The Great Interstate Myth

[Illinois Nazi]

In between the little girls having hissy fits at each other, here are some facts:

Since the Swans went to Sydney in 1982, there have been more than 2500 matches which have required a team to travel interstate. In amongst those there a many examples of great teams traveling to play against crap teams, crap teams traveling to play great teams, average teams traveling to play average teams, average teams traveling to play great teams, average teams travellng to play crap teams and whatever other combinations you like to think up.

Only 37% of those matches have been won by the team that did the traveling. And that 37% winning rate has been remarkably consistent over time.

It IS an advantage to be playing at home against a traveling team.

 

[8732watitdo]

Some good points in this thread, but to the Collingwood supporters that are saying they would love to play more games interstate, would that be the case if Collingwood weren't at this level? It would be just like a few years ago when the non-victorian teams were at the top.

 

[South of the Yarra]

I would be noticed if I wasnt there doubt very much you would.

Massive Merv from Moorabin would indeed be greatly missed.

 

[blues4flag]

I see arguments for both, with the Vic sides effectively playing showdowns week in week out, and the non Vic teams playing interstate every 2nd week...

However, the effect on the body of travelling is a key factor, and the lost time every week... and there is a theory it affects players longetivity, as the WCE havent had a 300 game player yet...

Whereas the Crows have four 300 game players, with seven 270+.

Carlton have only managed four 300 gamers, six 270+ in their history so perhaps the travel helps longevity?

 

[Falchoon]

"South of the Yarra" is secretly Eddie Mcguire

Eddie wouldn't be that short sighted.

 

[Damon_3388]

Some good points in this thread, but to the Collingwood supporters that are saying they would love to play more games interstate, would that be the case if Collingwood weren't at this level? It would be just like a few years ago when the non-victorian teams were at the top.

Personally, I'd feel the same about it (and would want the same schedule for 2012 as I posted earlier) regardless of whether Collingwood were 1st or 17th. I've posted similar heavy travel schedules for Collingwood in each year I've been a member of BigFooty before the Pies won the Premiership last year.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Some interesting responses.

 

[NobleBlood]

Topic like this might've been more releveant in 1997-2006 where the interstate teams were actually good. Saying that "look Geelong have a great record out of Melbourne, its a myth bla bla" doesn't really mean that much when you look at the Interstate teams these days.

But yes, its like Richmond blaming Darwin and Cairns. Of course there are advantages but you can't blame a field of grass for getting outplayed by Port or GC. Saying that Geelong have to play to play Home finals at the MCG is a bit more valid. But yeah, the good teams overcome it.

 

[Underdog]

Whereas the Crows have four 300 game players, with seven 270+.

Carlton have only managed four 300 gamers, six 270+ in their history so perhaps the travel helps longevity?

I'd suggest Adelaide's travel commitments shouldn't be classed the same as West Coast's or Freo's.

On the advantage - IMO it makes it easier for non-Vic sides to make the 8 but harder to finish at the top.

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

I would actually prefer playing 6 blockbusters at the G rather than having 11 home games against travelling opposition. Eleven home games against travelling opposition is an advantage in the minor round, but the premiership cup is not awarded at the end of the minor round Playing 6 'finals like' blockbusters at the G is invaluable experience come the finals.

Imagine a situation next year where Collimgwood, who has played say 16 minor round matches at the G, plus a qualifying final at the G, plus a preliminary final at the G, comes up against an interstate side in the GF who had only one minor round game at the G. This is not a dig at Collingwood, it could be any team in that situation. Only a super side like the Lions circa 2001-2004 would not feel disadvantaged.

I know it's been mentioned a trillion times on BF, but make every team play every other team twice and the dilema is resolved. It's the only formula that will ensure that all Victorian teams travel an equal amount of times and that all non Victorian teams get enough exposure at the G. Unfortunately this will never happen.

 

[captain peanut]

When you travel to Perth and play an intense final, play extra time, come back and play one of rhe great sides of the modern era and take them to 5 points after they have had a week off then talk to me. Your club is built on excuses. No wonder Luke Ball has won as many Premierships as St Kilda

enjoying the war of words between yourself and hump

if hump is as close to the saints as he/she alleges, then he/she probably hears all of the excuses 1st hand down in the rooms before he goes home to post them on here

 

[Confuscius]

When you travel to Perth and play an intense final, play extra time, come back and play one of rhe great sides of the modern era and take them to 5 points after they have had a week off then talk to me. Your club is built on excuses. No wonder Luke Ball has won as many Premierships as St Kilda

What does the finals fixture have to do with playing interstate during the year. You played in Perth because West Coast outperformed your side throughout that year. Nothing to do with the AFL's scheduling at all. What is the point of posting this, other than having a cheap shot at another club and entering into a 'who is the bigger flog' contest? Seriously every thread turns into a St Kilda v Collingwood shitfight, it's pretty bloody tedious and boring.

As for your original point, you're absolutely right, travel is only an issue when you aren't good enough anyway. There is a slight advantage, but the non-Victorian sides are disadvantaged by this more than anyone.

 

[Thommo 42]

Without getting into the fight about the fixture and games in Melbourne, watching the crowd at the GC game made me think it would be good for the game as a whole to have the Pies travel a bit more next year. Not so late in the year as it has been fixtured this time.

It is such a big game for the state that hosts them. Would be nice for the big Victorian teams to do a bit of promo in the other states.

And yes this means bad luck for those Victorian clubs who don't get a home game against Collingwood at the G.

Agreed, get them to the Gabba and Metricon every year as a starting point

 

[Glenno23]

Could be some truth to that, the swans have only managed one so far, with O'Loughlin on 303. Goodes should well and truly surpass that though *touchwood currently on 293 at the moment.

How Micky managed 300 games with his knees is absolutely amazing.

Adelaide have had 3 though. And one play 275

Sydney is the about the same distance to melbourne as Adelaide is to Melbourne...

 

[Damon_3388]

Sydney is the about the same distance to melbourne as Adelaide is to Melbourne...

Nope:

Sydney to Melbourne - 876.4km
Adelaide to Melbourne - 726.1km

Neither of those cities has anything on Perth, Brisbane or the Gold Coast though in terms of distance from Melbourne:

Perth to Melbourne - 3,415.3km
Gold Coast to Melbourne - 1,718.6km
Brisbane to Melbourne - 1,676.1km

(distances from WhereIs.com.au)

 

[Sasuke]

Travelings does impact games a little, but it doesnt change the fact that the biggest factor of the game is how good the opposition team is. Given the success of non victorian teams over the past 15 years, i think its safe to say using traveling as an excuse for losing is pretty poor. Noone would complain about playing the adelaide teams away this year, but in 2003 ish it was a very hard thing to do. Same could be said with playing the blues/pies or dons compared to their down periods over past ten years til now.

 

[NobleBlood]

Nope:

Sydney to Melbourne - 876.4km
Adelaide to Melbourne - 726.1km

Neither of those cities has anything on Perth, Brisbane or the Gold Coast though in terms of distance from Melbourne:
Perth to Melbourne - 3,415.3km
Gold Coast to Melbourne - 1,718.6km
Brisbane to Melbourne - 1,676.1km

(distances from WhereIs.com.au)

He said its about the same. He hasn't actually got on the ground with a measuring tape yet.

 

[JoondalupJ]

It is almost laughable that clubs complain about traveling interstate. Supporters
bicker over who has travelled 4,5 or 6 times. Well let me tell you that interstate travel is irrelevant. You go interstate you win, you come home you win. Pretty simple really. Playing teams like Geelong, Carlton or Collingwood twice at the MCG is far tougher than any interstate game. It would be easier playing all the interstate teams at their home ground instead of six blockbusters at the G.
Clubs who complain about travel are the clubs who will continue to fail as they look for excuses before they begin. Interstate clubs who travel all the time must find the travel discussions so amusing.
Stop sooking about interstate travel, stop looking for excuses and go and win no matter where you play.

Thats all true if you win when you go away. Collingwood don,t get much chance to win away because they hardly ever travel.
Now having said that if you look at the Eagles in 2006 and then back to 92/94 then you,d see travel meant nothing to them. The Hawks the year before in 91 actually beat the Eagles in Perth in a final, the Eagles reversed that the next year, neither of those clubs worry about travel.
But having said all of that as well I wonder how the dear little maggies will go when they actually do have to travel all over the country rather than down the street.
At the moment they draw a crowd in Melbourne money for all ( well thats all the AFL cares about )travel or no travel I suspect there is a slight advantage to clubs who don,t travel much, or like Collingwood, hardly ever.

 

[Altum Volantes]

I see arguments for both, with the Vic sides effectively playing showdowns week in week out, and the non Vic teams playing interstate every 2nd week...

However, the effect on the body of travelling is a key factor, and the lost time every week... and there is a theory it affects players longetivity, as the WCE havent had a 300 game player yet...

WCE have had loads of 200+ gamers, more than most clubs over the years I'd guess.

300 used to be a much rarer milestone than it is today.

 

[PieBeast]

Thats all true if you win when you go away. Collingwood don,t get much chance to win away because they hardly ever travel.
Now having said that if you look at the Eagles in 2006 and then back to 92/94 then you,d see travel meant nothing to them. The Hawks the year before in 91 actually beat the Eagles in Perth in a final, the Eagles reversed that the next year, neither of those clubs worry about travel.
But having said all of that as well I wonder how the dear little maggies will go when they actually do have to travel all over the country rather than down the street.
At the moment they draw a crowd in Melbourne money for all ( well thats all the AFL cares about )travel or no travel I suspect there is a slight advantage to clubs who don,t travel much, or like Collingwood, hardly ever.

So us having one less interstate away game than Hawthorn is called "hardly ever travel" ? Interesting theory.....

 

[JoondalupJ]

In between the little girls having hissy fits at each other, here are some facts:

Since the Swans went to Sydney in 1982, there have been more than 2500 matches which have required a team to travel interstate. In amongst those there a many examples of great teams traveling to play against crap teams, crap teams traveling to play great teams, average teams traveling to play average teams, average teams traveling to play great teams, average teams travellng to play crap teams and whatever other combinations you like to think up.

Only 37% of those matches have been won by the team that did the traveling. And that 37% winning rate has been remarkably consistent over time.

It IS an advantage to be playing at home against a traveling team.

Of course, well said.

 

[Damon_3388]

He said its about the same. He hasn't actually got on the ground with a measuring tape yet.

150km difference is nowhere near "about the same". That's probably another 90 minutes to two hours if you're going by car (those distances given were along the ground, on the quickest road route), and probably another 20-30 minutes or so by plane.

 

[Chewy]

It is almost laughable that clubs complain about traveling interstate. Supporters
bicker over who has travelled 4,5 or 6 times. Well let me tell you that interstate travel is irrelevant. You go interstate you win, you come home you win. Pretty simple really. Playing teams like Geelong, Carlton or Collingwood twice at the MCG is far tougher than any interstate game. It would be easier playing all the interstate teams at their home ground instead of six blockbusters at the G.
Clubs who complain about travel are the clubs who will continue to fail as they look for excuses before they begin. Interstate clubs who travel all the time must find the travel discussions so amusing.
Stop sooking about interstate travel, stop looking for excuses and go and win no matter where you play.

There is already a 20 page thread all about Collingwood's lack of interstate travel (compared to other Victorian clubs.) But instead of posting "shut up, stop whinging" in that thread, you thought you'd start a whole new thread on the same subject, purely because you want everyone's attention. Okay, you got my attention. Well done. I'm bored, but congratulations.

I think it's reasonable for fans to question why Collingwood only ever travel 4 times per season, while other clubs travel 5 or 6 times every season. What about when GWS make it an 18 team comp next season? Each club will play 17 other clubs once and 5 teams twice. Will the AFL continue to schedule Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon to play against each other for two games every year? It is blatantly unfair if this continues in an 18 team comp.

And why is it that adult football fans are so fond of using the words, "sook" and "sooking"? I used these words back in grade 2 at primary school along with "smelly", "no backs" and "girl germs".

If someone wants to complain about the rigged AFL fixtures, who are you to be sooking and telling them to shut their pieholes? If you think arguments over the fixture are a waste of time, then don't read them. Don't start pointless new threads about it.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

What does the finals fixture have to do with playing interstate during the year. You played in Perth because West Coast outperformed your side throughout that year. Nothing to do with the AFL's scheduling at all. What is the point of posting this, other than having a cheap shot at another club and entering into a 'who is the bigger flog' contest? Seriously every thread turns into a St Kilda v Collingwood shitfight, it's pretty bloody tedious and boring.

As for your original point, you're absolutely right, travel is only an issue when you aren't good enough anyway. There is a slight advantage, but the non-Victorian sides are disadvantaged by this more than anyone.

On the other hand, the non-vic clubs also enjoy more of a home ground advantage than vic clubs do (With the exception of Geelong, of course). As an example, last year, Collingwood played their home game against WCE at the docklands. That was our home game, yet in both 2009 and 2010, WCE played the same number of games at the docklands as we did. So there was no home ground advantage for us. However, when we play them in Perth, that's a different kettle of fish. We play on a ground at which they have far more experience than we do.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

150km difference is nowhere near "about the same". That's probably another 90 minutes to two hours if you're going by car (those distances given were along the ground, on the quickest road route), and probably another 20-30 minutes or so by plane.

Difference by car is irrelevant to this discussion. Difference by plane is more like 10 minutes.