Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[greatwhiteshark]

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.

It’s not a lie if you believe it!!

 

[Colonial]

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.

Wow using the Trump tactic of fake eh?

Must be a hell of a drug.

 

[Colonial]

North making sure a Melbourne club gets into the top 4.

Oh they really are that bad?

 

[p4p1]

North making sure a Melbourne club gets into the top 4.

Oh they really are that bad?

Huge improvements made after getting rid of Noble.

 

[Dan26]

Wow using the Trump tactic of fake eh?

Must be a hell of a drug.

You are creating fake narrative based on nothing more than an opinion that the facts don't support. Only one of those 7 non-Victorian flag sides from 1992-2003 finished top of the ladder and the AVERAGE home and away wins for those flag sides was just 15. To sookily suggest that those sides had to better than a Victorian side would have to be is not only wrong but insulting. Don't you see how that could be insulting to others? Subsequent Victorian sides that were superior were unbeatable on the road. Essendon of 2000, and Geelong of both 2007 and 2008 were a combined 15-0 interstate. The lack of awareness of your own bias is extraordinary. I've ever seen anything like it.

You've changed from ignoring facts totally to now creating a fake narrative that is baseless. You can't use facts, because the facts don't support anything you say.

 

[Colonial]

You are creating fake narrative

How trumpy of you, and incorrect.

based on nothing more than an opinion that the facts don't support. Only one of those 7 non-Victorian flag sides from 1992-2003 finished top of the ladder and the AVERAGE home and away wins for those flag sides was just 15. To sookily suggest that those sides had to better than a Victorian side would have to be is not only wrong but insulting. Don't you see how that could be insulting to others? Subsequent Victorian sides that were superior were unbeatable on the road. Essendon of 2000, and Geelong of both 2007 and 2008 were a combined 15-0 interstate. The lack of awareness of your own bias is extraordinary. I've ever seen anything like it.

You've changed from ignoring facts totally to now creating a fake narrative that is baseless. You can't use facts, because the facts don't support anything you say.

Literally used facts and your own replies.
You then ignored your own statements and made new ones because “oops” you got caught out.

 

[sr36]

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 you look back at that era that had a sequence of multiple flag winning teams: Hawks, WCE, Nth, Adel,

Adelaide stand out, as they really weren't a super side. The others were.

 

[Dan26]

How trumpy of you, and incorrect.

Literally used facts and your own replies.
You then ignored your own statements and made new ones because “oops” you got caught out.

Garbage.

Let's look at the chain of events:

You stated (incorrectly and with no basis) that the non-Victorian teams that win premierships from 1992-2003 needed to be better than Victorian team would need to be because of the "bias" the poor things had to endure. This is an opinion, that is not ground in facts and is actually insulting.

I then started to quote some facts such as:

Fact 1. Only one of the 7 non-Vic premiership sides from 1992-2003 finished top of the ladder

Fact 2: The average number of H&A wins for those 7 non-Vic premiership sides was only 15

Fact 3: Essendon of 2000 and Geelong of 2007 and 2008 were UNBEATEN on the road (combined 15-0) blowing out of the water your view that the travel burden makes it so, so very difficult. If you are good enough you will win it.

Fact 4: The Grand Final win loss record over more than 30 years is close to 50% (10-9) when a Vic side plays a non-Vic side in the Grand Final.

Fact 5. The Adelaide Crows flags sides of 1997 and 1998 are (statstically) the worst premiership sides of the modern era going by home and away wins.

You ignored all of those facts totally, and instead started to push a baseless narrative about how much better a non-Vic side needs to be because of the travel burden even though some of the better Victorian sides had superior (and in some cases UNBEATEN) record on the road. Geelong of 2007 and 2008 didn't lose a road game for two whole seasons!

Your narrative has no factual basis. It's simply a baseless opinion that the numbers don't support. The only reason you're pushing it is because you know the numbers don't support you. So you make up fake stories that are baseless. That's what people do when the facts don't support them.

 

[doppleganger]

You guys don't get it.

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

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)

They host a travelling team 10 times, but then dont have to play 10 teams on their home ground.

They always get some games where the Melbourne based "home" team is not playing at their home ground, and usually also travelling.

This year it was Melbourne in the NT. They still claim this to be an away disadvantage game for Freo and a home advantage game for Freo.

This is why H&A season is biased towards nonMelbourne teams who have more games where they enjoy a ground advantage.

 

[doppleganger]

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.

You do realise that you are meant to play some away games?

Port getting 13 games at AO, 11 with an advantage is a huge advantage. Especially when they only play 9 away games where the home team is actually at home.

Looking forward to Port losing another final at the AO.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

You do realise that you are meant to play some away games?

Port getting 13 games at AO, 11 with an advantage is a huge advantage. Especially when they only play 9 away games where the home team is actually at home.

Looking forward to Port losing another final at the AO.

Well no sh&t we are meant to.

However claiming the only reason we are top 4 is due to our home ground is completely misleading when we wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t for our away game wins against the Cats or Blues in particular.

 

[p4p1]

If you look back at that era that had a sequence of multiple flag winning teams: Hawks, WCE, Nth, Adel,

Adelaide stand out, as they really weren't a super side. The others were.

Weird though that they accounted for in a GF.

 

[Dan26]

They host a travelling team 10 times, but then dont have to play 10 teams on their home ground.

They always get some games where the Melbourne based "home" team is not playing at their home ground, and usually also travelling.

This year it was Melbourne in the NT. They still claim this to be an away disadvantage game for Freo and a home advantage game for Freo.

This is why H&A season is biased towards nonMelbourne teams who have more games where they enjoy a ground advantage.

Yep. Freo this year had:

10 games where they hosted a travelling team
9 games where they travelled to an opponents ground
4 neutral games (two versus WCE, one vs Carl, and one vs Melb)

10 minus 9 equals +1 travel advantage

My team, the Bombers:
6 games where they host a travelling team
6 games where they travel to an opponents home ground
11 neutral games

6 minus 6 equals +0 travel advantage

These people pretending that they are victims are just beta sooks. If you're good enough you will win it

 

[sr36]

Weird though that they accounted for in a GF.

2008 Hawks accounted for 2008 Cats in a Grand Final.

 

[JackOutback]

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.

Five travel wins spread across the season means they would win 10, travelling every second week.

 

[Colonial]

Garbage.

Let's look at the chain of events:

You stated (incorrectly and with no basis) that the non-Victorian teams that win premierships from 1992-2003 needed to be better than Victorian team would need to be because of the "bias" the poor things had to endure. This is an opinion, that is not ground in facts and is actually insulting.

I then started to quote some facts such as:

Fact 1. Only one of the 7 non-Vic premiership sides from 1992-2003 finished top of the ladder

Fact 2: The average number of H&A wins for those 7 non-Vic premiership sides was only 15

Fact 3: Essendon of 2000 and Geelong of 2007 and 2008 were UNBEATEN on the road (combined 15-0) blowing out of the water your view that the travel burden makes it so, so very difficult. If you are good enough you will win it.

Fact 4: The Grand Final win loss record over more than 30 years is close to 50% (10-9) when a Vic side plays a non-Vic side in the Grand Final.

Fact 5. The Adelaide Crows flags sides of 1997 and 1998 are (statstically) the worst premiership sides of the modern era going by home and away wins.

You ignored all of those facts totally, and instead started to push a baseless narrative about how much better a non-Vic side needs to be because of the travel burden even though some of the better Victorian sides had superior (and in some cases UNBEATEN) record on the road. Geelong of 2007 and 2008 didn't lose a road game for two whole seasons!

Your narrative has no factual basis. It's simply a baseless opinion that the numbers don't support. The only reason you're pushing it is because you know the numbers don't support you. So you make up fake stories that are baseless. That's what people do when the facts don't support them.

I think you need a dictionary, as you clearly don’t know the meaning of the word “facts”.

 

[p4p1]

Garbage.

Let's look at the chain of events:

You stated (incorrectly and with no basis) that the non-Victorian teams that win premierships from 1992-2003 needed to be better than Victorian team would need to be because of the "bias" the poor things had to endure. This is an opinion, that is not ground in facts and is actually insulting.

I then started to quote some facts such as:

Fact 1. Only one of the 7 non-Vic premiership sides from 1992-2003 finished top of the ladder

Who would’ve thought that consistent travelling makes it harder to play at your best consistently.

Fact 2: The average number of H&A wins for those 7 non-Vic premiership sides was only 15

So?

Fact 3: Essendon of 2000 and Geelong of 2007 and 2008 were UNBEATEN on the road (combined 15-0) blowing out of the water your view that the travel burden makes it so, so very difficult. If you are good enough you will win it.

Geelong didn’t win the 08 premiership though.
Interstate team finishing positions in 2000
BL - 6
Syd - 10
Ade - 11
Fre - 12
WCE - 13

My favourite fact about Geelongs unbeaten record outside of Victoria in 2007 is that they lost to the Hawks in Tassie. They were 5-1 outside of Victoria. But they were an amazing team, it’s not surprising they only lost once outside of Victoria.

I’m not sure why you and others aren’t understanding it’s about travelling every second week that makes it harder to maintain your record on the road. Coaches and players who have been on both sides have all agreed it’s harder to be a non Victorian side.

Fact 4: The Grand Final win loss record over more than 30 years is close to 50% (10-9) when a Vic side plays a non-Vic side in the Grand Final.

Fact 5. The Adelaide Crows flags sides of 1997 and 1998 are (statstically) the worst premiership sides of the modern era going by home and away wins.

Premierships aren’t decided by home and away wins. Going back to back is extremely hard and does not happen often. Even the great Geelong team of 07-11 could not manage to go back to back.

You ignored all of those facts totally, and instead started to push a baseless narrative about how much better a non-Vic side needs to be because of the travel burden even though some of the better Victorian sides had superior (and in some cases UNBEATEN) record on the road. Geelong of 2007 and 2008 didn't lose a road game for two whole seasons!

You’re wrong about Geelong of course. But winning 5-6 games outside of Victoria is statistically much easier than winning 11 games outside of your home state.

Your narrative has no factual basis. It's simply a baseless opinion that the numbers don't support. The only reason you're pushing it is because you know the numbers don't support you. So you make up fake stories that are baseless. That's what people do when the facts don't support them.

This bit is genuinely hilarious.

 

[Dan26]

I think you need a dictionary, as you clearly don’t know the meaning of the word “facts”.

Tell me which of the facts I have quoted are wrong. Geelong lost a "neutral" travel game in 2007 (so what both teams travelled) but were UNBEATEN when traveling to an opponents home ground in 2007 and 2008.

 

[p4p1]

2008 Hawks accounted for 2008 Cats in a Grand Final.

Yeah but Hawks didn’t win in 07 or 09.

 

[p4p1]

Yep. Freo this year had:

10 games where they hosted a travelling team
9 games where they travelled to an opponents ground
4 neutral games (two versus WCE, one vs Carl, and one vs Melb)

10 minus 9 equals +1 travel advantage

My team, the Bombers:
6 games where they host a travelling team
6 games where they travel to an opponents home ground
11 neutral games

6 minus 6 equals +0 travel advantage

These people pretending that they are victims are just beta sooks. If you're good enough you will win it

But they’re not travelling every second week.

Beta sooks, so original.

 

[p4p1]

Tell me which of the facts I have quoted are wrong. Geelong lost a "neutral" travel game in 2007 (so what both teams travelled) but were UNBEATEN when traveling to an opponents home ground in 2007 and 2008.

Well you said that only one of the non vic sides that won a premiership finished #1 on the ladder in a premiership year, is that not proof that travelling every second week makes it harder?

Also it wasn’t a neutral travel game, it was a hawks home game at one of the grounds they use. Whether you feel the ground was neutral or not does not matter. The fact is they were not undefeated when travelling outside of Vic.

 

[Dan26]

Who would’ve thought that consistent travelling makes it harder to play at your best consistently.

There is literally no evidence that this is true. It's a theory that the facts don't support. I know it sounds nice, but the facts say otherwise. So instead of assuming it is true, allow the facts to tell the story.

From 1992 to the end of 2010 (before Gold Coast entered the competition) non-Victorian teams make up exactly 37.5% of the competition.

Over that time period they won 36.8% of premierships.

After Gold Coast and GWS entered, there was a period where both those sides were uncompetitive due to them being brand new teams, but even allowing for them, non-Victorian sides have won 38.7% of the premierships from 1992 onwards despite making up 37.5% of the AFL up until 2010 and making up 44.5% from 2012 onwards.

There is literally no evidence whatsoever that being a non-Victorian side makes it less likely to win the premiership. In fact, the proportion of premierships won by non-Victorian teams is spookily almost exactly what it should be.

Your problem is that you making assumptions about travel that the facts don't support. As stated earlier, Essendon in 2000, and Geelong of 2007 and 2008 were 15-0 when travelling interstate to an opponents home ground.

All you are doing is assuming. You are creating a narrative about an assumption that the facts don't support

 

[Dan26]

But they’re not travelling every second week.

Beta sooks, so original.

So what? You might travel every second week, but you also HOST a travelling side every second week.

FREMANTLE:
10 games where they hosted a travelling team
9 games where they travelled to an opponents ground
4 neutral games (two versus WCE, one vs Carl, and one vs Melb)

10 minus 9 equals +1 travel advantage


ESSENDON
My team, the Bombers:
6 games where they host a travelling team
6 games where they travel to an opponents home ground
11 neutral games

6 minus 6 equals +0 travel advantage

Stop sooking. Beta loser sooks pretending to be victims. Be a man and just deal with it, instead of pretending that you are so hard done by. Do you need a cuddle?

 

[p4p1]

So what? You might travel every second week, but you also HOST a travelling side every second week.

FREMANTLE:
10 games where they hosted a travelling team
9 games where they travelled to an opponents ground
4 neutral games (two versus WCE, one vs Carl, and one vs Melb)

10 minus 9 equals +1 travel advantage


ESSENDON
My team, the Bombers:
6 games where they host a travelling team
6 games where they travel to an opponents home ground
11 neutral games

6 minus 6 equals +0 travel advantage

Stop sooking. Beta loser sooks pretending to be victims. Be a man and just deal with it, instead of pretending that you are so hard done by. Do you need a cuddle?

I’m not sure what isn’t getting through your thick skull. It’s not the act of travelling alone, it’s the act of travelling consistently over a long season, particularly for the WA teams.
All experts agree that travelling every second week makes it more difficult.

Dude you don’t me from a bar of soap, I am anything but a victim. If anyone is a ****ing sook it’s you who can’t handle the fact that there is an inherent bias in the system because 10 teams are based thinking an hour or so of each other.

You sound like someone with a mental disability with all the beta bullshit. You know who call other men betas? ****wits who are insecure about their own manhood.

 

[doppleganger]

Yep. Freo this year had:

10 games where they hosted a travelling team
9 games where they travelled to an opponents ground
4 neutral games (two versus WCE, one vs Carl, and one vs Melb)

10 minus 9 equals +1 travel advantage

My team, the Bombers:
6 games where they host a travelling team
6 games where they travel to an opponents home ground
11 neutral games

6 minus 6 equals +0 travel advantage

These people pretending that they are victims are just beta sooks. If you're good enough you will win it

Not travel advantage, ground advantage.

And ground advantage is the most important factor.

Hawthorn had 11 games outside of Melbourne this year, they travel more than Port and Adelaide do.

But the Port fans pretend they are hard done by, it is laughable.

Having a game where you enjoy an advantage over your opponent in H&A is most important, and the non-Melbourne sides are better off.