Autopsy The Stats Don’t Lie: VicBIAS By The Numbers - An Empirical Analysis

[Go the Guts]

Oh dear. The game wasn't even close. Plus, there is no deliberate conspiracy, just the umpires suffering unconscious bias, and deliberately vague rules set by the AFL to maintain outrage.

Lol. Not close after Adelaide were denied the sizeable lead they would have had early with fair umpiring.
They never had a chance.

Aside from the eternal Vic bias factor - Adelaide finished top, won both their finals (in any other true national league on the planet they would have had a home GF) yet had to play the GF at the home ground of their opposition. Vic bias incarnate.

 

[Danw0w]

Lol. By the law of averages, one team will do it every now and then. But more often, they won't be able to overcome the extreme vic bias.

Non-vic sides won 10/17 flags up until the end of 06 (afl era).

So this recent run of vic sides winning it is just law of averages bro

 

[Danw0w]

One of many Victorian teams that have been umpired to flags after a very long drought over the last decade.

Lol are the umpires responsible for +30 possessions or something? You guys got flogged get over it

 

[Freomaniac]

That 2017 GF video just makes me fume. Such ******* bias that day we may as well have never bothered to turn up.
One of many Victorian teams that have been umpired to flags after a very long drought over the last decade.

Next in line are Carlton and St. Kilda. God help any non-victorian side that comes up against either of them on GF day. It's a foregone conclusion.

Any intelligent football follower (from any state) knows Victorian bias isn't just a thing, it's the ONLY thing keeping the AFL from being a respected and TRULY national sport.

No Doubt some decisions went Richmonds way. The Eddie Betts one at 3 minutes and 15 seconds. That should of been a free kick directly infront.

2 minutes to go at half time. Crows trail 30-40. Betts would of slotted a set shot directly infront. Betts kicks that, Crows trail 36-40 at half time with some momentum.

Knowing how some Non vic sides have fared at half time trailing by a small margin, it wouldnt of suprised me for the crows to burst into the 3rd quarter kicking 4 or 5 goals to richmonds 1. So go from one goal down to 2 or 3 goals up at 3 quarter time. That wouldnt of been beyond the crows.

 

[Freomaniac]

Non-vic sides won 10/17 flags up until the end of 06 (afl era).

So this recent run of vic sides winning it is just law of averages bro

and If Brisbane or Port make the grand final and gets smacked by a victorian side again?

 

[Danw0w]

and If Brisbane or Port make the grand final and gets smacked by a victorian side again?

So be it. The Victorian contenders are pretty damn good and would beat most sides in the comp, including the other Victorian teams.

 

[Do the Dew]

That 2017 GF video just makes me fume. Such ******* bias that day we may as well have never bothered to turn up.
One of many Victorian teams that have been umpired to flags after a very long drought over the last decade.

Next in line are Carlton and St. Kilda. God help any non-victorian side that comes up against either of them on GF day. It's a foregone conclusion.

Any intelligent football follower (from any state) knows Victorian bias isn't just a thing, it's the ONLY thing keeping the AFL from being a respected and TRULY national sport.

Hahahaha that video was the most cherry picked bunch of "errors" I've ever seen. Only reason someone made it was to capitalize on the 2016 version.

As for bias, non-vic sides have a better chance of winning the flag than Vic sides do. Since 2000:

• 46% of Vic sides make the top 8 and 23% make the top 4 (irrespective of when GC and GWS were in the comp)
• 56% of non-Vic sides make the top 8. This drops to 49% when you include GC and GWS who were obviously lambs to the slaughter in their first few years. Regardless this number is still better than the Vic average
• 29% of non-Vic sides make the top 4 which drops to 25% when including GC and GWS

You have to make finals to win the flag, and you really need to make top 4 to win the flag. The average non-Vic side makes finals in a higher percentage than the average Vic side.

Non-Vic bias confirmed.

 

[Freomaniac]

So be it. The Victorian contenders are pretty damn good and would beat most sides in the comp, including the other Victorian teams.

Papa G , your thoughts mate?

 

[rmcq]

Lol. Not close after Adelaide were denied the sizeable lead they would have had early with fair umpiring.
They never had a chance.

Aside from the eternal Vic bias factor - Adelaide finished top, won both their finals (in any other true national league on the planet they would have had a home GF) yet had to play the GF at the home ground of their opposition. Vic bias incarnate.

Oh dear. I was at the game, were you? I was standing with 2 Crows supporters. One of them was like you: everything was the umpires’ fault. But after half time the Crows just fell apart and cracked under the immense pressure the coaching staff had put them under over the prior few weeks, and an opposition given the freedom to just enjoy themselves. 100% the fault of your coaching staff who took years more to learn their mistakes.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

If the name of the game is to cherry pick free kicks as examples of "Vic bias"



Whoops. Anyone can put together a youtube video of free kicks, put on a tinfoil hat and assume there's an AFL directive for their team lose. Or you can accept umpires some time make mistakes and get on with life.

 

[Papa G]

Papa G , your thoughts mate?

Wrote this on another thread but it applies here....

Given the inherent bias in the system, a non Vic side must be between 5 and 15% better side or just be incredibly lucky. Sometimes crazy stuff goes your way. West Coast's defeat of Collingwood is a prime example. The risks and clutch goals they took, plus actually getting a dubious decisoin go their way was a combination of luck and skill. And only then did they win by less than a kick. West Coast were the only non MCG tennant in the top 5 that year. A remarkable effort but an outlier in the extreme. Whilst the Vic Government do love the "interstaters" coming over and spending exhorbitant dollars in the state, I'm sure old Dan would have had a quiet word to Gill telling him to make sure that doesn't happen too often old Chum.

 

[Do the Dew]

Wrote this on another thread but it applies here....

Given the inherent bias in the system, a non Vic side must be between 5 and 15% better side or just be incredibly lucky. Sometimes crazy stuff goes your way. West Coast's defeat of Collingwood is a prime example. The risks and clutch goals they took, plus actually getting a dubious decisoin go their way was a combination of luck and skill. And only then did they win by less than a kick. West Coast were the only non MCG tennant in the top 5 that year. A remarkable effort but an outlier in the extreme. Whilst the Vic Government do love the "interstaters" coming over and spending exhorbitant dollars in the state, I'm sure old Dan would have had a quiet word to Gill telling him to make sure that doesn't happen too often old Chum.

Only 1 non-Vic team in the top 4? That is an outlier. Usually there's at least 2. This also doesn't take into account Geelong who reap the home ground advantage benefits of a non-Vic club but don't have to travel much.

Stats would be skewed far more towards non-Vic clubs having a greater chance of making top 4 and top 8 if you removed Geelong from the Vic clubs list. Even if you include the Cats as a Vic club, non-Vic teams make top 4 and top 8 on a higher percentage than Vic clubs, at least since 2000. And this includes Gold Coast and GWS who were horrible for their first few years (GC still horrible).

 

[Papa G]

Only 1 non-Vic team in the top 4? That is an outlier. Usually there's at least 2. This also doesn't take into account Geelong who reap the home ground advantage benefits of a non-Vic club but don't have to travel much.

Stats would be skewed far more towards non-Vic clubs having a greater chance of making top 4 and top 8 if you removed Geelong from the Vic clubs list. Even if you include the Cats as a Vic club, non-Vic teams make top 4 and top 8 on a higher percentage than Vic clubs, at least since 2000. And this includes Gold Coast and GWS who were horrible for their first few years (GC still horrible).

Since the Royal Commission only twice has there been more Non Vic than Vic clubs in the top 4. 2012 and 2015. In the same time frame the Vics have outnumbered the Non Vics 6 times.

 

[ElectricG]

That 2017 GF video just makes me fume. Such ******* bias that day we may as well have never bothered to turn up.
One of many Victorian teams that have been umpired to flags after a very long drought over the last decade.

Next in line are Carlton and St. Kilda. God help any non-victorian side that comes up against either of them on GF day. It's a foregone conclusion.

Any intelligent football follower (from any state) knows Victorian bias isn't just a thing, it's the ONLY thing keeping the AFL from being a respected and TRULY national sport.

Far out I hadn’t actually seen this. One can easily predict the excuse for it: “bro you lost by like 50 points you can’t blame the umpiring”. That’s BS. I see it as being like our round 2 game this year. The umpires sent a clear message in Q1 that one team is allowed to compete for the ball and the other isn’t, and you’re going to see a flogging.

 

[mr bagcroft]

That 2017 GF video just makes me fume. Such ******* bias that day we may as well have never bothered to turn up.
One of many Victorian teams that have been umpired to flags after a very long drought over the last decade.

Next in line are Carlton and St. Kilda. God help any non-victorian side that comes up against either of them on GF day. It's a foregone conclusion.

Any intelligent football follower (from any state) knows Victorian bias isn't just a thing, it's the ONLY thing keeping the AFL from being a respected and TRULY national sport.

Dude the earth is FLAT did you know ?!

 

[Freomaniac]

Wrote this on another thread but it applies here....

Given the inherent bias in the system, a non Vic side must be between 5 and 15% better side or just be incredibly lucky. Sometimes crazy stuff goes your way. West Coast's defeat of Collingwood is a prime example. The risks and clutch goals they took, plus actually getting a dubious decisoin go their way was a combination of luck and skill. And only then did they win by less than a kick. West Coast were the only non MCG tennant in the top 5 that year. A remarkable effort but an outlier in the extreme. Whilst the Vic Government do love the "interstaters" coming over and spending exhorbitant dollars in the state, I'm sure old Dan would have had a quiet word to Gill telling him to make sure that doesn't happen too often old Chum.

Swans in the 2012 grand final were lucky too. Hawks kicked 11.15.81.

Hawks were lucky to make the grand final. Crows could of beaten them

 

[Go the Guts]

Far out I hadn’t actually seen this. One can easily predict the excuse for it: “bro you lost by like 50 points you can’t blame the umpiring”. That’s BS. I see it as being like our round 2 game this year. The umpires sent a clear message in Q1 that one team is allowed to compete for the ball and the other isn’t, and you’re going to see a flogging.

Exactly.

 

[Caligo]

Swans in the 2012 grand final were lucky too. Hawks kicked 11.15.81.

Hawks were lucky to make the grand final. Crows could of beaten them

I do think we were clearly the better team against Adelaide. But gosh tippet was terrifying that day.

 

[Danw0w]

Wrote this on another thread but it applies here....

Given the inherent bias in the system, a non Vic side must be between 5 and 15% better side or just be incredibly lucky. Sometimes crazy stuff goes your way. West Coast's defeat of Collingwood is a prime example. The risks and clutch goals they took, plus actually getting a dubious decisoin go their way was a combination of luck and skill. And only then did they win by less than a kick. West Coast were the only non MCG tennant in the top 5 that year. A remarkable effort but an outlier in the extreme. Whilst the Vic Government do love the "interstaters" coming over and spending exhorbitant dollars in the state, I'm sure old Dan would have had a quiet word to Gill telling him to make sure that doesn't happen too often old Chum.

Does your maths account for the fact that non-vic sides get double the home games that Victorian sides do?

 

[PowerBaz]

2023 Toyota AFL Premiership Cup Tour route announced

www.afl.com.au

National comp apparently….

 

[PowerBaz]

Does your maths account for the fact that non-vic sides get double the home games that Victorian sides do?

Lets have a look at Collingwood 2023.

They get more games at the MCG than Port get to play at Adelaide Oval.

Port get on a plane 10 times for the other games Collingwood 6.

The other games Collingwood play, they sleep in their bed and drive to the end of Collins street, it's a fair advantage considering the GF is played on the G.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Lets have a look at Collingwood 2023.

They get more games at the MCG than Port get to play at Adelaide Oval.

Port get on a plane 10 times for the other games Collingwood 6.

The other games Collingwood play, they sleep in their bed and drive to the end of Collins street, it's a fair advantage considering the GF is played on the G.






View attachment 1792939

Now let's look at an advantage Port get.
How many millions of $ do they get that other teams don't?

I don't know how we can stop Collingwood from playing teams like Richmond at the G when Richmond have the home ground, but it would be very easy for the AFL to stop the Port payments.

 

[PowerBaz]

Now let's look at an advantage Port get.
How many millions of $ do they get that other teams don't?

I don't know how we can stop Collingwood from playing teams like Richmond at the G when Richmond have the home ground, but it would be very easy for the AFL to stop the Port payments.

hahahaha now we have turned it into a financial thing?

Here's the complete list.

Revealed: Where your club sits on AFL’s $276m ladder... and who’s getting the most help

Where your club sits on AFL’s $276m ladder as league’s wealth divide explained

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[LoungeLizard]

hahahaha now we have turned it into a financial thing?

Here's the complete list.

Revealed: Where your club sits on AFL’s $276m ladder... and who’s getting the most help

Where your club sits on AFL’s $276m ladder as league’s wealth divide explained

www.foxsports.com.au

Yeah, you think you deserve more than others?
Do you think that's fair?

If you want everything to be fair, well let's go the whole hog.

Adelaide come from the same state you do and they don't get the payouts you get, why should they lose money to keep you afloat?

 

[jim boy]

I love stats.

Throw me any team* and I will prove to you with stats that the AFL is being controlled by a cabal of shadowy parties determined to make said team win/lose/relocate

*Dont