Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[doppleganger]

Traveling to play at a ground you play at multiple times a year and have the home ground familiarity with as a second home ground is not the same as travelling to play away.

Travel is travel!

Hawthorn play outside of Melbourne 11 times in 2024, Port play outside of Adelaid3 just 10 times.

From a travel perspective their is no disadvantage to Port.

Don’t claim they don’t have a home ground advantage in Tassie when they clearly still maintain that. Just because they choose to hop on a plane doesn’t mean that just disappears. Keep shifting those goal posts though.

They do have a home ground advantage, the ground advantage is more important than travel - that is the point.

It is also why playing 4-5 "away" games at the same venue is easier then the one game at Cat Park, as teams become familiar with the ground.

It is why Melbourne based teams have been dudded, as AFL House policy reduced ground advantage for Melbourne based teams.

The results are clear, the teams who have a strong home ground advantage dominate H&A ladder.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Travel is travel!

Hawthorn play outside of Melbourne 11 times in 2024, Port play outside of Adelaid3 just 10 times.

From a travel perspective their is no disadvantage to Port.

They do have a home ground advantage, the ground advantage is more important than travel - that is the point.

It is also why playing 4-5 "away" games at the same venue is easier then the one game at Cat Park, as teams become familiar with the ground.

It is why Melbourne based teams have been dudded, as AFL House policy reduced ground advantage for Melbourne based teams.

The results are clear, the teams who have a strong home ground advantage dominate H&A ladder.

You claimed that teams that travel for a home ground lose their home ground advantage. See those goal posts moving.

It is the teams who shift their home game to those locations and miss out on home ground advantage, and instead have to travel for a home game who are the teams who are dudded.

That’s completely disproven by the fact the Hawks most successful ground is in Tasmania. A home game they travel for. Therefor, they certainly maintain their home ground advantage while travelling.

When the Roos played at Manuka, that was their second most successful ground. Home ground advantage maintained.

The Dogs in Ballarat, significantly higher winning percentage there than at Marvel.

None of these teams are losing their home ground advantage by choosing to travel and play elsewhere.

I couldn’t give a stuff about who and when teams jump on a plane. They are always going to have to and it’s geography. Can’t change that however you can change the fact teams like the Pies never travel to GMBHA and so on.

However claiming the the poor Vics are losing their advantage when they choose to play home games elsewhere is completely misleading. It’s attempting to deflect from the fact there is inbuilt bias with a primary example being that the GF is locked in Victoria for a lifetime to come.

Instead of acknowledging this, you’d rather throw mud at the wall to try and dismiss these biases by claiming oh look over here and let’s ignore what’s over there.

 

[sr36]

You claimed that teams that travel for a home ground lose their home ground advantage. See those goal posts moving.

That’s completely disproven by the fact the Hawks most successful ground is in Tasmania. A home game they travel for. Therefor, they certainly maintain their home ground advantage while travelling.

When the Roos played at Manuka, that was their second most successful ground. Home ground advantage maintained.

The Dogs in Ballarat, significantly higher winning percentage there than at Marvel.

None of these teams are losing their home ground advantage by choosing to travel and play elsewhere.

I couldn’t give a stuff about who and when teams jump on a plane. They are always going to have to and it’s geography. Can’t change that however you can change the fact teams like the Pies never travel to GMBHA and so on.

However claiming the the poor Vics are losing their advantage when they choose to play home games elsewhere is completely misleading. It’s attempting to deflect from the fact there is inbuilt bias with a primary example being that the GF is locked in Victoria for a lifetime to come.

Instead of acknowledging this, you’d rather throw mud at the wall to try and dismiss these biases by claiming oh look over here and let’s ignore what’s over there.

Gold Coast in Darwin further evidence of your point.

But are you sure you're not playing into Doppleganger's hands? - This suggests that the travel component of home ground advantage is overblown.

P.S. Dogs to Ballarat isn't really travelling. Not much different to Geelong to Melbourne.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Gold Coast in Darwin further evidence of your point.

But are you sure you're not playing into Doppleganger's hands? - This suggests that the travel component of home ground advantage is overblown.

P.S. Dogs to Ballarat isn't really travelling. Not much different to Geelong to Melbourne.

Oh I don’t think the physical travelling component actually makes much difference. Most of the time it’s 45 minutes on a plane to Melbourne (from Ports perspective).

Of course for the WA clubs they will have a couple 4+ hour flights but that’s geographical and can’t be changed.

The only frustrating part which involves travel, is like last year where we get scheduled to play a final interstate (earnt by that club so no issue with the actual travel) but they schedule it at a time knowing we can’t return the same day. Then the next week, the higher ranking team ends up with a shorter break.

Anyway that’s a seperate thing. I’m disputing the claims where it was stated that playing home games away from your home ground means you miss out on your HGA. That’s false. The stats back that up.

The travel component means little. The home ground familiarity is what counts. That’s why the MCG GF is such an advantage. It’s not because we get on a plane for 45 minutes.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

I’m just about done with this, you present no argument other than, “nah I’m right.”

Thats a shame, .shotties. is obviously right so you could learn a thing or 2 from hangin' round.

 

[sr36]

Oh I don’t think the physical travelling component actually makes much difference. Most of the time it’s 45 minutes on a plane to Melbourne (from Ports perspective).

Of course for the WA clubs they will have a couple 4+ hour flights but that’s geographical and can’t be changed.

The only frustrating part which involves travel, is like last year where we get scheduled to play a final interstate (earnt by that club so no issue with the actual travel) but they schedule it at a time knowing we can’t return the same day. Then the next week, the higher ranking team ends up with a shorter break.

Anyway that’s a seperate thing. I’m disputing the claims where it was stated that playing home games away from your home ground means you miss out on your HGA. That’s false. The stats back that up.

The travel component means little. The home ground familiarity is what counts. That’s why the MCG GF is such an advantage. It’s not because we get on a plane for 45 minutes.

I agree totally when it's a regular second home. Tassie has been great for the Hawks. No one will get near GC in Darwin when you factor in climate as well as familiarity.

Dees playing one offs in Alice probably is giving up an advantage though.

 

[doppleganger]

You claimed that teams that travel for a home ground lose their home ground

Of course it must be a disadvantage compared to playing at preferred home ground.

As we are informed that being away from your family, sleeping in hotels, not being able to spend months on end at home is meant to be a huge disadvantage for a team like Sydney.

But travel 10-11 times isnt a disadvantage for Hawthorn or North??

Good to know the VICBias complaints are consistent.

That’s completely disproven by the fact the Hawks most successful ground is in Tasmania. A home game they travel for. Therefor, they certainly maintain their home ground advantage while travelling.

You also need to consider opponents. Hawthorn rarely plays an opponent at the G where they enjoy any ground advantage at the G, as their opponent is also familiar (more familiar in many games) with the ground.

That is the genius in Hawks move, instead of having their low drawing games shunted to Marvel, a ground almost ALL clubs are familiar with (Port play their what an avg of 3 times per year and have a better winning % at Marvel than AO) they play at a ground that only they are familiar with, actually giving them a ground advantage over their opponent.

It is the ground advantage that is more important.

Melbourne ground rationilsation has meant teams like Port and Sydney are familiar at Marvel, they have 70% win records. Just like Hawthorn going to Tassie for 4 games, the travel isn't an issue and they play at a ground they are familiar with unlike GABBA, SCG, Optus, Cat Park where teams usually go once a year maximum.

The Dogs should push for 4-5 in Ballarat to get them an even bigger familiarity advantage, playing 1 or 2 games doesnt really enforce any ground familiarity advantage.

None of these teams are losing their home ground advantage by choosing to travel and play elsewhere.

Geelong and Hawthorn have been successful because they play games at grounds where they enjoy a home ground advantage...they are actually creating a ground advantage by moving games from Marvel back to Cat Park or shifting them to Tassie.

It is the Melbourne based teams like Essendon/Carlton who are dudded they dont get any real ground advantage anywhere.

The most disadvantaged clubs are the small Melbourne/Marvel teams.

However claiming the the poor Vics are losing their advantage when they choose to play home games elsewhere is completely misleading. It’s attempting to deflect from the fact there is inbuilt bias with a primary example being that the GF is locked in Victoria for a lifetime to come.

Instead of acknowledging this, you’d rather throw mud at the wall to try and dismiss these biases by claiming oh look over here and let’s ignore what’s over there.

It is just pointing out the flaw in the lazy VICBias "good faith" argument put forth by entitled Sydney fans.

Travel is a red herring, and it is only really relevant to WA teams v the rest. It is not a VIC v non-vic like they pretend to make it, as some VIC clubs travel just as much.

Ground advantage is the biggest factor, always has been, and it seems you agree with me that the majority of the VICBias "good faith" sooking is redundant.

 

[blue harvest]

That’s completely disproven by the fact the Hawks most successful ground is in Tasmania. A home game they travel for. Therefor, they certainly maintain their home ground advantage while travelling.

We retain the ground familiarity advantage in Tassie but lose some advantage by also having to travel.

And our good record there is somewhat due to us generally playing the crapper teams. For example once Freo came good and got to the GF I remember we played them in Melbourne the next season, same after we played Eagles in the GF and this year we got Brisbane in Melbourne rather than Tassie. I remember playing Carlton down there too when they were crap, but no chance now they are good.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

And our good record there is somewhat due to us generally playing the crapper teams. For example once Freo came good and got to the GF I remember we played them in Melbourne the next season, same after we played Eagles in the GF and this year we got Brisbane in Melbourne rather than Tassie. I remember playing Carlton down there too when they were crap, but no chance now they are good.

**** me.

 

[sr36]

**** me.

It's actually quite good - the better non-vic and docklands teams get Hawks at the G which is good as you want them to have MCG familiarity for finals. Doesn't matter as much for the crap ones.

 

[Carringbush2010]

They don't want things to change.

Speaking for myself I didn't want an expanded vfl in the first place. I didn't want that change, and if you're Fitzroy or South Melbourne supporter you definitely didn't want the change that happened to those clubs.

I get it was necessary

I'd rather the vfl just be the vfl with the original vic clubs, and the wa fans follow the wafl with just the wafl clubs and the sa fans just follow the sanfl with just the sanfl clubs.

But we've got we've got, I don't like it anymore than you do. The difference is I don't have choice to just dump the league, our clubs are in this league, non vic fans have choice, they have their top tier leagues to follow if they wish.

I've suggested eleventy billion times that non vic fans, if they're so disenfranchised should vote with your feet and remotes, but they don't, they just perpetually whinge and push for change like culling vic clubs.

Why is it so important to follow this league that you have disdain for?

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Speaking for myself I didn't want an expanded vfl in the first place. I didn't want that change, and if you're Fitzroy or South Melbourne supporter you definitely didn't want the change that happened to those clubs.

I get it was necessary

I'd rather the vfl just be the vfl with the original vic clubs, and the wa fans follow the wafl with just the wafl clubs and the sa fans just follow the sanfl with just the sanfl clubs.

But we've got we've got, I don't like it anymore than you do. The difference is I don't have choice to just dump the league, our clubs are in this league, non vic fans have choice, they have their top tier leagues to follow if they wish.

I've suggested eleventy billion times that non vic fans, if they're so disenfranchised should vote with your feet and remotes, but they don't, they just perpetually whinge and push for change like culling vic clubs.

Why is it so important to follow this league that you have disdain for?

And go where?

The AFL arent going to cut Port, Adelaide, WC and Freo overnight now are they.
They arent losing 2 games per week from their TV deal.
So who exactly would we be watching, the watered down SANFL sides?

You know damn well no matter how many vote with their feet/remotes it wont change a bloody thing.

Its just typical Vic arrogance, cant handle an even playing field because the thought of not being no1 dents your pride.
The whingefest from your greats in 07 underlines it.

 

[JackOutback]

The difference is I don't have choice to just dump the league, our clubs are in this league

Um, my club is in this league too.

 

[Taper]

2006 is the better reality.

In H&A Sydney finished 4th, WC finished 1st.

Sydney went to Perth and beat WC in QF1.

Sydney had the week off and the won a home PF1 to qualify for GF.
WC had to go the long way, winning SF, and then won an away PF2 to qualify for the GF.

And the GF was a rematch of the QF1 which Sydney won.

Who "earnt" the right to a home GF?

Was it the higher ranked H&A team WC, or the team that won QF1 and then also won PF1 in Sydney?

What about 2015?
West Coast beat Hawthorn in the qualifying final after finishing higher on the ladder, yet Hawthorn were the 'home' team in the grand final.

 

[LoungeLizard]

What about 2015?
West Coast beat Hawthorn in the qualifying final after finishing higher on the ladder, yet Hawthorn were the 'home' team in the grand final.

It's because Hawthorn beat Freo in the prelim who were the top ranked side.

Have a look at 2003, Collingwood beat Brisbane in the QF yet in the GF Brisbane were the home side, that's because they beat Sydney who took over from Port as #1 rank.

 

[doppleganger]

What about 2015?
West Coast beat Hawthorn in the qualifying final after finishing higher on the ladder, yet Hawthorn were the 'home' team in the grand final.

In 2015 the PFs were

Freo (1st in H&A) v Hawks (3rd in H&A)
WC (2nd in H&A) v North (8th in H&A)

Why didnt the "higher ranked H&A" team Freo get the "easier" PF?

The point is H&A rankings aren't used for any match-ups after week 1, teams go into set brackets, H&A rankings are redundant in current finals system.

But the VICBias wowsers think that after not being used to determine match-ups in week 2 or week 3, that all of a sudden H&A rankings are relevant again!??

 

[doppleganger]

It's because Hawthorn beat Freo in the prelim who were the top ranked side.

Have a look at 2003, Collingwood beat Brisbane in the QF yet in the GF Brisbane were the home side, that's because they beat Sydney who took over from Port as #1 rank.

If they were to actually award the GF venue to a team, would need to change the finals structure.

Somehow try and hark back to final 5 / 4 models where 1st plays 2nd earlier in the finals, which effectively was to determine the easy path to the GF, so update it to be about which gets to play a home PF to host the GF.

 

[Carringbush2010]

And go where?

To your state league.

The AFL arent going to cut Port, Adelaide, WC and Freo overnight now are they. all these clubs have teams in their state leagues

All these clubs have teams in their state leagues, so no they wouldn't be cut.

You know damn well no matter how many vote with their feet/remotes it wont change a bloody thing.

If every non vic supporter abandoned the AFL then ...............

Its just typical Vic arrogance, cant handle an even playing field because the thought of not being no1 dents your pride.
The whingefest from your greats in 07 underlines it.

It's got nothing to do with 'vic arrogance', like I said our league was expanded, we didn't want that, and yes of course it was necessary at the time.

As I've also pointed out, vic fans aren't going to abandon their clubs, but they have no choice but to accept the current expanded VFL. So it's got zero to do with 'vic arrogance' it's about not having choice, whereas non vic fans do have a choice between this expanded vfl or their state leagues.

But you won't, for some reason you'll all stick phat with a league you all constantly whinge about 'vic bias'.

I would really like to know what those reason are.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Um, my club is in this league too.

And it's in the wafl too, where you don't have vic bias, why not just follow that instead?

Same with port and ade in the sanfl, and peel is the wafl affiliate of Freo.

 

[LoungeLizard]

If they were to actually award the GF venue to a team, would need to change the finals structure.

Somehow try and hark back to final 5 / 4 models where 1st plays 2nd earlier in the finals, which effectively was to determine the easy path to the GF, so update it to be about which gets to play a home PF to host the GF.

I used to think it should be changed.
Now I hope they never change it, let the sooks sook I say, I couldn't care less any more.

Even if it were to change and never again to be played in Victoria, I can guarantee they would still think they were hard done by.
Can't wait for the AFL to announce the new 50 year extension to the MCG contract

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

As I've also pointed out, vic fans aren't going to abandon their clubs, but they have no choice but to accept the current expanded VFL.

Your choice was either expand and acccept a national league or go broke.

You’re saying you would have preferred it stayed a state league and gone bust?

Including Collingwood who were on the scrap heap financially?

So who exactly would you be following now in that scenario?

 

[JackOutback]

And it's in the wafl too, where you don't have vic bias, why not just follow that instead?

Same with port and ade in the sanfl, and peel is the wafl affiliate of Freo.

Collingwood have a team in the VFL, so not really sure what point you think you’re making here.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Your choice was either expand and acccept a national league or go broke.

You’re saying you would have preferred it stayed a state league and gone bust?

Including Collingwood who were on the scrap heap financially?

So who exactly would you be following now in that scenario?

Like I've repeatedly stated, the expansion was necessary.

>Now< it wouldn't be necessary and every remaining vic club >now< has enough public support to survive in a vfl that just has vic clubs.

>Now< Every vic fan has no choice but to accept the current expanded vfl, whereas every non vic fan can follow their current or any other club in their state league, they have choice.

So I'll ask the question again, why is so important to follow a league that you all complain about all the time? Why not just follow your club in a league that doesn't have 'vic bias'?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Collingwood have a team in the VFL, so not really sure what point you think you’re making here.

Well I suppose every vic fan could follow their club in the vfl, if we all did that, then guess what? the vfl would be bigger than the afl.

You and I both know that isn't going to happen anyway.

The point I'm making, which I've stated repeatedly, why is it so important that non vic fans must follow a league that has 'vic bias' and incessantly complain about? Why not just follow the wafl instead? No vic bias. Win win!

 

[LoungeLizard]

Your choice was either expand and acccept a national league or go broke.

You’re saying you would have preferred it stayed a state league and gone bust?

Including Collingwood who were on the scrap heap financially?

So who exactly would you be following now in that scenario?

Not the AFL, that's for sure, myself I would just be following my local league.
I seriously can't understand how anyone could jump off a club they followed all their life to follow a new club.

Port supporters, fair enough, young people fair enough, but older people, no idea why.

I can honestly say, if Victoria started 2 new clubs to join the AFL and Collingwood stayed in the VFL, I would still follow Collingwood and no-one in the AFL