Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[Dan26]

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.

What the hell has that got to do with anything. Games against other Victorian teams are neutral. There is no advantage playing them. We were at home on Anzac Day and had literally no advantage.

 

[Dan26]

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.

What does this statement even mean? Obviously Victorian teams will win less premierships if they make up only 50% of the teams, than if they make up 55.5% of the teams like they do now. DUH! And the point you're making is what? You have no point. You're just a rambling biased individual, that is so overtly biased that you treat the Victorian clubs as if they are one entity. They are not. They are all different, with different cultures, histories and identities. You don't understand that because you are biased with hatred towards them and see them - wrongly - as one entity.

You're stuck in the past with this 1980's "Victoria vs everyone else" rubbish.

The issue we were discussing was that when a Victorian team plays a non-Victorian team in the Grand Final, the record is almost exactly 50-50. Sure, if Victorian teams make up a smaller percentage of teams there is less likelihood of them making the Grand Final, but in the event they do, the likelihood of winning it VERSUS a non-Victorian team would remain about 50-50 as over 30 years of Grand Finals have proved. We have a 30-year sample size that proves this

 

[doppleganger]

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.

Again, who cares?

Ground advantage is the biggest factor.

 

[doppleganger]

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

98 they lost a final when 5th, they should have been eliminated from finals.

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?

2019, when Richmond went a won the QF up in QLD at the GABBA?

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

They get more games with a ground advantage over their opponent.

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

You are complaining you got to not play at Geelong's home ground?

Having a laugh surely.

 

[Dan26]

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.

So you're statement here basically says that they only reason the non-Victorian sides won from 1992-2003 was because they were "super sides", and if they were somehow just a normal premiership side, then normal Victorian dominance would resume.

What utter crap. What total and utter crap.

All premiership sides are super sides to some extent, but some of those teams that won premierships from 1992-2003 were not dominant at all (by premiership standards),

Adelaide, for crying out loud, won only 13 home and away games in 1997 and 1998, and beat the Victorian minor-premiers in both seasons. Adelaide of both 1997 and 1998 are regarded as among the weakest premiership sides of all time. Name a weaker one of modern times?

West Coast of 1992 and 1994 were very good sides but still lost 6 games both years.

Brisbane of 2001-2003 were good obviously but never had a percentage of more than 136%, never lost fewer than 5 games, never finished minor-premiers, and in 2003 lost 8 matches including a final.

Compare those sides to the super Geelong sides that had percentage of around 160%, Essendon 2000, Collingwood 2010 etc were superior.

The reality is that over the years there have been great non-Victorian sides, and there have been great Victorian sides. And when they meet in the Grand Final, the record is about 50-50 over 30 years.

This biased victim crap needs to stop. You guys are the biased ones. Look at yourselves with your cherry-picked stats, and flawed narratives based on outdated 1980's "interstate versus Victoria" thinking. The very bias that you accuse others of, YOU are that very thing yourself. It's utterly pathetic,

 

[Freomaniac]

Again, who cares?

Ground advantage is the biggest factor.

Well then relocate and play home games at Alice Springs of you want a home ground advantage lol

 

[doppleganger]

Well then relocate and play home games at Alice Springs of you want a home ground advantage lol

Herp derp

AFL House policy shunted the Melbourne clubs into two grounds.

If Fremantle think travelling is so onerous, relocate and base yourself somewhere else.

 

[Freomaniac]

Herp derp

AFL House policy shunted the Melbourne clubs into two grounds.

If Fremantle think travelling is so onerous, relocate and base yourself somewhere else.

Doesn't make sense for Freo to relocate to Victoria. So we become a Docklands tenant? LoL.

So magpies get 14 or 15 or 16 games in Victoria or MCG .... No issues for you.

Crows and Port have 13 games at Adelaide oval.... It's an injustice lol

 

[doppleganger]

Doesn't make sense for Freo to relocate to Victoria. So we become a Docklands tenant? LoL.

Join Geelong at CatPark, at least you win finals there.

So magpies get 14 or 15 or 16 games in Victoria or MCG .... No issues for you.

All 11 of our home games should be at the G, they aren't currently thanks to AFL House policy.

Our 11 away games, couldn't give a shit where they should be played. But as 8/17 clubs are Melbourne based, a random fixture would see us play on avg 5 away games in Melbourne.

So yes 16 is minimum expectation.

Of the 16, we normally only get 4 or 5 where we have any actual ground advantage over our opponent.

We always get a minimum of 5 games with a ground disadvantage.

Crows and Port have 13 games at Adelaide oval.... It's an injustice lol

Yeah, 11 of the 13 they have a ground advantage.

They then normally only get 9 games away at the actual home ground of opponent where they face an ground disadvantage.

Ground advantage is most important, Port will ride their luck to another top4 finish.

 

[Waspy79]

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.

Matt Stevic ensured Hawthorn won the 2015 preliminary final. Hawthorn were undeserving grand finalists and premiers in 2015 that played a team which deserved to be hosting the grand final on Hawthorn’s home ground. I do not recognise the 2015 (or 2014, 2016 or 2017) premierships.

Also, for good measure, #freekickhawthorn

 

[Freomaniac]

Join Geelong at CatPark, at least you win finals there.


All 11 of our home games should be at the G, they aren't currently thanks to AFL House policy.

Our 11 away games, couldn't give a shit where they should be played. But as 8/17 clubs are Melbourne based, a random fixture would see us play on avg 5 away games in Melbourne.

So yes 16 is minimum expectation.

Of the 16, we normally only get 4 or 5 where we have any actual ground advantage over our opponent.

We always get a minimum of 5 games with a ground disadvantage.


Yeah, 11 of the 13 they have a ground advantage.

They then normally only get 9 games away at the actual home ground of opponent where they face an ground disadvantage.

Ground advantage is most important, Port will ride their luck to another top4 finish.

Port didn't ride their luck to a top 4 finish. The Port Adelaide footy club made finals despite Ken Hinkley as coach. LoL

 

[p4p1]

So you're statement here basically says that they only reason the non-Victorian sides won from 1992-2003 was because they were "super sides", and if they were somehow just a normal premiership side, then normal Victorian dominance would resume.

I didn’t say the only reason why they won, I said the reason why they were dominant in that period, which they were. From 92-03 won 8 of the 12 premierships. In 92 there were 4 non vic sides, by the end of 03 that had grown to 6. So 37% yet had won like 60% of the premierships.

What utter crap. What total and utter crap.

All premiership sides are super sides to some extent, but some of those teams that won premierships from 1992-2003 were not dominant at all (by premiership standards),

Adelaide, for crying out loud, won only 13 home and away games in 1997 and 1998, and beat the Victorian minor-premiers in both seasons. Adelaide of both 1997 and 1998 are regarded as among the weakest premiership sides of all time. Name a weaker one of modern times?

A weak team doesn’t beat the 98 North Melbourne team by 5 or 6 goals.

West Coast of 1992 and 1994 were very good sides but still lost 6 games both years.

Backline consistent of Jakovich, McIntosh, Worsefold, McKenna and Brennan.
Wing team of Matera and Mainwaring.
Sumich was an underrated FF not many ahead of him on an average goals per game basis. He was surrounded by a bunch a decent amount of talent in Heady, Lewis etc.
not sure why losing 6 games matters, footy is played to win premierships, not finish on top of the ladder, which they did in 94 anyway.
If the Eagles weren’t considered a sort of super team, why were they consistently referred to as a state side? Like 50% of the team ended up in the state team. They were an excellent team.

Brisbane of 2001-2003 were good obviously but never had a percentage of more than 136%, never lost fewer than 5 games, never finished minor-premiers, and in 2003 lost 8 matches including a final.

Yeah the team that won 3 grand finals and made 4 in 4 years, playing MCG tenants in their winning grand finals is only ‘good’

Compare those sides to the super Geelong sides that had percentage of around 160%, Essendon 2000, Collingwood 2010 etc were superior.

That Geelong side is one of the greatest ever assembled. That super Essendon side you are talking about was comprehensively beaten by the only ‘good’ Brisbane side of 2001.

The reality is that over the years there have been great non-Victorian sides, and there have been great Victorian sides. And when they meet in the Grand Final, the record is about 50-50 over 30 years.

This biased victim crap needs to stop. You guys are the biased ones. Look at yourselves with your cherry-picked stats, and flawed narratives based on outdated 1980's "interstate versus Victoria" thinking. The very bias that you accuse others of, YOU are that very thing yourself. It's utterly pathetic,

I didn’t give stats, I said how the sides were created that won multiple premierships during that period. It is a fact that the VFL and the VFL teams were worried about the Eagles forming a strong side full of WA’s best players who would like to come home. So all the best WAFL players were signed up to VFL teams before which forced the Eagles to sign up young promising players over established WAFL players. The Eagles then built an incredible list which netted them 3 grand finals and 2 premierships. The 91 Eagles side finished top of the ladder with a percentage of 162% which is apparently your metric for a great team. They lost at home to the Hawks and then had to travel for every final after for 3 weeks in a row despite finishing 1st. With less travel, one has to wonder how the 91 season turns out for the Eagles. 30+ years ago, they were still trying to figure out how to manage air travel.


Adelaide did use the SANFL to build a back to back premiership team, that is undeniable.

Brisbane built a core group through some excellent recruiting and some very gifted zone selections. They then used some excellent trading, and had one of the greatest ever coaches to pull the team together.

Those are the reasons for the 7 non Victorian premierships in the 90s, whether by design or not, and I suspect it was not by design, the mechanisms both of those teams used to build their core groups were no longer an avenue they could no longer use.
The evidence of the AFL not wanting to have Freo and Port become another Eagles and Adelaide is laid bare in the rules they had to follow for recruitment etc when building their teams.

 

[peetoo]

Matt Stevic ensured Hawthorn won the 2015 preliminary final. Hawthorn were undeserving grand finalists and premiers in 2015 that played a team which deserved to be hosting the grand final on Hawthorn’s home ground. I do not recognise the 2015 (or 2014, 2016 or 2017) premierships.

Also, for good measure, #freekickhawthorn

Tough. Meanwhile in the real world….

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Ground advantage is most important, Port will ride their luck to another top4 finish.

Interesting, must have been the ground advantage at GMBHA, or Marval against the Blues or that dreaded ground advantage at the G against Melbourne that got us top 4.

Or perhaps it will be our advantage at Optus tomorrow depending how that goes.

The AFL really should look into that and not schedule us at those grounds. Can’t be having that advantage after all.

Lose those games and we’re out of the 8…. But that doesn’t suit here.

 

[blue harvest]

Matt Stevic ensured Hawthorn won the 2015 preliminary final. Hawthorn were undeserving grand finalists and premiers in 2015 that played a team which deserved to be hosting the grand final on Hawthorn’s home ground. I do not recognise the 2015 (or 2014, 2016 or 2017) premierships.

Also, for good measure, #freekickhawthorn

Sheridan dropped that mark, not Stevic.

In 2015 Hawks travelled interstate the same number of times as the Eagles and one more than Freo, beat both of them in finals and beat both of them at Subi. Very worthy premiers.

 

[Colonial]

I don’t think we all understand that while how great the ladder looks with the non Vics overcoming the fishbowl.
The AFL will now have an inquiry into how they can make sure that the big Vic clubs get there.
Looking forward to the Pies etc leaving Victoria only once.

 

[Colonial]

What the hell has that got to do with anything. Games against other Victorian teams are neutral. There is no advantage playing them. We were at home on Anzac Day and had literally no advantage.

There is when they are supposed to be an away game.

 

[Dan26]

There is when they are supposed to be an away game.

It's also when it's supposed to be a home game. Hence it balances out. There is no home ground advantage for the home team, and no away ground disadvantage for the away team.

 

[Colonial]

It's also when it's supposed to be a home game. Hence it balances out. There is no home ground advantage for the home team, and no away ground disadvantage for the away team.

Until we also add travel and the automatic home state GF.

 

[Dan26]

Until we also add travel and the automatic home state GF.

You guys don't get it.

Yes, you travel more, but you also HOST travelling teams more.

For example, my club travels 6 times this year. We host only 6 games against a travelling opponents. The other 12 games are neutral. 6 minus 6 equal net travel advantage of zero.

Someone like Freo, for instance travels to an opponents home ground 10 times. They host a travelling team 10 times (10 mins 10 equal zero)

The other three game are neutral. Two versus West Coast and on in gather round where both they and Carlton travel to a neutral ground.

You are not victims. Stop pretending you are. You're just a bunch of biased sooks. YOU lot are the biased ones. That's the great irony here.

 

[Colonial]

You guys don't get it.

Yes, you travel more, but you also HOST travelling teams more.

For example, my club travels 6 times this year. We host only 6 games against a travelling opponents. The other 12 games are neutral. 6 minus 6 equal net travel advantage of zero.

Someone like Freo, for instance travels to an opponents home ground 10 times. They host a travelling team 10 times (10 mins 10 equal zero)

The other three game are neutral. Two versus West Coast and on in gather round where both they and Carlton travel to a neutral ground.

You are not victims. Stop pretending you are. You're just a bunch of biased sooks. YOU lot are the biased ones. That's the great irony here.

Wait, you literally wrote the away and home advantages balance each other out with the neutral games.
Now you are changing it to include the travel hardship and the automatic home state GF?

I would say you don’t get it but I know you do.
You are holding back the comp, just like the media, living the dream of the VFL.

Edit. Which is amusing in a sick way because most of the VFL media talk up about trying to be the NFL of Australia but can’t get out of their own state based suburban comp life.

 

[Dan26]

Wait, you literally wrote the away and home advantages balance each other out with the neutral games.
Now you are changing it to include the travel hardship and the automatic home state GF?

What are you talking about? Read what I wrote. Closely.

The Victorian teams travel games are low but they are balanced out almost exactly by the times the host a travelling team (Essendon this year has 6 travel games, and host to a travelling teams 6 times). And on top of that there are 12 neutral games.

Freo travel to an opponents home ground 10 times (9 actually because Alice Springs is a neutral game). They host a travelling team 10 times. They have 3 neutral games, versus the Eagles twice and gather round (really 4, because Alice Springs is neutral versus Melbourne)

There is no evidence whatsoever that Grand Final day with the crowd relatively evenly split that there is any sort of advantage with a close to 50% win rate for non-Vic sides over the last 30 years versus Victorian sides.

You are not a victim. Stop sooking over nothing.

 

[JackOutback]

Suggesting teams like 90s West Coast, Adelaide and Brisbane didn’t have to become super sides to overcome the disadvantage of travel and away grand finals because they lost a couple more games H&A and therefore weren’t super sides is next level delusion. They lost a couple of extra games across the journey precisely because of the disadvantage of travel.

If Geelong or Essendon had the travel schedule of West Coast, they wouldn’t have had 21-1 seasons.

 

[Colonial]

What are you talking about? Read what I wrote. Closely.

The Victorian teams travel games are low but they are balanced out almost exactly by the times the host a travelling team (Essendon this year has 6 travel games, and host to a travelling teams 6 times). And on top of that there are 12 neutral games.

Freo travel to an opponents home ground 10 times (9 actually because Alice Springs is a neutral game). They host a travelling team 10 times. They have 3 neutral games, versus the Eagles twice and gather round (really 4, because Alice Springs is neutral versus Melbourne)

There is no evidence whatsoever that Grand Final day with the crowd relatively evenly split that there is any sort of advantage with a close to 50% win rate for non-Vic sides over the last 30 years versus Victorian sides.

You are not a victim. Stop sooking over nothing.

That fishbowl has some glazed over glass.

 

[Dan26]

Suggesting teams like 90s West Coast, Adelaide and Brisbane didn’t have to become super sides to overcome the disadvantage of travel and away grand finals because they lost a couple more games H&A and therefore weren’t super sides is next level delusion. They lost a couple of extra games across the journey precisely because of the disadvantage of travel.

If Geelong or Essendon had the travel schedule of West Coast, they wouldn’t have had 21-1 seasons.

What a crock of shit.

All premiership sides are super sides to some extent. That's why they are premiership sides. DUH!

The 7 non-Victorian sides that won premierships from 1992-2003 were all good sides, but not any more so than than the Great Geelong sides , Collingwood of 2010, Essendon 2000 Hawthorn from 2013-15 etc.

Adelaide in both 1997 and 1998 in particular are regarded as among the weakest premiership sides in the games history.

Geelong's travel record in 2008 was 5-0. Essendon's travel record in 2000 was 5-0. Yes I would absolutely suggest that if they had to play 10 travel games instead of 5 they would have won them all, because thet factually DID in those years. That's what outstanding teams do. That's what they did. Both teams were UNBEATEN on the road. Unbeaten. Do you need that repeated? Unbeaten.


Geelong also had a 5-0 record in 2007, so they were 10-0 in both 2007 and 2008 combined on the road.

Stop dealing with hypotheticals and victim narratives and look at the facts.

Jesus Christ you guys are sooks. You have no concept of the actual facts and try to twist history to suit a narrative that doesn't exist.

You suggest - wrongly - that West Coast, Adelaide and Brisbane had to become better sides than a Victorian side would have to be to win the premiership, when nothing about their win-loss record or performance suggest that is even remotely true. In fact the subsequent performance of many Victorian sides was far, far superior, including on the road. Essendon was unbeatable on the road in 2000 for instance. Geelong undefeated on the road in 2007 and 2008

If you are good enough you will win the premiership regardless of where you are from.

Stop sooking. It makes you look like a bunch of beta males. You're just creating a fake narrative to suit a flawed opinion. Use facts.