The Perth travel myth

Remove this Banner Ad

how is that a reasonable idea, though? should clubs be able to buy a better fixture?



don't disagree that there is improvement available here. could be even better if teams were willing to fund better travel arrangements? eg travelling to melbourne, tassie or sydney would be the same if they had their own plane.



what about freo!? won't someone think of the dockers!? :p
I agree, re Freo, though I am unaware if they get as bad a run. So far WC have travelled 5 odd thousand more km, though I am unsure about short breaks.

Clubs already sell home games. The AFL also schedule away games at another clubs home venue, so teams at MCG v Collingwood to maximise takings.

How is buying a home game different?

Finally, why should WC lose a few hundred thousand of it's spending cap, to fix a problem the AFL create. Likewise, it is a less significant change than a reasonable draw.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

And this does not contradict my point.

Bar Cousins, why did we lose so many players?

Why have injuries at both clubs been such an issue to key figures? Many of the players you listed were injured in key seasons, so the clubs fell away or spent long periods injured, hence their age of retirement.

Pav is the exception.

What does this have to do with travel?

Daniel Wells is constantly injured, so is Jarrad Waite... Dayne Beams has missed more than a season over the last 4, Adam Cooney hasn't played a full or decent season for about 7 years. Injuries happen at every club.

Gold Coast fell in a giant hole when Gary Ablett busted his shoulder, but it wasn't because he was traveling more playing at a Queensland club or because he was 30 - it's because he was tackled by Brent Macaffer and hit the ground which could happen to any player. I think you're looking for something that isn't really there.
 
I think it has a significant impact on recovery, which acrues over time.

WC have looked exhausted all year and not managed to get out of second gear with the shortened pre-season.

Interestingly, the AFL does nothing to mitigate the travel factor and still gives WC away games in Brisbane, or Tasmania.

They showed a graphic and WC had thousands more km traveled than even Fremantle.

For a comparison, WC had 33,000, WBD had 2,000.

When you look at the home ground advantage the WBD have, with umpiring every bit as favorable as WC's, plus many more home games a year, it is frustrating that the AFL does so little to minimise short breaks or long trips for the side and sits as a distinct disadvantage.

What a load of the proverbial.
 
Yeah ok, so it's just that little bit of extra travel time that makes all the difference then?
Makes sense now.
Pav must be just a freak.
He is and it is a huge difference.

1 hour trip from Sydney post match, means you can return and go through recovery in the ice baths etc. and do a full routine.

WC either have to stay a day and push back their schedule, especially in NSW, or aren't able to do proper recovery that evening. There is a massive drop off in efficacy of recovery, over short periods. Each hour or even minutes count post match.

The other is East coast sides have the genuine option of later same day travel, this option isn't really viable for sides that have to travel 3.5+ hours by plane min, for anywhere outside of Adelide.

But why are you arguing, your side hardly travels and when it does, your president and many supporters get wound up.
 
He is and it is a huge difference.

1 hour trip from Sydney post match, means you can return and go through recovery in the ice baths etc. and do a full routine.

WC either have to stay a day and push back their schedule, especially in NSW, or aren't able to do proper recovery that evening. There is a massive drop off in efficacy of recovery, over short periods. Each hour or even minutes count post match.

The other is East coast sides have the genuine option of later same day travel, this option isn't really viable for sides that have to travel 3.5+ hours by plane min, for anywhere outside of Adelide.

But why are you arguing, your side hardly travels and when it does, your president and many supporters get wound up.
We aren't talking about my side, but now you bring them up, maybe you could put in a argument for us, when you lodge yours to the AFL
We have had so many injuries the past few years, i am sure we travel too much.
 
RE: the Bulldogs travel it's a quirk of the fixture.

They travel 4 times for the year (GWS, Port, Sydney, Freo) plus a trip to Geelong (which only non-Vic and low profile clubs do) which is light on for km traveled but not many teams would be putting their hand up for two trips to Sydney this year. Vic teams generally travel 3-5 times per year. I certainly don't begrudge the Dogs having a light year, they used to do the Perth double all the time not long ago.
 
What you gain in home ground advantage you lose in away game travel. The Eagles have 10 home 10 away 2 neutral. Arguably (very arguably) it shortens careers but it does not affect performance during the year. Its a convenient excuse when your having a bad year though.

Victorian clubs like the Dogs dont get more home games. Its not a home game if your opponent is also a Victorian club Vic clubs get (approx) 4 away 4 home and 18 neutral. Except the Cats, they have a special home ground advantage.

Yoru logic is bollocks is flawed and your cliched reply by somehow making this about Eddie Maguire for reasons I cannot fathom means your probabaly not worth bothering with.
 
What does this have to do with travel?

Daniel Wells is constantly injured, so is Jarrad Waite... Dayne Beams has missed more than a season over the last 4, Adam Cooney hasn't played a full or decent season for about 7 years. Injuries happen at every club.

Gold Coast fell in a giant hole when Gary Ablett busted his shoulder, but it wasn't because he was traveling more playing at a Queensland club or because he was 30 - it's because he was tackled by Brent Macaffer and hit the ground which could happen to any player. I think you're looking for something that isn't really there.
How many players have WC had exceed 250 games? Since our inception, it would be lowest significantly surely over that period, with the only challengers being sides near the bottom of the ladder for extended periods.

My point is, all clubs get injuries, yet there has never been a WC side like Geelongs, Hawthorns, NM's, WBD late 00 etc. which has fielded experienced or key players, with consistency and post success for long periods. Fremantle crossed into the top bracket in terms of age, then fell dramatically. The same happened post 06.

You are angling for the staunch, travel doesn't matter etc. etc. But if recovery wasn't important why do clubs invest so much?
 
What you gain in home ground advantage you lose in away game travel. The Eagles have 10 home 10 away 2 neutral. Arguably (very arguably) it shortens careers but it does not affect performance during the year. Its a convenient excuse when your having a bad year though.

Victorian clubs like the Dogs dont get more home games. Its not a home game if your opponent is also a Victorian club Vic clubs get (approx) 4 away 4 home and 18 neutral. Except the Cats, they have a special home ground advantage.

Yoru logic is bollocks is flawed and your cliched reply by somehow making this about Eddie Maguire for reasons I cannot fathom means your probabaly not worth bothering with.
Not even close.

Firstly, NM, WBD etc. still travel far less. Get more games at their home ground typically. And since when have North or WBD not have had very favorable home town umpiring? Their have been complaints this year for WBD, and for years for NM.

The teams with the best situation though are those with two home grounds.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RE: the Bulldogs travel it's a quirk of the fixture.

They travel 4 times for the year (GWS, Port, Sydney, Freo) plus a trip to Geelong (which only non-Vic and low profile clubs do) which is light on for km traveled but not many teams would be putting their hand up for two trips to Sydney this year. Vic teams generally travel 3-5 times per year. I certainly don't begrudge the Dogs having a light year, they used to do the Perth double all the time not long ago.
So, you don't begrudge the Dogs, because they had to do an onerous two Sydney trips, yet disagree that WC need more consideration considering they do 10 trips per year often far further?
 
What you gain in home ground advantage you lose in away game travel. The Eagles have 10 home 10 away 2 neutral.

The argument Victorian clubs used to make is that traveling back from Perth impacts recovery and performance the next week. There was a stat once on On The Couch or a similar program about the win rate of returning Victorian teams being 20% or something like that. How valid this is I don't know but this is what the WA clubs deal with 20 times a year - not once or twice.

The counter to this argument on BigFooty is usually 'yeah but you are used to it' which shows the level of debate that goes on here. It's either a thing that affects everyone or it's not a thing.
 
Historical individual game tallies are irrelevant to how teams are perfoming on a week to week basis.
Not at all, it is evidence West Coast and Fremantle (bar Pav), often have trouble playing fit, experienced lists with continuity.

Your form week to week will drop off, if you constantly lose experience to injury, or early retirement.
 
So, you don't begrudge the Dogs, because they had to do an onerous two Sydney trips, yet disagree that WC need more consideration considering they do 10 trips per year often far further?

How many times each Victorian club travels and to where is limited.

8 non-Vic clubs x 10 home games per club = 80 games to be shared around 16 potential opponents, or 5 per team. I mean there are 20 games in WA each year that aren't derbies - it's not possible for every other team to visit twice let alone feasible.
 
The argument Victorian clubs used to make is that traveling back from Perth impacts recovery and performance the next week. There was a stat once on On The Couch or a similar program about the win rate of returning Victorian teams being 20% or something like that. How valid this is I don't know but this is what the WA clubs deal with 20 times a year - not once or twice.

The counter to this argument on BigFooty is usually 'yeah but you are used to it' which shows the level of debate that goes on here. It's either a thing that affects everyone or it's not a thing.
So, you agree?
 
How many times each Victorian club travels and to where is limited.

8 non-Vic clubs x 10 home games per club = 80 games to be shared around 16 potential opponents, or 5 per team. I mean there are 20 games in WA each year that aren't derbies - it's not possible for every other team to visit twice let alone feasible.
That is true, but there is flexibility to limit how much WC travels to say Tassie, or GC.
 
Clubs already sell home games. The AFL also schedule away games at another clubs home venue, so teams at MCG v Collingwood to maximise takings.

How is buying a home game different?

honestly, i only study 1 team's fixture so can't bring much to the overall narrative. that 1 team though sold home games that merely shifted from melb => launceston. if you're saying you want to sell perth games for adelaide instead though, go nuts? (but im sure that's not what you're saying.)

allowing teams to buy an increase in # of home games just seems a bit off to me.
 
Not at all, it is evidence West Coast and Fremantle (bar Pav), often have trouble playing fit, experienced lists with continuity.

Your form week to week will drop off, if you constantly lose experience to injury, or early retirement.
Every team in the AFL will have the same trouble at some time.

West Coast are 1 of the power clubs of the AFL.
Since you have come into the league, you are 1 of the most successful clubs.

All i see in your argument is a huge whinge.
 
How many players have WC had exceed 250 games? Since our inception, it would be lowest significantly surely over that period, with the only challengers being sides near the bottom of the ladder for extended periods.

My point is, all clubs get injuries, yet there has never been a WC side like Geelongs, Hawthorns, NM's, WBD late 00 etc. which has fielded experienced or key players, with consistency and post success for long periods. Fremantle crossed into the top bracket in terms of age, then fell dramatically. The same happened post 06


We have 7 250 gamers plus Cousins who played 238/270 with us.
Brisbane have 8 plus Aker, Johnson, Lynch, Roger Merrett who played some or most of their games at Brisbane.
Adelaide have 8.
Freo have 2.
Port have 2 plus Chad Cornes, Shaun Burgoyne, Wakelin and Wanganeen.

For players debuting 1987 or later Geelong who you brought up have 10 plus Ablett. WB have 7 plus Lake who finished off at Hawthorn and Aker who played most of his career at Brisbane.

The difference isn't as stark as you'd think.

You are angling for the staunch, travel doesn't matter etc. etc. But if recovery wasn't important why do clubs invest so much?

I'll decide what I'm angling, thanks.

St Kilda fell in a hole after making GFs. Western Bulldogs fell in a hole after making PFs. Collingwood fell in a hole after making GFs, made more GFs then fell in a hole again. Travel?
 
Clubs like Collingwood are disproportinately favored, with a rediculos number of games at their home.

I can't imagine the crying if Collingwood had to travel to Blacktown, Tassie, Brisbane and maybe WA twice.
Collingwood only actually get 9 home games at our home ground, the G. We are forced to play two 'home' games at Etihad.

Collingwood travel 5 times which is standard for the Vic teams...we have 11 away games and there are 9 vic sides and 8 non-vic so a 6 vic and 5 non-vic is bang on.

We go to Blacktown most years, also Sydney and Brisbane most years...ie the places the AFL is trying to promote the game. We arent fixtured Perth twice because the WA teams dont need the crowds.

When we are fixtured as the away team v Melbourne, Richmond, Hawthorn, Essendon, Carlton where do you expect the game to be played if not at the G?

A serious sook from somebody who cant see the forest for the trees.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Perth travel myth

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top