Interstate sides in GFs

[shniko11]

Actually it is. Easier for your fans as they arent having to fly in and take multiple days off work.
Easier for the players as they stay at home for the week instead of planes and hotels.

Ive said numerous times that it should stay there but you cant say it isnt an advantage.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Ok so you think it should stay, but don't make out like North,Dogs playing one game there a year isn't a disadvantage at all minus the travel but I'd still play it there aswell.

On the financial thing as much as we hate it it's a billion dollar industry and big money for clubs. Unfortunately we don't have the population of the USA and NFL to rotate it to 80k stadiums every year for example which would be a good idea.

On your club the Giants if they have a healthy list and all their top end talent are firing in finals next year no team will stop them winning it even if it is at the G imo.

 

[Colonial]

Ok so you think it should stay, but don't make out like North,Dogs playing one game there a year isn't a disadvantage at all minus the travel but I'd still play it there aswell.

On the financial thing as much as we hate it it's a billion dollar industry and big money for clubs. Unfortunately we don't have the population of the USA and NFL to rotate it to 80k stadiums every year for example which would be a good idea.

On your club the Giants if they have a healthy list and all their top end talent are firing in finals next year no team will stop them winning it even if it is at the G imo.

Yes I do. Tradition and the whole atmosphere (which i experienced for the 1st time this year is phenominal) make it one hell of a week.

Be nice if it was like that everywhere but i doubt it would be. No disrespect meant to other cities/states.

Financially. Of course its important it stays. 35k fans leaves 65k in sponsors and corporate dollars. Sad but true.

Disagree on the last. Anything can happen in 4 quarters.
Though if we do get a better injury run we will be there abouts again.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[W.C. Fry]

I'll go back and read it when i get the chance.

Fair enough. Sorry to be a little snappy the trolls in this thread are getting to me.

Basically North played on MCG once this year. That already isn't enough. Should be a 2-3 game minimum in the first place. But it was 1 game so you have had 2 hours on the G. You are now allowed to schedule in 14 hours of training on the ground during the year to make up to 16 hours on the ground.

Why 16? Dont know, just sounded fair. Could be any set number. Maybe start at 10 hours if they are so worried about the grass then work up from there. I think it will survive the basic training runs most teams have before a game. A bit of circle work and having shots at goal isn't going to chew the ground up.

 

[shniko11]

Fair enough. Sorry to be a little snappy the trolls in this thread are getting to me.

Basically North played on MCG once this year. That already isn't enough. Should be a 2-3 game minimum in the first place. But it was 1 game so you have had 2 hours on the G. You are now allowed to schedule in 14 hours of training on the ground during the year to make up to 16 hours on the ground.

Why 16? Dont know, just sounded fair. Could be any set number. Maybe start at 10 hours if they are so worried about the grass then work up from there. I think it will survive the basic training runs most teams have before a game. A bit of circle work and having shots at goal isn't going to chew the ground up.

Just read the post,sounds like the most reasonable and realistic idea i have read in hear. Why not make it 16/24 hrs or so.

Question. Etihad tenants will have no problem finding time to train there so that leaves interstaters, where do they find the time to train there?

For example teams are so structured around game day,training,rehab etc that interstaters are back home not long after games.
If W.C are playing at Etihad,Skilled for that week where do they find the time to train at the G. When they play games at the G would be the best times to train there and get there 16-20 hrs in i would think.

 

[BuddyHawk]

The recent record of non-Victorian sides in the GF is a statistical outlier, which can't - at least at face value - be explained away as only being a consequence of Vic sides' home-ground advantage.

Since the AFL became an 18-team comp in 2012, by my count there have been 37 finals matches (excluding the six grand finals) where a side has hosted a team from interstate. Out of these, 12 have been won by the visiting side - so 32.4 per cent, or just under a third.

Of these 37, there have been 13 matches where a Victorian side has hosted a non-Victorian side, with the travelling side winning on 5 occasions (38.5 per cent of the time). There have been 14 finals matches where a non-Victorian side has hosted a Vic team, with the visiting Vic team winning four times (28.6 per cent), and 10 matches where a non-Vic side has played at home against another non-Vic side, with the away team winning 3 times (30 per cent).

Each of the past six grand finals has featured a Victorian and non-Victorian side, with the non-Vic team only winning in 2012 (16.7 per cent of the time). This is, obviously, a lot worse than non-Vic sides’ records in other finals matches in Victoria during this six-season strecth, despite the MCG in theory (due to members of the competing clubs receiving an equal ticketing allocation) providing less of a home-ground advantage on GF day than in the previous three weeks. Of course, there are still the matters of ground familiarity, MCC/AFL members being more inclined to get behind a Vic team (especially with the feel-good stories of the Bulldogs and Richmond), etc.

So is there an issue here? Or is six grand finals too small a sample size to make any definitive judgements? Certainly the performances of non-Vic sides in grand finals prior to 2013 was remarkable, winning 8 of the 11 times they faced a Victorian team, so perhaps recent results are simply a statistical leveller. Leigh Matthews was on the record numerous times up until 2013 saying non-Vic sides had an advantage on GF day, being removed from the hustle and bustle of GF Week in Melbourne. If memory serves, he made this very point on Channel 7 when offering up his tip for the 2013 GF.

One thing that’s notable with the past six GF’s is the only non-Victorian side considered a rank outsider was the Swans in 2012. The non-Vic side was favourites in 2014, ’16 and ’17, with the Hawks being slight favourites in ’13 and ’15. So maybe some old-fashioned sports psychology has played a part, too, with a few teams not coping with the weight of expectation?

My feeling is the wheel will turn pretty soon, and some very good non-Vic sides will emerge in the coming seasons and win in spite of the advantages that Victorian sides enjoy. But I also think it’s a bit of a cop out to point to the ground as an underlying cause – losses of 63, 48 and 46 points, for instance, suggest there’s something going on other than the venue.

 

[Catoggio76]

So since 2013 we've had a vic side against an interstate side in the GF. Vic is now 5-0, and while you could obviously argue Hawthorn were the best side in the comp and accounted for three of those, you could equally argue that all of the interstate sides underperformed in all five.

Thoughts?

Damn Geography and State Borders.

 

[Great8]

Complain all you like 2037 is the earliest it can change

 

[La Flama Blanca]

Richmond plays and trains at the MCG around 15 times per year. Adelaide plays and trains at Adelaide oval around 170 times per year. Who has the vastly bigger home ground advantage?

BTW we played Adelaide once during the H&A season, at AO with no return bout at the MCG or anywhere else. We'd obviously have beaten them at the MCG and finished above them on the ladder.

Not trying to take anything away from your win - everyone knows the rules and you deserved to win the flag. Enjoy it. This is just something I'd like to see changed sometime in the future. I agree Adelaide has a bigger home ground advantage, but it's not like you guys don't have any at all. If there is an advantage to be had it should be going to the higher qualified team. You are right in saying that 1 or 2 wins means nothing in the context of a season with such an inequitable draw though. This too should be changed.

 

[RUNVS]

Complain all you like 2037 is the earliest it can change

Not if the AFL introduces a home and away final.

 

[Great8]

Not if the AFL introduces a home and away final.

So a best of 3?
How is that any better?
This year for example would be
AO
MCG
MCG

 

[HTT]

By my count, in GFs between Victorian and Interstate sides at the MCG, the count is 8-6 in the favour of interstate teams.

 

[chiwigi]

Dude. I live in Adelaide; I know what to expect in the coming weeks!

You're out of your element.

 

[RUNVS]

So a best of 3?
How is that any better?
This year for example would be
AO
MCG
MCG

Or aggregate, so the match starts at Adelaide Oval and Adelaide win 102 to 78 or something like that, then next week it is at the MCG, where the match starts at a score of 102 to 78.

 

[rippersnipper]

I'd prefer the English football version. Every club has their own stadium and the final is played at the neautral MCG

Finals* the FA Cup semis are also at wembley. Same with championship playoffs. Only the carabao cup doesn't have that but who really cares about that one? I agree with this, move the mcg tenants elsewhere. I'd welcome games back at arden st if it were big enough tbh. But there isn't enough money in the sport for own home grounds, unless governments paid for them.

 

[STFU Donnie]

The recent record of non-Victorian sides in the GF is a statistical outlier, which can't - at least at face value - be explained away as only being a consequence of Vic sides' home-ground advantage.

Since the AFL became an 18-team comp in 2012, by my count there have been 37 finals matches (excluding the six grand finals) where a side has hosted a team from interstate. Out of these, 12 have been won by the visiting side - so 32.4 per cent, or just under a third.

Of these 37, there have been 13 matches where a Victorian side has hosted a non-Victorian side, with the travelling side winning on 5 occasions (38.5 per cent of the time). There have been 14 finals matches where a non-Victorian side has hosted a Vic team, with the visiting Vic team winning four times (28.6 per cent), and 10 matches where a non-Vic side has played at home against another non-Vic side, with the away team winning 3 times (30 per cent).

Each of the past six grand finals has featured a Victorian and non-Victorian side, with the non-Vic team only winning in 2012 (16.7 per cent of the time). This is, obviously, a lot worse than non-Vic sides’ records in other finals matches in Victoria during this six-season strecth, despite the MCG in theory (due to members of the competing clubs receiving an equal ticketing allocation) providing less of a home-ground advantage on GF day than in the previous three weeks. Of course, there are still the matters of ground familiarity, MCC/AFL members being more inclined to get behind a Vic team (especially with the feel-good stories of the Bulldogs and Richmond), etc.

So is there an issue here? Or is six grand finals too small a sample size to make any definitive judgements? Certainly the performances of non-Vic sides in grand finals prior to 2013 was remarkable, winning 8 of the 11 times they faced a Victorian team, so perhaps recent results are simply a statistical leveller. Leigh Matthews was on the record numerous times up until 2013 saying non-Vic sides had an advantage on GF day, being removed from the hustle and bustle of GF Week in Melbourne. If memory serves, he made this very point on Channel 7 when offering up his tip for the 2013 GF.

One thing that’s notable with the past six GF’s is the only non-Victorian side considered a rank outsider was the Swans in 2012. The non-Vic side was favourites in 2014, ’16 and ’17, with the Hawks being slight favourites in ’13 and ’15. So maybe some old-fashioned sports psychology has played a part, too, with a few teams not coping with the weight of expectation?

My feeling is the wheel will turn pretty soon, and some very good non-Vic sides will emerge in the coming seasons and win in spite of the advantages that Victorian sides enjoy. But I also think it’s a bit of a cop out to point to the ground as an underlying cause – losses of 63, 48 and 46 points, for instance, suggest there’s something going on other than the venue.

Logic and well-reasoned arguments have no place on BF. Don't you know that?

 

[DrEvil_]

Hawthorn did not finish the top of the table in 2014 or 2015 so there can be a debate about whether they were the best side that year, even if they did win both Grand Finals very comfortably.

Mate, Hawthorn 2014 finished second, equal points with Sydney and a percentage of 140.8 vs Sydney's 142.9. Our highest losing margin through the injury riddled year was 20 points. Given how the finals played out it's pretty clear Hawthorn were the best side of the year. In 2015 Hawthorn finished one game behind top of ladder Fremantle with a percentage of 158.4 to Freo's 118.7. We lost four games by 2, 4, 8, and 10 point. We beat WC away just before finals. It's also pretty obvious who the best team was in 2015.

 

[rippersnipper]

I don’t see anybody talking about the disadvantage the saints, dogs, north have, we only get 1-2 games at the mcg a year

Wanted to mention this. Interstate clubs generally play more games there than we do.

 

[rippersnipper]

1hr 30 mins to be exact
Not including getting to the airport etc.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Not quite correct. 1hr 10 one way and about 5 minutes less the other. It's scheduled as 90 minutes to make the aircraft schedule more robust in case there's a delay. Means the following flights on that aircraft and any others from the destination airport are less likely to be affected.

 

[TheLeftFist8]

So a best of 3?
How is that any better?
This year for example would be
AO
MCG
MCG

No it should've been:

AO
MCG
AO

 

[Interstater]

By my count, in GFs between Victorian and Interstate sides at the MCG, the count is 8-6 in the favour of interstate teams.

1992 West Coast Geelong 16.17 (113) d. 12.13 (85)
1994 West Coast Geelong 20.23 (143) d. 8.15 (63)
1997 Adelaide St Kilda 19.11 (125) d. 13.16 (94)
1998 Adelaide North Melbourne 15.15 (105) d. 8.22 (70)
2001 Brisbane Lions Essendon 15.18 (108) d. 12.10 (82)
2002 Brisbane Lions Collingwood 10.15 (75) d. 9.12 (66)
2003 Brisbane Lions Collingwood 20.14 (134) d. 12.12 (84)
2012 Sydney Hawthorn 14.7 (91) d. 11.15 (81)

1991 Hawthorn West Coast 20.19 (139) d. 13.8 (86) (VFL Park)
1996 North Melbourne Sydney 19.17 (131) d. 13.10 (88)
2007 Geelong Port Adelaide 24.19 (163) d. 6.8 (44)
2013 Hawthorn Fremantle 11.11 (77) d. 8.14 (62)
2014 Hawthorn Sydney 21.11 (137) d. 11.8 (74)
2015 Hawthorn West Coast 16.11 (107) d. 8.13 (61)
2016 Western Bulldogs Sydney (12) 13.11 (89) d. 10.7 (67)
2017 Richmond Adelaide 16.12 (108) d. 8.12 (60)

The way I see it, interstate clubs have beaten Victorian clubs in the GF either approx. 7 years after forming (West Coast, Adelaide), approx. 7 years after the merge that made them relevant (Brisbane) or with some cola advantage (Sydney).

That's been it.

 

[Fabes]

The crux of the issue, the best performed team forced to cede an advantage based on ... postcode.

AKA why the Hawks 3 peat is a signiicantly lesser achievement than the Lions.

Still grates the Coasters to this day that the Hawks pantsed you.

If you had a better team you would have won. Two years on and west coast struggle to make the 8 and are blown away in the semi.

Nothing to do with home ground advantage at MCG but rather an inept team that proved it the two years preceding their grand final flogging.

 

[Kwality]

Still grates the Coasters to this day that the Hawks pantsed you.

If you had a better team you would have won. Two years on and west coast struggle to make the 8 and are blown away in the semi.

Nothing to do with home ground advantage at MCG but rather an inept team that proved it the two years preceding their grand final flogging.

Got no argument that the better team won, just as it is undeniable location was earned by the Eagles to win , then gifted to the Hawks to win.

You can hide all you like.

 

[Fabes]

Got no argument that the better team won, just as it is undeniable location was earned by the Eagles to win , then gifted to the Hawks to win.

You can hide all you like.

What? Me hiding? I'm just sleeping in the cupboard. I'm not hiding I swear.

 

[rippersnipper]

Scrap the finals and play a 34 game h/a season. Whoever finishes on top at the end wins. Simple to manage. Fair to all of the teams. Plus it means that the most consistent team during the year wins rather than one team winning on the day despite finishing 5 games behind during the regular season or something hypothetical like that. Look at soccer (except aus); chelsea won 30/38 matches last season, no one could argue that they didn't deserve it. Even if they had a few off days (like adelaide had on saturday), it didn't affect them being the best team throughout the whole of the season. Personally, I'd prefer this method but cricket and players complaining about too many games makes it hard to implemement. I just want a completely fair comp (h/a orientated) where no one can complain (not that soccer doesn't have problems elsewhere like financial differences etc. which I'd like to see removed myself)

 

[TheLeftFist8]

You can bring out all the stats you like, I think we all know home ground advantage is a huge factor.

How about next year when Melbourne finish top and Sydney finish 2nd we just play the GF at the SCG...sounds fair surely?

I'm sure the top of the ladder Melbourne wouldn't mind travelling, spending 2 nights in Sydney, parade around circular quay, then play at the SCG...couldn't possibly affect the result?

YES the Crows were pathetic on the day (as Richmond were at the AO earlier in the year). That's now history but why should the biggest inequality in the most important game continue? If Richmond are the best team they would've beaten us at AO surely?