Opinion We need to move back to the MCG

[ant555]

I never said it was about playing more games at the MCG. In fact I've specifically noted that Geelong play there less than us and Hawthorn about the same as us.

It's about the number of games we play at Marvel.

Yes, logically it "shouldn't" matter which is your argument. Yes, I agree logically it shouldn't, but it does and has. In my opinion, it's cultural. We were the biggest and the best, then we moved to a stadium which put a limit on us, which said - without words - that we didn't care about being the biggest and best club. That's how I felt about the move all the way back in 2000 and I think I have a pretty good radar for these things. It just didn't feel right.

In terms of culture it's a hard thing to argue, because culture can't be measured. But imagine the frog in boiling water metaphor, and the frog represents our culture. Basically, the frog doesn't leap out of the water the hotter it gets because it happens so gradually that it doesn't notice. The club makes some bad decisions (the move to Marvel) some other dominoes fall, in response to that and the water gets hotter and hotter and before you know it our culture is stuffed and no one saw it coming , just like the frog.

I brought up earlier the record of non Marvel teams over the last 22 years (14 flags) and marvel teams (one fluke flag from 7th). And I asked at what point does that stop being a statistical oddity and it actually starts being something real? It's surely a big enough sample size now to show that it's not a statistical oddity.

It is simple for me. Sides come up the ladder and go back down. St.Kilda where an unlucky bounce away from being a Marvel side winning a flag. Dogs have played in two GF. North have been a basket case for 10 years but did play in a few Preliminary finals. We have been average for 20 years . I am not buying. If you are good enough you win. Also think that narrowing down to just flag winners is actually too narrow.
There are 4 Docklands sides. One made a couple of Grand Finals but did not win. Had a draw in one. One did win a GF and calling it a fluke is rubbish. They won their finals. They won it. The other two clubs have been pretty much bog average and it has zero to do with playing under the roof.
You can spin it however you want.

 

[MiguelM]

Well, I for one am glad we are not playing at a wet MCG this week!

 

[Dan26]

It is simple for me. Sides come up the ladder and go back down. St.Kilda where an unlucky bounce away from being a Marvel side winning a flag. Dogs have played in two GF. North have been a basket case for 10 years but did play in a few Preliminary finals.

There are 4 Docklands sides. One made a couple of Grand Finals but did not win. Had a draw in one. One did win a GF and calling it a fluke is rubbish. They won their finals. They won it. The other two clubs have been pretty much bog average and it has zero to do with playing under the roof.
You can spin it however you want.

Even if you take Preliminary finals over the last 22 years

Non-marvel Victorian teams have been in a prelim 39 times.

Marvel teams have been in a prelim 12 times.

 

[ant555]

Even if you take Preliminary finals over the last 22 years

Non-marvel Victorian teams have been in a prelim 39 times.

Marvel teams have been in a prelim 12 times.

There are only 4 Marvel teams and 14 non Marvel sides. Of course the non Marvel sides are going to dominate the numbers.
None of this takes into account list management . Bad coaches. Plain bad luck. There are too many variables to simply say that playing 8 games a year at Marvel is a factor. Interstate sides that play limited games at the MCG have played in the GF in the 9 times in the last 11 years. If you add the Bulldogs as a non MCG team that is 11 times in the last 11 years. You can spin the stats however you want. It is bollocks.
We played in a GF in 2000 and 2001 playing at Marvel.
Poor list management is more a factor than the bloody ground. Are you saying that it is not Adrian's fault ? He was just unlucky we played at Marvel stadium ? If we did not play at Marvel Matthew Knights would have been a great coach ? If we did not play at Marvel Dank would not have been at the club ?
Sorry way to many other things happen. Never going to agree so we agree to disagree.

 

[Dan26]

There are only 4 Marvel teams and 14 non Marvel sides. Of course the non Marvel sides are going to dominate

I am talking about Victorian sides.

There are 10 Victorian teams.

5 of them are non-marvel sides (gee, Coll, rich, haw, Melb)

5 are Marvel sides (ess, NM, WB, St.K, Carl)

Carlton have played more marvel home games than MCG home games over the last 20 years)

The 5 non-marvel clubs have made the prelim 39 times

The 5 marvel clubs have made a prelim 12 times.

This 14-4 stat you mentioned is rubbish and has nothing to do with any point I was making.

 

[Dan26]

Are you saying that it is not Adrian's fault ? He was just unlucky we played at Marvel stadium ? If we did not play at Marvel Matthew Knights would have been a great coach ? If we did not play at Marvel Dank would not have been at the club ?

No I’m not saying that at all and you know that’s not what I’m saying. I said it was the start of a cultural shift in the club that has been largely unnoticed because it is so incremental.

Note the frog in boiling water example I gave two posts ago.

 

[ant555]

No I’m not saying that at all and you know that’s not what I’m saying. I said it was the start of a cultural shift in the club that has been largely unnoticed because it is so incremental.

Note the frog in boiling water example I gave two posts ago.

Do not agree. Stop quoting me. Agree to disagree.

 

[JayJ20]

Of course none of this has anything to do with the quality of our list and being an average side

It is. We are not a poor side because we play games at Marvel. We are a poor side because we ****ed ourselves with the saga and have had some average list builds, several coaches and for a while limited resources put into development. It has nothing to do with the MCG. Good sides just win. There is no magic wand in playing 15 games at the MCG.

As if home ground advantage and knowing how to play wet weather isn't a thing in sport. It's a staple all around the world.

We've sucked for a long time, but we suck more at the MCG than at Marvel and our record speaks for itself. Where are we more difficult to beat? Marvel or the MCG? It's consistently been Marvel. In fact, we don't have a bad record at Marvel and every time we rise up the ladder, it's usually because of our record at Marvel and not at the MCG.

Over the last 20 games:

MCG:
W 7
D 1
L12

Marvel:
W 15
L 5

Over the last 50 games:

MCG record over the last 50 games:
W 18
D 1
L 31

Marvel record over the last 50 games:
W 36
L 14

Over the last 100 games:

MCG
W 37
D 1
L 60

Marvel
W 55
L 45

If we played more games at Marvel, then we'd finish higher on the ladder with that record, but it wouldn't make us any closer to a premiership because finals are held at the MCG. But let's all continue to pretend that there is no difference between our performance at Marvel vs the MCG. It's a joke that we want to win a final and become contenders with that MCG record.

More home games at the MCG means that we're forced to play a brand of football suited to the MCG and all types of weather instead of scraping by because we sneaked into finals on the back of our record under the comfortable Marvel roof.

 

[ant555]

As if home ground advantage and knowing how to play wet weather isn't a thing in sport. It's a staple all around the world.

We've sucked for a long time, but we suck more at the MCG than at Marvel and our record speaks for itself. Where are we more difficult to beat? Marvel or the MCG? It's consistently been Marvel. In fact, we don't have a bad record at Marvel and every time we rise up the ladder, it's usually because of our record at Marvel and not at the MCG.

Over the last 20 games:

MCG:
W 7
D 1
L12

Marvel:
W 15
L 5

Over the last 50 games:

MCG record over the last 50 games:
W 18
D 1
L 31

Marvel record over the last 50 games:
W 36
L 14

Over the last 100 games:

MCG
W 37
D 1
L 60

Marvel
W 55
L 45

If we played more games at Marvel, then we'd finish higher on the ladder with that record, but it wouldn't make us any closer to a premiership because finals are held at the MCG. But let's all continue to pretend that there is no difference between our performance at Marvel vs the MCG. It's a joke that we want to win a final and become contenders with that MCG record.

More home games at the MCG means that we're forced to play a brand of football suited to the MCG and all types of weather instead of scraping by because we sneaked into finals on the back of our record under the comfortable Marvel roof.

Not like we do not play 15 games outdoors is it .
There are too many variables to say that playing a percentage of games at Marvel hurts sides .
We train at a venue that howls with wind most of the year.
Our record under the roof stems from the fact we generally play the weaker or interstate sides there.
When we were good in 2000 it did not make any difference playing inside.
It is an anomaly.
Playing outside is not helping Richmond now they are not the power they where.
We would have beaten West Coast / Adelaide/ Gold Coast/ North etc at the MCG .

 

[JayJ20]

Not like we do not play 15 games outdoors is it .
There are too many variables to say that playing a percentage of games at Marvel hurts sides .
We train at a venue that howls with wind most of the year.
Our record under the roof stems from the fact we generally play the weaker or interstate sides there.
When we were good in 2000 it did not make any difference playing inside.
It is an anomaly.
Playing outside is not helping Richmond now they are not the power they where.

I didn't say it hurts every Marvel side all the time. Well it'll hurt them come finals time, but they don't play at the MCG enough for it to be a significant issue during the season. It hurts Essendon specifically though because for whatever reason our gameplan/list build is never suited for a place like the MCG where the weather is a factor compared to Marvel.

As for Richmond, they have the same record everywhere though so it's not a ground issue. Let's look at Carlton's record who also split between the MCG and Marvel:

Over the last 20 games:

MCG:
W 12
D 1
L 7

Marvel:
W 13
L 7

Over the last 50 games:

MCG record over the last 50 games:
W 24
D 1
L 25

Marvel record over the last 50 games:
W 21
L 29

Over the last 100 games:

MCG
W 40
D 2
L 58

Marvel
W 41
L 59

So Carlton who were trash for YEARS have a better record at the MCG than we do? And we have a better Marvel record? And why is there no statistically significant difference in their record at MCG vs Marvel but ours is so lop-sided? Is there any surprise that they win finals when they make it and we don't? Cmon let's be real here.

Our MCG vs Marvel record is significant no matter which way you look at it. We suck at the MCG and have for a long time. The arguments you use works for Carlton because there's no real difference between their record at the MCG and Marvel.

At the moment we play like a Marvel home tenant that happens to play 4 home games at the MCG. The MCG feels more like a foreign ground than a home ground. The only way to remedy that is to play most home games at the MCG so that it forces us to build a list, play a side and use a gameplan that suits the MCG.

 

[ant555]

I didn't say it hurts every Marvel side all the time. Well it'll hurt them come finals time, but they don't play at the MCG enough for it to be a significant issue during the season. It hurts Essendon specifically though because for whatever reason our gameplan/list build is never suited for a place like the MCG where the weather is a factor compared to Marvel.

As for Richmond, they have the same record everywhere though so it's not a ground issue. Let's look at Carlton's record who also split between the MCG and Marvel:

Over the last 20 games:

MCG:
W 12
D 1
L 7

Marvel:
W 13
L 7

Over the last 50 games:

MCG record over the last 50 games:
W 24
D 1
L 25

Marvel record over the last 50 games:
W 21
L 29

Over the last 100 games:

MCG
W 40
D 2
L 58

Marvel
W 41
L 59

So Carlton who were trash for YEARS have a better record at the MCG than we do? And we have a better Marvel record? And why is there no statistically significant difference in their record at MCG and Marvel but ours is so lop-sided? Is there any surprise that they win finals when they make it and we don't? Cmon let's be real here.

Our MCG vs Marvel record is significant no matter which way you look at it. We suck at the MCG and have for a long time. We'd have had plenty of home finals/even top 4 finishes over the last 20 years if we played all of our home games at Marvel.

The only way to remedy that is to play most home games at the MCG so that it forces us to build a list, play a side and use a gameplan that suits the MCG.

I’m done with it . Do not agree . Like I keep saying too many variables and we play 15 games outside and train in one of the windiest areas in Melbourne.
It has more to do with quality of the list .
Agree to disagree again.

 

[Saint]

We play enough games at the G. I'm very glad we're playing under the roof tonight.

The last thing we'd want is a wet/windy lottery type of a game. The better team wins more often in better conditions.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Until we learn to play in the rain we don't deserve to move to the MCG.

 

[jmoo wan]

would've won tonight if we played at the MCG

 

[Phone]

Made a GF, two prelims, a Semi before Sheeds got greedy and tried to top up? Like 2005 and 2006 were shit because we brought in mature agers who were cooked or no good (Heffernan, Zantuck etc). Then we cut a whole heap of mature aged players and started a rebuild.

I don't see how moving to Docklands affected our club topping up at the wrong time instead of embracing a rebuild.

this is a detour but a fun thing about 2006 was, in addition to Lloyd's injury, we went 0-5-1 in games decided by 2 goals or less, so we were terribly unlucky. our reward was: the afl changed the rules around priority picks which we meant we didn't get two top 4 picks that year (Collingwood, the previous season, got both of Pendlebury and Thomas thanks to priority pick rules), which meant we only got to pick Gumby who of course spent the next 6 seasons got injured every week. then in 2007, we went 7-2 in goals decided by two goals or less, and won too many games to get a top 5 priority pick, which carlton was able to get and which allowed them to do the chris judd trade. stupid luck! never forget that close games are a coin flip

uhhhhh anyway shouldn't we need to actually move back to Windy Hill

 

[Clark G]

this is a detour but a fun thing about 2006 was, in addition to Lloyd's injury, we went 0-5-1 in games decided by 2 goals or less, so we were terribly unlucky. our reward was: the afl changed the rules around priority picks which we meant we didn't get two top 4 picks that year (Collingwood, the previous season, got both of Pendlebury and Thomas thanks to priority pick rules), which meant we only got to pick Gumby who of course spent the next 6 seasons got injured every week. then in 2007, we went 7-2 in goals decided by two goals or less, and won too many games to get a top 5 priority pick, which carlton was able to get and which allowed them to do the chris judd trade. stupid luck! never forget that close games are a coin flip

uhhhhh anyway shouldn't we need to actually move back to Windy Hill

Carlton actually used their first round pick 3 as part of the Judd trade. The priority pick was pick 1 which they held onto to select Kreuzer.

 

[Phone]

yeah but if they only had 1 top pick, it would have been a lot harder for them to do it. the combo of bonus picks, josh kennedy etc gave carlton currency that no-one else had. keeping in mind this all happened when trading was in the doldrums and it was really bloody hard to do.

 

[ant555]

yeah but if they only had 1 top pick, it would have been a lot harder for them to do it. the combo of bonus picks, josh kennedy etc gave carlton currency that no-one else had. keeping in mind this all happened when trading was in the doldrums and it was really bloody hard to do.

Would have been good if there was a Harley reid when we had pick 1 but that has nothing to do with the MCG of course.

 

[DapperDon]

Might as well move back to the VFA

 

[maskmcgee]

Can actually park for free at the MCG can't do that at the Dome

 

[JayJ20]

would've won tonight if we played at the MCG

Would’ve gotten thrashed at the MCG. No way we kick more than 60-70.

 

[PressureCooker]

(We) train in one of the windiest areas in Melbourne.

Slightly off-topic and sorry to quote you again ant, I've always wondered is this an issue? I've never been to training and have only been up to the Hangar a couple of times, but is training in such windy conditions all the time affecting our ability to train well?

I think of our poor forward 50 entries for the past decade, constantly bombing it high and long ad nauseam. Is this a symptom of not being able to train with more precision in our kicking?

I'm probably well off the mark and just desperately searching for reasons for our prolonged shitfulness...

 

[ant555]

Slightly off-topic and sorry to quote you again ant, I've always wondered is this an issue? I've never been to training and have only been up to the Hangar a couple of times, but is training in such windy conditions all the time affecting our ability to train well?

I think of our poor forward 50 entries for the past decade, constantly bombing it high and long ad nauseam. Is this a symptom of not being able to train with more precision in our kicking?

I'm probably well off the mark and just desperately searching for reasons for our prolonged shitfulness...

You would think it should make it better but to answer I do not really know . Maybe it does affect a few who have average skill level.

 

[katana]

Made a GF, two prelims, a Semi before Sheeds got greedy and tried to top up? Like 2005 and 2006 were shit because we brought in mature agers who were cooked or no good (Heffernan, Zantuck etc). Then we cut a whole heap of mature aged players and started a rebuild.

I don't see how moving to Docklands affected our club topping up at the wrong time instead of embracing a rebuild.

i don't really think sheeds bringing in zantuck and heffernan affected anything. we had already been screwed by poor drafting (and injury prone drafting) in the period of 1999-2004. we had 4 top 30 picks in 2002 (before taking jobe at 40) and 4 top 50 picks in 2000. that may well have been enough to rebuild on the fly. but really all we got from that was endless winderlich injuries, and whatever the ted richards trade ended up being.

 

[yodellinhank]

Not like we do not play 15 games outdoors is it .
There are too many variables to say that playing a percentage of games at Marvel hurts sides .
We train at a venue that howls with wind most of the year.
Our record under the roof stems from the fact we generally play the weaker or interstate sides there.
When we were good in 2000 it did not make any difference playing inside.
It is an anomaly.
Playing outside is not helping Richmond now they are not the power they where.
We would have beaten West Coast / Adelaide/ Gold Coast/ North etc at the MCG .

Weaker because they're not MCG tenants am i right or am i right