Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[JackOutback]

You are good at fudging numbers, you have done this a number of times now, then make it out like it's nothing.

He doesn't average 18 games a season, that is a fact, you can even take away his 1st 2 seasons and he still doesn't average 18
Who is the troll?

I said he averages 17-18 games as an established player. Taking out his first two seasons, he’s played 137 games in eight seasons, an average of 17.125. Hmm, seems accurate. Who’s fudging figures now?

 

[ClintEastwood]

8 players from Victorian teams in the All Australian team #VICBIAS

Yeah, that sounds like overs.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I said he averages 17-18 games as an established player. Taking out his first two seasons, he’s played 137 games in eight seasons, an average of 17.125. Hmm, seems accurate. Who’s fudging figures now?

I don't really care about the games he has played, we fudged the figures to actually make you look better, after you changed the goalposts after your initial post was called out.

The point is, you called the poster a troll, when the facts show you were wrong

You have been called out for this before, and the same thing, you can't admit you're wrong, you just attack the poster.

 

[doppleganger]

The point is, you called the poster a troll, when the facts show you were wrong

You have been called out for this before, and the same thing, you can't admit you're wrong, you just attack the poster.

Sadly also going down the same path as the Sydney bloke and lying too.

He never mentioned "established" player

And averages about 17-18 games a year?

Just your typical WA wowser, sooking about very reasonable claim.

 

[sr36]

Trying to use commentators suggesting Baker and Barrass should go for the same trade value as an example of vicbias ...

We could have hit a new low.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Trying to use commentators suggesting Baker and Barrass should go for the same trade value as an example of vicbias ...

We could have hit a new low.

But he did go lower, he then called another poster a troll.

 

[JackOutback]

He never mentioned "established" player

Correct, I didn’t, because I didn’t think someone would be so ridiculous as to try and downplay a 29-year-old trade target’s durability because he only played three games as a lanky 18-year-old tall. But here we are.

 

[doppleganger]

But he did go lower, he then called another poster a troll.

Didnt think could get much lower than the Sydney bloke and his blatant lies.

VICBias sooks keep outdoing themselves.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Didnt think could get much lower than the Sydney bloke and his blatant lies.

VICBias sooks keep outdoing themselves.

He is not as bad as the Sydney bloke yet, but he does try to blame others when he makes a (let's call it a mistake for now)

Last time I called him out, he said Collingwood played 16 MCG games and only traveled 4 times, when I called him out, he said it was just a small mistake, lmao

The thing that really amuses me, is most of the time they are just having a sook, none of what they are crying about has anything to do with the thread, Vicbias.

What really do Sydney have to cry about, if the AFL was as Vicbias as a lot like to think, Sydney probably wouldn't even exist now, they are the AFL's love child, even today they get more than most.

 

[doppleganger]

He is not as bad as the Sydney bloke yet, but he does try to blame others when he makes a (let's call it a mistake for now)

Last time I called him out, he said Collingwood played 16 MCG games and only traveled 4 times, when I called him out, he said it was just a small mistake, lmao

They dont worry about actually checking anything.

Just post how hard they think they have it based on made up stats.

The thing that really amuses me, is most of the time they are just having a sook, none of what they are crying about has anything to do with the thread, Vicbias.

That too.
ViCBias really is just an excuse to have a sook for most.

What really do Sydney have to cry about, if the AFL was as Vicbias as a lot like to think, Sydney probably wouldn't even exist now, they are the AFL's love child, even today they get more than most.

It isnt hard to follow, the AFL have a strategic goal to win over Sydney.

Having a strong Sydney helps that goal.

Sydney get looked after, and it is no surprise they have been in most GFs, consistently win minor premierships and rarely miss finals.

Laughable they think they are hard done by compared to a team like North or WBulldogs.

 

[RUNVS]

Didnt think could get much lower than the Sydney bloke and his blatant lies.

VICBias sooks keep outdoing themselves.

Please, I gave you legitimate reasons and your response was basically "none of these are issues" which definitely harms your credability. You clearly are not arguing in good faith.

 

[doppleganger]

Please, I gave you legitimate reasons and your response was basically "none of these are issues" which definitely harms your credability. You clearly are not arguing in good faith.

Which of your lies (reasons) were made in good faith?

You still sooking about getting a home final, at your home ground in the GF time slot...when some teams dont get a home final?

 

[RUNVS]

Simple

• MCG Grand Final is a clear advantage.
• Less travel for Victorian based clubs
• Attached to the less travel also means players are more likely to pick a Victorian club to go to as it means less travel for them, meaning they get to be home more with their families.
• More ease of recruiting as Victorian clubs can build entire lists only using Victorian players. Not to mention top rated Victorian players are fare more likely to have a go home factor than a top rated Western Australian kid.
• Attached to above it also means when a Victorian team is really bad they are less likely to lose a lot of players like a non-Victorian club can.
• Easier for top Victorian clubs to attract free agents to extend their window
• Easier for Victorian clubs to organise 3rd party agreements for their players.
• Victorian clubs get the big games more than non-Victorian clubs. ANZAC Day, Kings Birthday, Friday Night Games in general etc

Now each one of these could be small on their own, but when you combine them it becomes a lot.

As I thought every single theorised advantage to Vic listed, yet nothing on the other side of the ledger. Not even the blatant advantages in the rules. Let alone the theories. No mention of academies, gather round, etc..

You don't want a good faith discussion - you want biased propaganda?

So all my points were ignored and sr36 basically went "no advantage, in fact Sydney are advantaged because they have academies"

That is not a decent argument. That is at the level of Trump saying "No puppet, you're the puppet"

 

[doppleganger]

So all my points were ignored and sr36 basically went "no advantage, in fact Sydney are advantaged because they have academies"

Your points are all one sided, and not based on facts.

Less travel for Victorian based clubs, is wrong...Melbourne, North, Richmond and Geelong all travel further than Port in 2024.

Attached to the less travel also means players are more likely to pick a Victorian club to go to as it means less travel for them, meaning they get to be home more with their families - this is just made up crap. Look at all the players picking to play for Hawthorn, the club that plays the same number of games outside of Melbourne as Sydney do outside of Sydney. It is just a made up lie that you run with.


More ease of recruiting as Victorian clubs can build entire lists only using Victorian players - it isnt state of origin. Unlike Sydney, no Victorian clubs enjoy local academies. Advantage Sydney again.

Not to mention top rated Victorian players are fare more likely to have a go home factor than a top rated Western Australian kid - another made up lie. Stats show SA teams get more go home players per club than VIC teams.

Attached to above it also means when a Victorian team is really bad they are less likely to lose a lot of players like a non-Victorian club can - why are Richmond seeing four quality players walk out and go to non-vic teams? They are losing Bolton, Rioli, Baker and Graham. Another made up lie from you.

Easier for top Victorian clubs to attract free agents to extend their window - it is only Geelong who have any advantage. The Melbourne clubs compete with 9 others, which FA are going to Melbourne, StK or Ess if they never have a premiership window? Meanwhile Sydney just keep adding quality senior players to their best 22.


Easier for Victorian clubs to organise 3rd party agreements for their players - lol, yeah North,WB,Melb are advantaged compared to Sydney!

Victorian clubs get the big games more than non-Victorian clubs. ANZAC Day, Kings Birthday, Friday Night Games in general etc - Sydney get more Friday/Thursday night games compared to WB and StK.

All your "reasons" are rubbish, and dont actually back up that WB, Melbourne, StK, Ess or North have any advantage compared to Sydney...because they dont.

 

[sr36]

So all my points were ignored and sr36 basically went "no advantage, in fact Sydney are advantaged because they have academies"

That is not a decent argument. That is at the level of Trump saying "No puppet, you're the puppet"

You might want to re-read my post again. You don't seem to understand it.

You were asking for a good faith discussion, so I asked you to list the advantages in the system for both sets of clubs and then you only listed the things you perceived to be an advantage to some Vic teams - completely ignoring the advantages for non-vic teams.

I was pointing out that that approach wasn't a good faith discussion.

It's pretty clear that there are various advantages across the competition. It's how it nets out that matters. But you're not interested in that discussion + the good faith one, you just want to demand a victim position. Not to mention that you just make stuff up to suit your victim position.

 

[LoungeLizard]

You might want to re-read my post again. You don't seem to understand it.

You were asking for a good faith discussion, so I asked you to list the advantages in the system for both sets of clubs and then you only listed the things you perceived to be an advantage to some Vic teams - completely ignoring the advantages for non-vic teams.

I was pointing out that that approach wasn't a good faith discussion.

It's pretty clear that there are various advantages across the competition. It's how it nets out that matters. But you're not interested in that discussion + the good faith one, you just want to demand a victim position. Not to mention that you just make stuff up to suit your victim position.

The only thing on his list that is Vicbias is the MCG, the rest is the usual Non-Vic, "give us more leg ups" drivel.

And like you said not one thing on his list is about non-Vic advantages.

Waste of time talking to the known liar, just laugh at him.

 

[RUNVS]

Less travel for Victorian based clubs, is wrong...Melbourne, North, Richmond and Geelong all travel further than Port in 2024.

So one non-Victorian team travels less that must make the entire point invalid?

Attached to the less travel also means players are more likely to pick a Victorian club to go to as it means less travel for them, meaning they get to be home more with their families - this is just made up crap. Look at all the players picking to play for Hawthorn, the club that plays the same number of games outside of Melbourne as Sydney do outside of Sydney. It is just a made up lie that you run with.

Noticed you picked the Victorian club that has a deal with another state to play 4 games there. There are Gold Coast players (from memory as I read this a few months ago) who have played in more stadiums this year than Scott Pendlebury has played in his entire career.

More ease of recruiting as Victorian clubs can build entire lists only using Victorian players - it isnt state of origin. Unlike Sydney, no Victorian clubs enjoy local academies. Advantage Sydney again.

Not to mention top rated Victorian players are fare more likely to have a go home factor than a top rated Western Australian kid - another made up lie. Stats show SA teams get more go home players per club than VIC teams.

Attached to above it also means when a Victorian team is really bad they are less likely to lose a lot of players like a non-Victorian club can - why are Richmond seeing four quality players walk out and go to non-vic teams? They are losing Bolton, Rioli, Baker and Graham. Another made up lie from you.

It was a few years ago West Coast had something like pick 4, and all the players in the pick 4 range all had go home factor issues, so much so West Coast traded out pick 4 as they didn't want to risk selecting any of them. Instantly puts West Coast at a disadvantage as it means they basically did not have access to the same players Victorian clubs had access to.

Western Australian top prospects all know there is a 16 in 18 chance they are not being drafted to a Western Australian club, so they get mentally used to it early, but a Victorian kid, well they have a 10 in 18 chance of staying in Victoria, which means they do not mentally prepare themselves. Sydney wanted to draft Josh Dunkley but we were told point blank he did not want to leave Victoria. We nominated him but he told us he would only be okay with Sydney matching the bid if it was a non-Victorian club that drafted him. If it was a Victorian club he did not want us to match.

Easier for top Victorian clubs to attract free agents to extend their window - it is only Geelong who have any advantage. The Melbourne clubs compete with 9 others, which FA are going to Melbourne, StK or Ess if they never have a premiership window? Meanwhile Sydney just keep adding quality senior players to their best 22.

Please list every best 22 player Sydney have recruited from other clubs in the last 10 years?

Also teams like Geelong, Richmond and Hawthorn were well known for topping up their lists with poaching. Hawthorn had Borgoyne, Gibson, Hale, Gunston and others, Geelong have more than I can count and Richmond took Lynch, Taranto, Hopper, all to extend their premiership window, all taken from GWS and Gold Coast.

Easier for Victorian clubs to organise 3rd party agreements for their players - lol, yeah North,WB,Melb are advantaged compared to Sydney!

Petracca mentioned just this week he wants to move to a bigger Melbourne club for better 3rd party agreements, or better business opportunities which basically means the same thing. You can't claim it is not a factor, especially when Cloke years ago signed with Collingwood with Collingwood suplementing his income by making sure he got a regular spot on The Footy Show.

The fact that you are not even able to acknowledge some of these, not even a "yeah that is a bit of an advantage to Victorian clubs" is very telling and shows why I am saying you are not arguing in good faith.

 

[.Shotties.]

Easier for Victorian clubs to organise 3rd party agreements for their players - lol, yeah North,WB,Melb are advantaged compared to Sydney!

Would you like to expand on your inability to respond to the argument, young man?

 

[doppleganger]

So one non-Victorian team travels less that must make the entire point invalid?

Yes, travel isnt Vic v non-vic.

Travel is in groups.

WA teams are road warriors, they clock up 70k km

GC is next at about 60k km
Then BL at about 50k km

All the rest are less than 30k km.

So a rubbish argument to try and group Syd and Port with WA when they are more like Hawthorn.

Noticed you picked the Victorian club that has a deal with another state to play 4 games there. There are Gold Coast players (from memory as I read this a few months ago) who have played in more stadiums this year than Scott Pendlebury has played in his entire career.

Yes, some Melbourne clubs play just as many games outside of Melbourne as Sydney do outside of Sydney.

And despite travelling, this club is the most successful of all Melbourne based clubs.

Is travel really a disadvantage?

Another of your arguments that are rubbish

It was a few years ago West Coast had something like pick 4, and all the players in the pick 4 range all had go home factor issues, so much so West Coast traded out pick 4 as they didn't want to risk selecting any of them. Instantly puts West Coast at a disadvantage as it means they basically did not have access to the same players Victorian clubs had access to.

Western Australian top prospects all know there is a 16 in 18 chance they are not being drafted to a Western Australian club, so they get mentally used to it early, but a Victorian kid, well they have a 10 in 18 chance of staying in Victoria, which means they do not mentally prepare themselves. Sydney wanted to draft Josh Dunkley but we were told point blank he did not want to leave Victoria. We nominated him but he told us he would only be okay with Sydney matching the bid if it was a non-Victorian club that drafted him. If it was a Victorian club he did not want us to match.

North picked an SA kid with pick 1, and he left.

How are North advantaged compared to WC?

Please list every best 22 player Sydney have recruited from other clubs in the last 10 years?

L.Franklin, B.Grundy, T.Adams. T.Hickey, J.Jordan

You dont need to recruit them when the NSW zone means you get gifts like Heeney, Mills, Gulden.

How many players have Sydney lost to Melbourne clubs due to "home sickness" in the last decade?

Also teams like Geelong, Richmond and Hawthorn were well known for topping up their lists with poaching. Hawthorn had Borgoyne, Gibson, Hale, Gunston and others, Geelong have more than I can count and Richmond took Lynch, Taranto, Hopper, all to extend their premiership window, all taken from GWS and Gold Coast.

Hawthorn travel 11 times a year, isnt your point that will discourage them attracting players?

It obviously doesn't.

So we can agree that argument is rubbish.

Petracca mentioned just this week he wants to move to a bigger Melbourne club for better 3rd party agreements, or better business opportunities which basically means the same thing. You can't claim it is not a factor, especially when Cloke years ago signed with Collingwood with Collingwood suplementing his income by making sure he got a regular spot on The Footy Show.

LoL.

So your argument supposedly for VICBias is a Melbourne based team that cant keep their players?

Another of your arguments that you now agree are rubbish

The fact that you are not even able to acknowledge some of these, not even a "yeah that is a bit of an advantage to Victorian clubs" is very telling and shows why I am saying you are not arguing in good faith.

Good faith

 

[doppleganger]

Would you like to expand on your inability to respond to the argument, young man?

The argument that Petracca wanting to leave Melbourne to further his brand somehow is evidence that Melbourne have an advantage over Sydney?

It is a moronic position, especially when the AFL hands out "ambassador"money to NSW and QLD players.

There is more commercial money slushing around in Sydney, and it is basically a 1 team town. Playing for StK or Melb doesnt give players any extra commercial advantage over a guy at the Swans.

 

[RUNVS]

L.Franklin, B.Grundy, T.Adams. T.Hickey, J.Jordan

10 years, so Buddy is not included.

As for the others, none of them were particularly wanted by their clubs. Hickey was not best 22, Melbourne wanted Grundy gone as their Gawn/Grundy experiment failed, Jordan was barely best 22, and likely wasn't in 2023 if everyone was fit and Adams had been moved out of the midfield and was being played in a less than ideal position because he was no longer seen as a best 22 midfielder.

 

[RUNVS]

The argument that Petracca wanting to leave Melbourne to further his brand somehow is evidence that Melbourne have an advantage over Sydney?

It is a moronic position, especially when the AFL hands out "ambassador"money to NSW and QLD players.

There is more commercial money slushing around in Sydney, and it is basically a 1 team town. Playing for StK or Melb doesnt give players any extra commercial advantage over a guy at the Swans.

No, it shows that the big clubs have the ability to help their players commercially, which is why Pettracca wanted to go to a big Victorian club who wasn't Richmond.

 

[SC_Power]

Please, I gave you legitimate reasons and your response was basically "none of these are issues" which definitely harms your credability. You clearly are not arguing in good faith.

Don’t bother, it’s all about false equivalency with Vic’s in this thread.

“Here let me detail something that has been happening for 15 years”.

- “no, because this happened to us once so it’s all even”.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Don’t bother, it’s all about false equivalency with Vic’s in this thread.

“Here let me detail something that has been happening for 15 years”.

- “no, because this happened to us once so it’s all even”.

Also, the things they do mention are things that don't happen to the club they support.

 

[.Shotties.]

The argument that Petracca wanting to leave Melbourne to further his brand somehow is evidence that Melbourne have an advantage over Sydney?

Ah, so the problem is reading comprehension on your end.

It is a moronic position, especially when the AFL hands out "ambassador"money to NSW and QLD players.

...right. Who are these players receiving ambassador money now?

There is more commercial money slushing around in Sydney, and it is basically a 1 team town. Playing for StK or Melb doesnt give players any extra commercial advantage over a guy at the Swans.

This would be true if the the NRL didn't exist and wasn't the primary sport in Sydney. The AFL isn't the dominant cultural force here that it is in Victoria.

The last time I was here I had someone claiming simultaneously that two Victorian teams playing at the MCG meant that there was no home ground advantage, but that it was an away game if a team played at a stadium in the same city that wasn't their home ground.

The quality of discussion hasn't gone up.