Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[Ambrose Burnside]

The Big Vic clubs?

Essendon haven't won a final in nearly 17 years - that is coming up on 8000 days. They haven't won a premiership in 24 years. They are a meme club at this point.

Richmond had a nice little 4 year run on the back of a generational player (Martin) and an innovative game plan that they almost lucked into due to injuries tp their key forwards. Prior to that they were a basket case who hadn't won anything in more than 35 years and who had at one point rattled tins to survive. Now the coach is gone, Dusty isn't far behind and they are last on the ladder with little to suggest anything but a long rebuild ahead.

Carlton are the worst performing club this century. No grand finals since 2000. 5 wooden spoons. A host of other miseries including this current decade long rebuild which looks like peaking with a lucky trip to the preliminary final, with two horrible season collapses either side.

Even Collingwood - the biggest and most powerful club in the land, right? The same club that has won 3 premierships in 66 years - and that includes last year. Most recent premeirship.run lasted two.years, now back to being a solid mid table.club. I guess Collingwood have managed to be better than average across the past 15 years, which cancels out being a massive underperformer for the previous half century.

I'm sorry, but as a supporter of a Big Victorian Club, when exactly is the Vicbias going to.kick in? And when it does, how will we know?

There are a lot of self-inflicted wounds there. I mean Jesus Christ you've listed the history of Carlton and Essendon there without mentioning the two gigantic elephants in the room.

 

[doppleganger]

Do you think Pendlebury playing a majority of his games at the MCG i'm assuming quite close to his house has had any bearing on him making it to 400 games?

No.

In the same way Shaun Burgoyne travelling 9-10 times a year had no bearing on him making it to 400 games.

It is a difference of 4-5 flights across 7 months, absolutely no impact.

 

[sr36]

There are a lot of self-inflicted wounds there. I mean Jesus Christ you've listed the history of Carlton and Essendon there without mentioning the two gigantic elephants in the room.

Stringer and who?

 

[sr36]

Yes, Barry Hall was allowed to play in the 2005 Grand Final against West Coast.

And if you listened to the Victorian Media during the 2005/06 Finals, Barry Hall was playing for South Melbourne, and it was Bloods culture that they drew on to get to the big dance two years in a row.

The 'blood's culture' thing was a Sydney Football Club thing.

 

[Freomaniac]

Nope, my point is pretty clear...ground advantage is the most important factor.


Yes a zero sum game between Melbourne teams (unless you want to get into minute argument where a team plays 9 games v 12 games is at a disadvantage).


No they are all different

Sydney have 11 SCG games, all 11 with home advantage
Port have 13 AO games, 11 with home advantage and 2 neutral
WC have 12 Optus games, 10 with home advantage
Gold Coast only get 9 games on the Gold Coast

And they dont even out, because Melbourne based teams dont get all their home games on their home deck. And it is the games against non-vic sides which are moved.

Port and Adelaide play 13 AO games, 11 with an advantage. They only play 10 games away from Adealide but only 9 are at the home ground of their opponent.

Advantage Adelaide and Port.

WC and Freo play 12 Optus games, 10 with an advantage. They play 11 away from Perth, but only 9 are at the home ground of their opponent.

Advantage WC and Freo.

Lets do Hawthorn

Hawthorn play 9 games at MCG, only 2 with any advantage against nonMelbourne teams. They play 11 away from Melbourne, but only 5 at the home ground of their opponent.

Not seeing much of an advantage

Lets do WB
Bulldogs play 12 games at Marvel, only 4 with an advantage against nonMelbourne teams. They play 9 away from Melbourne, but only 6 at the home ground of their opponent.

Not seeing any advantage for the Dogs either.

Yet the lazy VICBias position is it is the Hawks and Dogs who are advantaged by the fixture - despite Hawthorn travel more than the SA sides, and only actually get 2 games at the G with any home ground advantage.


Yeah, how ridiculous that Hawthorn can travel more than SA teams.

And small Melbourne clubs get no media exposure, unlike Sydney.

But keep up the lazy VICBias sook.

So Wait a minute.... You dont have any issues with facing Carlton and essendon twice each year at the MCG? Yet you dont want a 3rd team in WA and possibly a 4th team in WA?

Yet the AFL should investigate why Dockers and Eagles have 10 home game Advantages over the other 16 clubs?

But yet... If Collingwood faces a non Vic side in a grand final at the MCG, no issues there?

 

[Freomaniac]

You're logic does my head in. You ignore outcomes from thousands of events - yet think outcomes from 17 events are definitive proof.

Home and away results are the product of approximately 200 games a year. So over those 17 years about 3400 games or events have produced the ladder results. They've been really even and proportional for Vic and Non-Vic when looking at making finals, making top 4. Yet you insist that a heap of factors cause bias right throughout the home and away season ... Completely ignoring the outcomes from all those games

With Premierships - it's all about the outcomes for you, you've then cherry picked a sample size to try to show maximum bias towards Victoria. You've also included a couple of anomoulous seasons where the Vic clubs clearly weren't advantaged in the final series by any of the factors raised - so with your cherry picked sample it's really 13 of 15. For the first 5 of those 15 there were 10 vic teams to 6 Non-vic teams. Then for the next 10 it was 10 vic teams to 8 Non-Vic. Overall if it was a coin toss, in the long run you'd expect the outcome to average 9 to 6 in Victoria's favour. 13 to 2 is advantageous but not that far off and also a result that would pop up frequently in long run coin flipping.

Now let's look at it if the sample size is changed - I'm going to cherry pick a sample going back to 2001. Vics lead 13 to 8 in flags over those years. Now looking at respective numbers of teams in the comp during the relevant years - the outcome you'd expect to average is 12.4 flags to Vic 8.6 to Non-Vic ... Ridiculous close to what you'd expect if the results were purely unbiased chance.

All of that ignores the unfortunate reality (unfortunate for both Non-Vic and most Vic teams) that Geelong and Hawthorn had easily the best players for 3 out of the 4 flags they won each. And Richmond had tactics that were well ahead of the game for all 3 of theres. It's not a coin toss.

If you are gonna cherry pick stats from 2001 onwards fair enough. You are mainly Adding 2001-6 because every year a Non Victorian side won a grand final.

Yet you Victorians have no Issues about 2007 onwards.

So when Tassie gets the 19th side in 2028 and a 20th side gets in.... That means 10 Victorian sides and 10 Non Victorian sides.

 

[Freomaniac]

What was the conclusion of this mythical 'Royal Commission' you keep going on about?

2006 season was the season where the Prelim finalists were dockers, eagles, crows and swans. All 4 of them are the Non Vic sides.

Andrew Demitriou in 2007 launched an investigation on why the Victorian sides struggled.

Funny that. When Eagles and dockers were bottom 4 in 2001, no investiagtion was mentioned.

Point is if There is 2 non vic sides in the grand final, will there be an investigation?

 

[Freomaniac]

Between 1992 and 2006, non-vic sides won 10 of 15 Grand Finals despite making up only 37.5% of the teams in that time period (between 1992 and 1994 before Freo came in they made up only 33% of all teams)

Over those same 15 seasons they comprised 13 of the 30 sides that played in Grand Finals.

Even though Victorian sides have been more successful head-to head in recent times, the record since is still only 10-9 in head-to-head Grand Final match-ups at the MCG between Vic and non-vic teams. Essentially 50/50.

So if A Victorian side beats a non vic side every year from now until the end of this decade, no issues? Again.... Since 2007, Only 2 Non Vic sides beaten a Victorian side in a grand final. That was Swans beating Hawks in 2012 by 10 points and 2018 when Eagles beat magpies by under a goal.

Take those 2012 and 2018 grand finals out and its a shocking reading.

Again... I cant wait when we add 2 more non vic sides and we make it to 20 sides. Then we can see what the 1st 10 grand finals are when we have 20 AFL sides in the comp. 50 percent Vic teams and 50 percent non vic sides.

 

[Freomaniac]

You'll need to exclude 2008 from your stats then.

Stop Fat shaming Stewart Dew mate. lol

Glad you posted here. Again... Lets bring in 2 more non vic sides in the AFL to make it 10 vic clubs and 10 non vic clubs. Then we will see about your poxy views on Percentages.

 

[Freomaniac]

I think I'd know. I go to the Grand Final every year. You don't. There wouldn't have been a single match where any team had less than 30% of the support. And as I said, 30% is enough to ensure no one has any significant advantage,

When a Vic team plays a non-Vic team the record is 10-9, showing there is no advantage over a sample size of over 30 years. I'm not in denial of anything. I deal with the facts, I look at the empirical evidence and I make measured rational observations.

If you play the victim you'll never achieve anything in life.

Again... Bring in Tassie and another non victorian side. 10 non vic sides and 10 Vic sides.

Then we see how those 10 grand finals pan out with 20 AFL clubs. If it still proves that the Vic sides get more of the flags, will you be happy to be proven wrong?

 

[Freomaniac]

You do realise they dont actually use H&A rankings for finals match-ups after week 1? If you beat minor premier, you just take their spot.

In 2015 the PF were 1v3 and 2v8, if 3rd is good enough to beat 1st on the road why dont they earn the right to host?

In 2016, Sydney lost their home QF to the Giants. The Bulldogs then beat GWS in Sydney in the PF, why do Sydney deserve to host the GF?

If awarding a GF to a home team, would need a shake-up of finals series and have a reutrn to a 2nd semi style game where 1st plays 2nd, winner gets the home GF.

So ignoring those 2 when minor premier was beaten, it is 3-3 where more teams mentally not showing up, Sydney in 2014 when they did in 2012.

Well 1st off that 1st vs 3rd argument.

Freo were 1st and hawks were 3rd.

Dockers were struggling in the 2nd half of that season. Hawks had depth in every line. Hawks kicked 15.4.94 to dockers 10.7.67. Hawks playing squad was much superior to the dockers regardless where the game was played.

 

[Grin]

2006 season was the season where the Prelim finalists were dockers, eagles, crows and swans. All 4 of them are the Non Vic sides.

Andrew Demitriou in 2007 launched an investigation on why the Victorian sides struggled.

Funny that. When Eagles and dockers were bottom 4 in 2001, no investiagtion was mentioned.

Point is if There is 2 non vic sides in the grand final, will there be an investigation?

So no Royal Commission? Cooker myth busted
What was the outcome of this investigation?

Love you FM, and acknowledge that Victorians really haven't worked hard enough to win your club premierships they haven't earned, but feel entitled to.
Which ones should the V-AFL take off other clubs and donate to Freo?

 

[Freomaniac]

So no Royal Commission? Cooker myth busted
What was the outcome of this investigation?

Love you FM, and acknowledge that Victorians really haven't worked hard enough to win your club premierships they haven't earned, but feel entitled to.
Which ones should the V-AFL take off other clubs and donate to Freo?

Look... Hold on.

Why Victorian clubs can't win

www.brisbanetimes.com.au

I would not technically call it an investigation. But Andrew Demitrou did about this. He talked about struggling victorian clubs. Papa G was technically right.

 

[peetoo]

2006 season was the season where the Prelim finalists were dockers, eagles, crows and swans. All 4 of them are the Non Vic sides.

Andrew Demitriou in 2007 launched an investigation on why the Victorian sides struggled.

Funny that. When Eagles and dockers were bottom 4 in 2001, no investiagtion was mentioned.

Point is if There is 2 non vic sides in the grand final, will there be an investigation?

Did anything come of the investigation!

 

[doppleganger]

So Wait a minute.... You dont have any issues with facing Carlton and essendon twice each year at the MCG? Yet you dont want a 3rd team in WA and possibly a 4th team in WA?

???
What a random leap.
There is no advantage to either team in a Collingwood v Carlton game.

Who cares if they add another WA team, what does that have to do with anything?

Yet the AFL should investigate why Dockers and Eagles have 10 home game Advantages over the other 16 clubs?

No investigation needed, they know this as it was AFLHouse Policy to take ground advantage from Melbourne based teams.

But yet... If Collingwood faces a non Vic side in a grand final at the MCG, no issues there?

After getting advantage through H&A, and weeks 1-3 of finals, time to switch it over to let people get to the GF.

 

[doppleganger]

Well 1st off that 1st vs 3rd argument.

Freo were 1st and hawks were 3rd.

Dockers were struggling in the 2nd half of that season. Hawks had depth in every line. Hawks kicked 15.4.94 to dockers 10.7.67. Hawks playing squad was much superior to the dockers regardless where the game was played.

Again agree with you, Hawks were the best team in 2015.

But their dud of a H&A fixture meant that the two underserving WA teams finished above them on the H&A ladder.

That is normal practice, the nonMelbourne teams get looked after during H&A season, but then lose home finals to stronger Melbourne based teams who finish lower on the H&A ladder because they lose "home" games that they are forced to play at neutral venues.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Did anything come of the investigation!

Not sure if it was a direct result of the investigation, but the Eagles (and Dockers) used to have a fixture like Home, Away, Home etc. Makes sense, yeah? So once a year we'd get Home, Away (derby), Home. That doesn't happen any more, we get Home, Away (derby), Away instead.

And an extra away game (Gather Round) has been added to the season too.

 

[Dan26]

Again.... Since 2007, Only 2 Non Vic sides beaten a Victorian side in a grand final. That was Swans beating Hawks in 2012 by 10 points and 2018 when Eagles beat magpies by under a goal.

So? Over the 15 years from 1992-2006, Vic sides met Non-Vic sides 8 times, and non-Vic sides won 7 of them. Kangaroos in 1996 were the only team to buck the trend.

I'm not going to use that 15 year period to cherry pick, nor should you cherry pick the period from 2007.

Take those 2012 and 2018 grand finals out and its a shocking reading.

Why is it "shocking" reading? Are you biased or something and hate all the team from one state? The only thing that should "shock" or "sadden" you is your own club, not the 17 others and that should be the same with any other supporter.

And using your own logic against you....Take out Kangaroos 1996 out of the equation and no Victorian side beats a non-Vic side from 1992-2006. Is that "shocking" too?

Again... I cant wait when we add 2 more non vic sides and we make it to 20 sides. Then we can see what the 1st 10 grand finals are when we have 20 AFL sides in the comp. 50 percent Vic teams and 50 percent non vic sides.

What is Gods name are you talking about? What has the proportion of Vic sides in the league got to do with the record of Vic teams versus non-Vic teams in Grand Finals?????????????????????????

We are talking about when a Victorian side HAPPENS to play against a non-Victorian side in a Grand Final. This discussion is not about how many teams are in the league. More non-Vic teams in the AFL might ensure less Vic teams win premierships but it will not change the likelihood of a Victorian teams winning when they play a non-Victorian side in the Grand Final. That record is 10-9 since 1992, and all the available data over a sample size of three decades prove there is no advantage to anyone when a Victoria side meets a non-Victorian side.

Stop cherry picking and stop being biased. You are the very thing yourself that you accuse others of being.

 

[p4p1]

So? Over the 15 years from 1992-2006, Vic sides met Non-Vic sides 8 times, and non-Vic sides won 7 of them. Kangaroos in 1996 were the only team to buck the trend.

I'm not going to use that 15 year period to cherry pick, nor should you cherry pick the period from 2007.





Why is it "shocking" reading. Are you biased or something and hate all the team from one state? The only thing that should "shock" or "sadden" you is your own club, not the 17 others and that should be the same with any other supporter.

And using your own logic against you....Take out Kangaroos 1996 out of the equation and no Victorian side beats a non-Vic side from 1992-2006. Is that "shocking" too?




What is Gods name are you talking about? What has the proportion of Vic sides in the league got to do with the record of Vic teams versus non-Vic teams in Grand Finals?????????????????????????

We are talking about when a Victorian side HAPPENS to play against a non-Victorian side in a Grand Final. This discussion is not about how many teams are in the league. More non-Vic teams in the AFL might ensure less Vic teams win premierships but it will not change the likelihood of a Victorian teams winning when they play a non-Victorian side in the Grand Final. That record is 10-9 since 1992, and all the available data over a sample size of three decades prove there is no advantage to anyone when a Victoria side meets a non-Victorian side.

Stop cherry picking and stop being biased. You are the very thing yourself that you accuse others of being.

Well we know why in the first period you highlighted those interstate teams won. And we know they would’ve been even more dominant if they got to play at home instead.
The eagles side during the early-mid 90s was amazing and IMO it was a failure from Malthouse to ‘only’ get two premiership's. That side was constructed because the VFL had raided the WAFL before the eagles were allowed to sign WAFL players. The eagles list management decided to recruit young promising players with the idea of building the team into a dynasty through youth. So because of a bias in the inception of allowing interstate teams in the eagles arguably changed drafting forever to focus on youth. It was one of the strongest teams ever assembled.
Adelaide came in 91 before the eagles ever took the cup away from Victoria and so were able to sign some of the best players from the SANFL which was still a very strong comp at the time. They did miss out on a few though such as Darren Jarman who was signed by Hawthorn before Adelaide were able to sign anyone (sound familiar)
Those two sides became great sides because of some oversight and arrogance on the VFLs side. They wanted the money, not the results to go the way of the non-vic sides.
When the VFL realised their mistakes and the dockers (and later port) were given licenses to come in, look at how, the dockers especially, were set up to fail by the AFL.
Those two sides are responsible for 4 of the 7 victories.
Let’s get to the Lions.
Brisbane may have been the worst set up club of all of the AFL entries. Again the VFL wanted the money not for the club to be successful. So in the 90s Robert Wall comes in and drafts some serious talent. Which built the nucleus of what would become the Lions 3peat teams, I think it’s about 11-12 players. It completely destabilised the club and we went from playing in a prelim in 96 to scraping into the 8 with a negative record in 97 and finishing last in 98 despite trading some players in. Matthews saves us from holding up the ladder and immediately turns us around using that Bears nucleus he builds one of the greatest teams assembled. Brisbane go on their three peat.

The interstate dominance was built on some arrogance from the VFL in the 80s/90s, a new style of recruiting from the eagles, and some excellent recruiting from some great coaches. It wasn’t lack of bias that allows that to happen. For that record to be 7-1, 3 non Victorian teams assembled 3 of the strongest lists in the games history. Once those oversights were corrected by the AFL, non Victorian teams are finding it much harder to build the talent to overcome the disadvantages of half of the games teams being centralised in one small state.

 

[peetoo]

So after the so called enquiry after 2006 to boost vic clubs chances nothing strategic was changed.

Apart from the addition of gws and Gold Coast. But unrelated.

So now the question being pondered is the reverse, non success of non vic clubs.

So why should anything be changed ? There are hints the cycle is turning anyway

 

[p4p1]

So after the so called enquiry after 2006 to boost vic clubs chances nothing strategic was changed.

Apart from the addition of gws and Gold Coast. But unrelated.

So now the question being pondered is the reverse, non success of non vic clubs.

So why should anything be changed ? There are hints the cycle is turning anyway

Except the initial causes of non Victorian success had been removed. IE the eagles building a great squad by being forced to be able to identify young elite talent after their elite mature talent had all been poached. SANFL was obviously a shadow and the crows no longer had the option of building a team as they did originally from the SANFL. So the rules already implemented to even up the recruiting aspect of the competition as it turned truely national were going to stop sides like WCE and BL building a ‘super team’.

The biggest and it is a fair knock on the Lions is that they can’t win at the MCG and that’s all that matters when it comes to winning premierships. But having to play a team on their home ground in what should be a neutral final make it much more difficult, not just because of the ground itself but not sleeping in your own bed etc. things that we already know impact.

 

[Freomaniac]

Did anything come of the investigation!

Nope because a Victorian side won the grand final in 2007

 

[Freomaniac]

So after the so called enquiry after 2006 to boost vic clubs chances nothing strategic was changed.

Apart from the addition of gws and Gold Coast. But unrelated.

So now the question being pondered is the reverse, non success of non vic clubs.

So why should anything be changed ? There are hints the cycle is turning anyway

Ok so lets add 2 new Non Vic sides in the comp and make it 20 sides. Once we have 10 vic sides and 10 non vic sides in the AFL, Find out if the Victorian sides still dominate like they have done from 2007-2023.

 

[Freomaniac]

???
What a random leap.
There is no advantage to either team in a Collingwood v Carlton game.

Who cares if they add another WA team, what does that have to do with anything?


No investigation needed, they know this as it was AFLHouse Policy to take ground advantage from Melbourne based teams.


After getting advantage through H&A, and weeks 1-3 of finals, time to switch it over to let people get to the GF.

Who cares about Adding another WA side. What does that have to do with anything?

Adding another WA club means the dockers and eagles have another derby. Sure another "neutral" game in WA But one less away game to travel to.

But I guess you dont understand that... Having 2 games vs Carlton and essendon every year prior to 2010.

 

[Freomaniac]

Again agree with you, Hawks were the best team in 2015.

But their dud of a H&A fixture meant that the two underserving WA teams finished above them on the H&A ladder.

That is normal practice, the nonMelbourne teams get looked after during H&A season, but then lose home finals to stronger Melbourne based teams who finish lower on the H&A ladder because they lose "home" games that they are forced to play at neutral venues.

Crows were the best side in 1997 and 1998 despite both Saints and North Melbourne finished top of the ladder in 1997 and 1998.

While you are at it, you Explained a Dud of a home and away Fixture. Didnt Richmond in 2019 won a flag playing 6 or 7 MCG games in a row before finals?

Also how does Non Vic sides get looked after during the home and away season?

Heres a beauty for you. Freo made finals in 2010. guess how many MCG games they had in the regualr season? none....

Well they had one game, it was in a semi final vs the cats. Funny that. The dockers could not get familiar with the MCG. lol