Analysis MCG tennants vs Marvel tennants: 11 flags vs 2 flags

[GC2015]

Much has been made of non-Victorian teams not getting to play at the MCG often enough and how it hurts them in finals, but how much of an advantage is it to be an MCG tenant vs a Marvel tenant? The stats would suggest it's very advantageous.

11 MCG tenant flags (2000-)
Hawthorn - 2008, 2013-15 (4)
Richmond - 2017, 2019-20 (3)
Collingwood - 2010, 2023 (2)
Melbourne - 2021 (1)

2 Marvel tenant flags (2000-)
Essendon - 2000 (1)
Bulldogs - 2016 (1)

Marvel Stadium opened in the year 2000 and we've seen just two tenants from that venue claim premierships since then. This probably explains why Carlton and Essendon have started playing more home games at the MCG. Certainly seems to be an issue for both non-Victorian teams and Marvel tenants. Thoughts?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

To be fair, Carlton were shit for about 15 of those years and North the bulk of the remainder, with a few years where both were well off the mark. That cuts the odds down a fair bit for Docklands based clubs.

 

[The 747]

To be fair, Carlton were s**t for about 15 of those years and North the bulk of the remainder, with a few years where both were well off the mark. That cuts the odds down a fair bit for Docklands based clubs.

There's an argument that the Saints were disadvantaged, considering how close 2009 and 2010 were.

But yeah, also Essendon have been in the wilderness looking for Moses for most of that time.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

There's no doubt an advantage to having experience on the ground, as well as the often talked about travel advantage that impacts non-Vic clubs. Carlton and Essendon play enough at the MCG that, along with Geelong, its essentially neutral territory even if they play against an MCG based side.
And the Dogs did beat a non-Vic side, so had travel advantage.

 

[Outtatym]

Vicbias

 

[GC2015]

There's an argument that the Saints were disadvantaged, considering how close 2009 and 2010 were.

But yeah, also Essendon have been in the wilderness looking for Moses for most of that time.

H&A games played at the MCG:

2009
Geelong - 5
St Kilda - 1

2010
Collingwood - 14
St Kilda - 2

 

[BallaratBulldog]

H&A games played at the MCG:

2009
Geelong - 5
St Kilda - 1

2010
Collingwood - 14
St Kilda - 2

From memory it was around 2006 that North Dogs and Saints stopped getting a few home MCG games. I remember playing North, Adelaide and West Coast at the G back then

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Is this an afl propoganda account?

Sent from my SM-G990E using Tapatalk

 

[GC2015]

From memory it was around 2006 that North Dogs and Saints stopped getting a few home MCG games. I remember playing North, Adelaide and West Coast at the G back then

Didn't know that. Just had a quick look and you're right. The Roos and Dogs both played five H&A games at the MCG in 2006 and not all were against MCG tenants (Dogs hosted the Crows at the G in R20). St Kilda played four H&A games at the MCG in 2006, two of which were against other Docklands tenants Essendon and Carlton.

So what happened? Why did this change? Seems like this was a pivotal turning point in terms of home advantage at the MCG for all teams as both non-Victorian and Marvel tenant teams fell way behind in terms of winning flags.

 

[Freomaniac]

Essendon is a Docklands tenant? I thought they were a main tenant at the MCG?

Saints, dogs and North are docklands tenants

 

[NetworkNerd]

Essendon is a Docklands tenant? I thought they were a main tenant at the MCG?

Saints, dogs and North are docklands tenants

Essendon have more home games at Marvel than the MCG (7-4 split). Same as Carlton (6-5 split)

8/9 of the Melbourne teams host games at Marvel (except Demons). Not all host games at the MCG (North and Bulldogs don't)

Is there a minimum number of games before you are considered a tenant? If not.

Essendon 2000 (MCG/Marvel)
Geelong 2007 (MCG/Marvel)
Hawthorn 2008 (MCG)
Geelong 2009 (MCG/Marvel)
Collingwood 2010 (MCG/Marvel)
Geelong 2011 (MCG/Marvel)
Hawthorn 2013 (MCG/Marvel)
Hawthorn 2014 (MCG)
Hawthorn 2015 (MCG/Marvel)
Western Bulldogs 2016 (Marvel)
Richmond 2017 (MCG/Marvel)
Richmond 2019 (MCG/Marvel)
Richmond 2020* (MCG)
Melbourne 2021* (MCG)
Geelong 2022 (MCG)
Collingwood 2023 (MCG/Marvel)

 

[Cleansweep17]

Look at the teams/coaches and you’ll see why the MCG tenants dominate.

 

[Freomaniac]

Essendon have more home games at Marvel than the MCG (7-4 split). Same as Carlton (6-5 split)

8/9 of the Melbourne teams host games at Marvel (except Demons). Not all host games at the MCG (North and Bulldogs don't)

Is there a minimum number of games before you are considered a tenant? If not.

Essendon 2000 (MCG/Marvel)
Geelong 2007 (MCG/Marvel)
Hawthorn 2008 (MCG)
Geelong 2009 (MCG/Marvel)
Collingwood 2010 (MCG/Marvel)
Geelong 2011 (MCG/Marvel)
Hawthorn 2013 (MCG/Marvel)
Hawthorn 2014 (MCG)
Hawthorn 2015 (MCG/Marvel)
Western Bulldogs 2016 (Marvel)
Richmond 2017 (MCG/Marvel)
Richmond 2019 (MCG/Marvel)
Richmond 2020* (MCG)
Melbourne 2021* (MCG)
Geelong 2022 (MCG)
Collingwood 2023 (MCG/Marvel)

you Need to Edit Geelong.

They play home games at Kardinia Park too.

Dockers have Essendon at the MCG this season in 2024 for the 1st time since the 1990s.

 

[Eternal Schism]

Before we try and create a conspiracy about sides being disadvantaged by playing at a stadium in the same city, let's look at the sides in question.

Carlton were caught cheating the salary cap, and punished, they had picks stripped while already beginning to struggle near the bottom of the ladder. Notoriously they won many spoon while being coached by some dubious coaches, ones with little experience as a head coach & another man who had retired. It's clear to many, even Carlton supporters that they had a culture problem for a long time, with outdated ideas at the board level.

The Dons won in 2000, and continued for a while as a finals side. Naturally they began to rebuild and a long time coach moved on, one of the all time great coaches, from here they had one rookie coach and another who led a side caught in a massive doping scandal. The side has struggled to recover from that, arguably they are led by stale ideas, Dodoro has led a footy department that has seen the Dons sit as a perennial mid table side who are neither truly rebuilding or contending, in no man's land.

St Kilda had their chances, they were a bounce away from premiership victory. Historically they are a minnow who have the most unwinning history in the league, it's not unusual to see them struggling for relevance and finals success.

The dog's also are a historical minnow side, and have actually over performed their historical record by being in 2 grand finals, winning one flag. That's better than their history would suggest.

Ditto for North too, another side that have had 2 periods of success, two decades apart, they're not exactly a side that has set the world on fire historically.

Perhaps it's more to do with the circumstances of the sides in question rather than some grand excuse to teams being mediocre? It's a cop out.

Geelong don't even make either ground their actual home ground, yet are the most dominant and successful side of the 21st century. They don't make up excuses for why they did or didn't win too often, even beating MCG tenant Collingwood at their zenith in 2011. Richmond, Melbourne won premierships on grounds that were not their home grounds. Both, alongside Hawthorn won preliminary finals away from Victoria.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

The dog's also are a historical minnow side, and have actually over performed their historical record by being in 2 grand finals, winning one flag. That's better than their history would suggest.

Dogs have been in more prelims than most sides since the late 90s just couldn’t convert.

Does a 7 point margin change vs the Saints at Docklands in 2009? Probably not. We had that game anyway and pissed it away. 2010 didn’t matter. Maybe it makes 2008 prelim vs Geelong slightly better though.

Playing Adelaide at docklands (which was actually said to be happening prior to it) in the elimination final 2015 would have been a dogs win for sure.

Ultimately it is hard to say for sure but depends on the team played.

Didn't know that. Just had a quick look and you're right. The Roos and Dogs both played five H&A games at the MCG in 2006 and not all were against MCG tenants (Dogs hosted the Crows at the G in R20). St Kilda played four H&A games at the MCG in 2006, two of which were against other Docklands tenants Essendon and Carlton.

So what happened? Why did this change? Seems like this was a pivotal turning point in terms of home advantage at the MCG for all teams as both non-Victorian and Marvel tenant teams fell way behind in terms of winning flags.

It would have been about the grounds contract to hold certain amount of games at each venue and to maximise income via crowds and bigger clubs

Dogs were drawing well there for the club size at the time. 27k vs eagles 2005 and 29k vs Crows in 2006.

They were on delayed channel 7 afternoon telecast though and might have had some MCC neutrals.

 

[darcytiger]

Pissant clubs play at Marvel, big clubs play at the MCG.

It’s how the clubs are run, nothing to do with the grass they kick the footy on.

 

[darcytiger]

For you older crew, did people whinge about this with Melbourne and Richmond’s unfair advantage until the 90s when the suburban grounds disappeared and it was more centralised? Or is this a new phenomenon?

The change rooms used to be the Richmond rooms and the Melbourne rooms. All decked out in the colours. It was their/our ground.

 

[Lunchtime]

H&A games played at the MCG:

2009
Geelong - 5
St Kilda - 1

2010
Collingwood - 14
St Kilda - 2

Geelong are the most advantaged team out of all the Victorian teams....not through cheating or anything like that but through geographical location With their home ground based at Geelong, they are the only "tennant" there ....they get true home ground advantage every time they play at their home ground. Plus they get MCG experience as well throughout the Home And Away season. Certainly does help I think and they've made the most of it since 2007.

 

[Lunchtime]

Essendon is a Docklands tenant? I thought they were a main tenant at the MCG?

Saints, dogs and North are docklands tenants

Marvel Stadium (Docklands) Tennants
Western Bulldogs
Carlton
Essendon
St Kilda
North Melbourne

MCG Tennants
Collingwood
Richmond
Melbourne
Hawthorn

GMHBA (Kardinya Park) Tennants
Geelong

 

[The 747]

Essendon is a Docklands tenant? I thought they were a main tenant at the MCG?

Saints, dogs and North are docklands tenants

Essendon are the anchor tenant at Docklands actually. The AFL has been creeping away from using Marvel for any big games for a while now.

 

[Strange Cat]

Interesting statistics but like the saying goes you can make statistics look like anything you want …it’s a bit more nuanced that what you’re implying

 

[BuffDog]

Essendon’s Docklands contract is up next year so it will be interesting to see if they try negotiate extra MCG home games.

But this year we play eight at the MCG and nine at Marvel, so I don’t think Essendon could claim any disadvantage in a MCG final against the main tenants. Carlton would be in the same boat.

 

[Pies No 1]

7 of the premierships are from arguably the 2 most dominant teams of this century. It's like going back to the 80's and making some argument that Essendon and Hawthorn were only as good as they were because of the grounds they played on??

 

[Lunchtime]

Essendon’s Docklands contract is up next year so it will be interesting to see if they try negotiate extra MCG home games.

But this year we play eight at the MCG and nine at Marvel, so I don’t think Essendon could claim any disadvantage in a MCG final against the main tenants. Carlton would be in the same boat.

Whilst Carlton and Essendon are Marvel Stadium Tennants, the MCG isn't a "foreign" venue for them. As you say, they both play enough games at the MCG for them to be familiar with the dimensions and conditions etc.

 

[fnerd]

Interesting statistics but like the saying goes you can make statistics look like anything you want …it’s a bit more nuanced that what you’re implying