year. We beat Collingwood's average even though there was nothing special about the fixture. (I disagree that Round 2 at the G on a Saturday night is being "given a big matchup.")

Obviously Collingwood is tipping we'll be a stronger team next year, and if we are, and/or get a good timeslot, then yes, 57k would be a disappointing crowd. But that wouldn't happen; we would draw a lot more. You would have to be Blind Freddie not to see this.

 

[Tas]

I don't want to see any bitching about easy/hard draws when your own clubs request harder draws.

 

[Tiger2709]

If only we had Richmond's nous at selecting coaches...

Err Tommy Hafey, 4 flags for Richmond, and of course none for Collingwood

 

[Tiger2709]

I don't want to see any bitching about easy/hard draws when your own clubs request harder draws.

This is a Collingwood request its the soft draws that North and Adelaide got that was the sticking point, a hard draw means if you make the finals you are up to it, a soft draw usually means you get found out in the first week.

 

[Tiger2709]

All this hate and we ain't even that good yet.

Let the hate flow fellas.

The hate for Richmond has always been a sure sign we are on the right track, hope there is much more of it in the years ahead.

 

[manicmagpie]

I think you're the only person in the thread denying Richmond draws big crowds. It's just such a weird argument. We draw big crowds even before you consider that we haven't made finals since 2001 and were tipped to miss again this year. We beat Collingwood's average even though there was nothing special about the fixture. (I disagree that Round 2 at the G on a Saturday night is being "given a big matchup.")

Obviously Collingwood is tipping we'll be a stronger team next year, and if we are, and/or get a good timeslot, then yes, 57k would be a disappointing crowd. But that wouldn't happen; we would draw a lot more. You would have to be Blind Freddie not to see this.

In the spirit of reconciliation I will say that perhaps we simply differ in our definitions of a good crowd. My definition is going to be heavily dependent on who our opposition is. It's not hard to grasp that Collingwood getting 36K to our game against Gold Coast = good crowd, getting ~57K to our Richmond and return Essendon games = not good crowds.

I am certainly not denying Richmond draws big crowds, and I have never said that. What I have said is that Richmond's crowds against Collingwood are below par. I know that Richmond are often (but not always) only behind Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton in regards to crowds, that's precisely why only drawing 57K to an early season game is definitely not a good crowd. If you style yourselves as a big club then you need to attract decent crowds given favourable circumstances like an early season game against the biggest drawcard in the league.

To borrow a classic parenting line: "I'm only so hard on you because I think you can do better."

Since the new stands at the G were completed, we've played 36 games there against the 'big 4' of Carlton, Essendon and Richmond. Only 3 of those crowds were smaller than our Round 2 game this year, and all of those were late season dead rubbers for at least one of the teams involved. It was a poor crowd.

I would also like to know what, in your opinion, constitutes a good timeslot if not Round 2 at the G against Collingwood. You'll no doubt keep your season opener against Carlton and Dreamtime against Essendon, what would you propose for the first Collingwood-Richmond game that would see better conditions for a big crowd than Round 2 at the G?

Anyway, if there's two things we can agree on they are that it is well overdue for Collingwood to play Richmond twice and we hope that both games (if they happen) are both huge.

 

[Tas]

This is a Collingwood request its the soft draws that North and Adelaide got that was the sticking point, a hard draw means if you make the finals you are up to it, a soft draw usually means you get found out in the first week.

We beat Richmond, Essendon and Saints late in the year when a position for the 8 was in the balance, if any of these clubs deserved to be in the finals then they would have knocked us off. We also beat Adelaide, Geelong and Collingwood. I am comfortable with us earning our spot and it has absolutely nothing to do with the result this week. An away elimination final in Perth is a daunting task at the best of times, let alone a final.

What some offended supporters of other clubs think or feel is irrelevant to me. It is just irony that the fat cat clubs want to play eachother all the time and their supporters whine about a hard draw.