The Grand Final should be hosted at a neutral venue

[bungwahl]

Where was that "advantage" in 2012? People, get over it. Hawthorn have won the previous three flags because they were the best and most professional team in the competition. The venue has nothing to do with it. Stop searching for excuses as to why other teams haven't measured up.

I don't think anyone is disputing Hawthorn's recent dominance so perhaps you're hunting for an argument where there isn't one?

I merely stated that playing on your home ground provides some kind of advantage. I don't think that point is in dispute?

 

[JeffDunne]

From the time the VFL was created there has been some teams who potentially get a home ground advantage if they make it through to the GF.

From the time the AFL was created there has been some teams who potentially get a home ground advantage if they make it through to the GF.

It has been this way for over a hundred years but is only ever an issue when an interstate side loses a GF.

Why is that?

 

[Jables]

I don't think anyone is disputing Hawthorn's recent dominance so perhaps you're hunting for an argument where there isn't one?

I merely stated that playing on your home ground provides some kind of advantage. I don't think that point is in dispute?

Does it really though? GF day is neutral ground in terms of fan support, and what's stopping teams from doing what we did preparing for the final at Subi and just adjusting your training dimensions? Nothing. If it's a factor at all, it is the tiniest of factors. Even the massive crowd isn't that big of a deal, even Collingwood don't get anywhere close to 100k per week. Hawthorn get a couple of 70-80k crowds per year, that's it.

I think it's just a massive load of whining because Victorian teams have been on top recently. It certainly wasn't like that a while ago.

 

[bungwahl]

Does it really though? GF day is neutral ground in terms of fan support, and what's stopping teams from doing what we did preparing for the final at Subi and just adjusting your training dimensions? Nothing. If it's a factor at all, it is the tiniest of factors. Even the massive crowd isn't that big of a deal, even Collingwood don't get anywhere close to 100k per week. Hawthorn get a couple of 70-80k crowds per year, that's it.

I think it's just a massive load of whining because Victorian teams have been on top recently. It certainly wasn't like that a while ago.

Victorian teams on top? That's a stretch.. Hawthorn has been on top in grand finals and that is primarily due to having an excellent squad, strong drafting and a solid game plan. Other Vic teams have been up and down, with interstate sides taking 3 of the top 4 spots after round 23.

In terms of adjusting training dimensions, that's just not possible. The concept worked for narrowing the MCG to replicate the narrow Subi, but teams like Sydney can't exactly extend their playing surface to replicate a longer MCG. Ground dimensions can alter match tactics - e.g. at ANZ Stadium you need to play tight congested footy, whereas at the SCG there is more space to run and spread the ball wide. Having home ground advantage means you know the dimensions and your default game plan suits those dimensions.

As I said, the GF should be played at the MCG and the homeground advantage isn't sufficient to explain the hammerings of WCE and Syd in the past two years.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Victorian teams on top? That's a stretch.. Hawthorn has been on top in grand finals and that is primarily due to having an excellent squad, strong drafting and a solid game plan. Other Vic teams have been up and down, with interstate sides taking 3 of the top 4 spots after round 23.

In terms of adjusting training dimensions, that's just not possible. The concept worked for narrowing the MCG to replicate the narrow Subi, but teams like Sydney can't exactly extend their playing surface to replicate a longer MCG. Ground dimensions can alter match tactics - e.g. at ANZ Stadium you need to play tight congested footy, whereas at the SCG there is more space to run and spread the ball wide. Having home ground advantage means you know the dimensions and your default game plan suits those dimensions.

As I said, the GF should be played at the MCG and the homeground advantage isn't sufficient to explain the hammerings of WCE and Syd in the past two years.

You don't need to train on the ground you play at though, not sure about interstate clubs, but vic clubs have different training tracks

 

[bungwahl]

You don't need to train on the ground you play at though, not sure about interstate clubs, but vic clubs have different training tracks

In this part of the country our alternative grounds are rectangular shaped unfortunately.

 

[Jables]

Victorian teams on top? That's a stretch.. Hawthorn has been on top in grand finals and that is primarily due to having an excellent squad, strong drafting and a solid game plan. Other Vic teams have been up and down, with interstate sides taking 3 of the top 4 spots after round 23.

In terms of adjusting training dimensions, that's just not possible. The concept worked for narrowing the MCG to replicate the narrow Subi, but teams like Sydney can't exactly extend their playing surface to replicate a longer MCG. Ground dimensions can alter match tactics - e.g. at ANZ Stadium you need to play tight congested footy, whereas at the SCG there is more space to run and spread the ball wide. Having home ground advantage means you know the dimensions and your default game plan suits those dimensions.

As I said, the GF should be played at the MCG and the homeground advantage isn't sufficient to explain the hammerings of WCE and Syd in the past two years.

Fair enough on the dimensions, I wasn't aware the Swans trained at the SCG. Fremantle have MCG sized training grounds, that's probably a unique problem for Sydney and Brisbane with the lack of decent ovals around though.

 

[LoungeLizard]

In this part of the country our alternative grounds are rectangular shaped unfortunately.

and yet you seem to play the MCG as well as anyone, probably just means when you have a good side it don't matter where you play.

 

[HairyO]

I think it's just a massive load of whining because Victorian teams have been on top recently. It certainly wasn't like that a while ago.

Brisbane never complained about it in 2004. Their issue was the AFL shafting them with when they had to play their finals games, not that the GF was at the MCG on a Saturday afternoon.

 

[bungwahl]

and yet you seem to play the MCG as well as anyone, probably just means when you have a good side it don't matter where you play.

We had a filthy record at the MCG for a long time. We're 7-7-1 at the MCG in the past 5 years, with most wins coming against Melbourne.

 

[LoungeLizard]

We had a filthy record at the MCG for a long time. We're 7-7-1 at the MCG in the past 5 years, with most wins coming against Melbourne.

yeah but don't forget you also had a filthy record anywhere for a while also, like i said, when you have a good side, you start winning.

 

[JeffDunne]

In this part of the country our alternative grounds are rectangular shaped unfortunately.

You don't have any cricket grounds?

 

[bungwahl]

You don't have any cricket grounds?

Not of MCG dimensions. Most of our suburban cricket grounds are no bigger than the SCG.

 

[bomberclifford]

I think it's just a massive load of whining because Victorian teams have been on top recently. It certainly wasn't like that a while ago.

lol

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/not-good-for-footy-barassi/story-e6frf33l-1111112224932

"I think we should look at it to see if there's a reason that means if you are not in Victoria you have a better chance," Barassi said. "If there is a reason we should correct it."

Victorians will now have to endure a third straight all-interstate grand final and the premiership cup heading across the border for the sixth consecutive season.

"It is not good for the game to have any one section dominating," Barassi said. "Of course, it worries me.

"Melburnians are getting sick of seeing two interstate teams at the MCG on the last Saturday in September." Premier Steve Bracks said Victoria remained the true home of football.

 

[HeaveHo_WeBlow]

Maybe the answer is to either widen the Perth ground or move to another, so that the ground is the same size and shape as the G.
Not good policy to have an unusually long and skinny ground for future grannie success. Very expensive option but maybe worth it in the long run.

This is already happening and is scheduled for completion in 2018.
Still other teams that may not have this option (Perhaps GCS, GWS, Brisbane etc...)

If we're unable to have a rotating roster for the Grand Final and amend the contract, then at the very least equal opportunity should be presented to those teams that don't have the resources to build a secondary oval because of a obsolete contract in the form of exposure to the championship ground.

Pretty average that in a national game that Developed from a state league, we still have an inequality due to rules enforced prior to becoming nationalized and people are struggling to grasp the concept that this game has expanded significantly from a state league.

Perhaps a union should be formed among interstate teams and another league is formed.

 

[pazza]

If we're unable to have a rotating roster for the Grand Final and amend the contract, then at the very least equal opportunity should be presented to those teams that don't have the resources to build a secondary oval because of a obsolete contract in the form of exposure to the championship ground.

I would every club would have the resources to build an MCG sized training oval. If Essendon can, anyone can.

 

[HeaveHo_WeBlow]

I would every club would have the resources to build an MCG sized training oval. If Essendon can, anyone can.

What a load of rubbish!!

QLD/NSW teams don't have the same luxury as Essendon do.

Firstly they are based in a state where AFL isn't the main sport, which is the reason these clubs came into existence... To expand the game.

This creates issues that Essendon wouldn't be likely to face, such as council approval for land and rights of use.



They don't have the local media onside, alas Essendon do, which effects decisions at AFL house.
Much like the tribunal/MRP is essentially prosecution by media.

Lastly they don't have the membership base, thus making funding harder.




I fail to see how Brisbane are in a more financially viable position than Essendon.

The only dominate position they are in, is the fact they aren't about to be railed by WADA up the clacker because they were smart enough to keep needles out their arms.

 

[pazza]

What a load of rubbish!!

QLD/NSW teams don't have the same luxury as Essendon do.

Firstly they are based in a state where AFL isn't the main sport, which is the reason these clubs came into existence... To expand the game.

This creates issues that Essendon wouldn't be likely to face, such as council approval for land and rights of use.



They don't have the local media onside, alas Essendon do, which effects decisions at AFL house.
Much like the tribunal/MRP is essentially prosecution by media.

Lastly they don't have the membership base, thus making funding harder.




I fail to see how Brisbane are in a more financially viable position than Essendon.

The only dominate position they are in, is the fact they aren't about to be railed by WADA up the clacker because they were smart enough to keep needles out their arms.

Hahahaha what.

At Tullamarine, Essendon has 2 training ovals..one is Etihad sized and the other MCG sized.

It isn't exactly hard to buy land or in Essendon's case, long-term lease it from Melbourne Airport! Brisbane has this new facility I believe in Burpengary. They have already done it and would have received support for the development from members, sponsors and the AFL.

 

[kranky al]

yeah but don't forget you also had a filthy record anywhere for a while also, like i said, when you have a good side, you start winning.

We had a reasonable side in 2006 - won the minor premiership and the premiership - collingwood got the spoon - yet beat us at the g

 

[Tiger2709]

Not a neutral venue. It should be at the venue of the team that actually deserves it. West Coast earn't the right for it to be their home game but instead it is being played at Hawthorn's home venue.

I know what your saying sounds okay, but have you ever watched a game at Subi, it's just not up to having a GF played there, maybe if all States had a 100,000 seat stadium the idea could work.

 

[krisholio14]

From the time the VFL was created there has been some teams who potentially get a home ground advantage if they make it through to the GF.

From the time the AFL was created there has been some teams who potentially get a home ground advantage if they make it through to the GF.

It has been this way for over a hundred years but is only ever an issue when an interstate side loses a GF.

Why is that?

Nah, we lost in 2008 because we were playing at Hawthorns home ground. Game should have been in Geelong.

 

[Tiger2709]

In this part of the country our alternative grounds are rectangular shaped unfortunately.

No one play cricket in NSW/QLD?

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

there's no way in the world you could have it at a neutral ground unless we have a purpose built stadium that football sides don't use. otherwise you couldn't commit to organizing it at a particular venue until after the grand finalists are decided. could you imagine trying to organize the grand final on the monday after the prelim? people really need to consider logistics before the come up with crazy suggestions.

 

[samFFC]

No one play cricket in NSW/QLD?

the best cricket grounds are the footy grounds. Other cricket grounds are way small.

 

[kranky al]

I know what your saying sounds okay, but have you ever watched a game at Subi, it's just not up to having a GF played there, maybe if all States had a 100,000 seat stadium the idea could work.

I dont think you will find many wc or freo supporters who want a granny at subi - its a shithole, however:

You dont need a 100000 seat stadium for a good grand final - 70-80k is fine - very few stadia these days are built at 100k as they tend to be white elephants

Last 4 World cup finals have had attendance as follows - if a stadium that size is good enough for the biggest sporting event in the world .......

International Stadium YokohamaYokohama, Japan69,029[41][42]
2006Italy

1–1

[n 8]

FranceOlympiastadionBerlin, Germany69,000[43][44]
2010Spain

1–0

[n 9]

NetherlandsSoccer CityJohannesburg, South Africa84,490[45][46]
2014Germany

1–0

[n 10]

ArgentinaEstádio do MaracanãRio de Janeiro, Brazil74,738


Around about the time the g's contract finishes, adelaide, sydney, perth and melbs will all have gf class stadia - at that time we should start to rotate it - id say on a one in melb - one interstate, one in melb - one interstate basis