A controversial theory....

[sharp9]

Come finals time, home ground advantage counts for nothing.

Over the last few years I have noticed that many teams have won away from home in the finals. It really seems that come finals time the best team on the day wins and that is dependent only on form and injuries.

Examples

Swans over Port 2003
Collingwood over Port 2002
Brisbane over Swans 2003
Essendon over Fremantle 2003

In the home and away season these lower ladder teams winning away would have been highly unlikely. You could argue that Port (for example) choked...but I would counter argue that in fact Port were overconfident partly based on the expectation that playing at home would give them an advantage. They were getting bloated toward the end of the season and they didn't come to play on the day. Home ground schmome ground they weren't good enough. Ditto all the other losing teams listed.

Thinking of some home wins

Swans over Eagles 2004
St. Kilda over Swans 2004

for example, I think that the winner and the margin was a reflection of form plus injuries. Nobody got lucky there.

I would be no more confident of beating the Eagles at Telstra than at Subiaco. None. I would unhesitatingly name us the favourites against them home or away if it were played this weekend.

Similarly Adelaide would be favoured to win home or away if there were a final this weekend.

If the Eagles are fantastic and Adelaide poor this weekend and our forms holds I would favour us to win at AAMI on Friday week.

If the Eagles lose then we would be even stronger favourites to beat them than we would be to beat Adelaide.

[hammo]

I appreciate your optimism and you make some good points.

My only query would be the Swans total lack of form in Perth over the past few years.

AAMI holds no fears but we seem to go missing in the wide open spaces of Subiaco.

[BayesysLeftBoot]

I agree that home ground advantage in finals is overrated but wouldn't go so far as to say it counts for nothing. In a close game I think home support can get a team over the line.

[giant]

Originally posted by hammo
I appreciate your optimism and you make some good points.

My only query would be the Swans total lack of form in Perth over the past few years.

AAMI holds no fears but we seem to go missing in the wide open spaces of Subiaco.

There is the small matter that no one has managed to beat the Weagles at Subi in the last 20 attempts. It's not just the Swans that struggle.

[NMWBloods]

Re: A controversial theory....

Originally posted by sharp9
Come finals time, home ground advantage counts for nothing.

Wait 'til barry reads this!!

[SimonH]

The theory maybe isn't totally without merit, but the examples cited don't really make the case. Two of them were Port 'chokes' (without diminishing our amazing team performance) in 2003, Freo were (and let's face it, probably still are) renowned for being soft as butter when the pressure was applied, and Sydney were playing the pre-eminent football side of at least the last decade (if not longer).

To say that 'Port were overconfident, they weren't good enough' is no doubt true, but doesn't answer the question of whether they had a home ground advantage, i.e. whether they did better at Footy Park than they would have done away. Their performances in the 2nd and 3rd weeks of finals in both 2002 and 2003 support the view that they did.

It's also notable that while the Port games were relatively close (13 pts and 12 pts, although of course the Sydney result flattered them), Freo got flogged by 44 points and Sydney by the same margin. I think the better theory is that 'if you get a run-on against/start dominating the home team, you neutralise the home ground advantage'.

Home ground advantage doesn't make a 10 goal worse team win, and obviously a 10 goal better team doesn't need it. It can turn close games (or games that would have been close if played at a neutral venue). To take a couple of examples: I have very little doubt that St Kilda would have got home in the last quarter of the 2004 prelim final (even if the first 3 q's had been identical) if the game was in Melbourne. It's also very hard to imagine that Collingwood would have enjoyed their 'false dawn' 2003 qualifying final win over Brisbane if that game had been at the Gabba.

Of course, examples can be cited both ways, but I'm reasonably confident that a statistical analysis (not merely counting home wins v away wins, but also allowing for the ladder position of the teams competing) would support the theory that there is a home ground advantage in regular finals. I think the GF is a different story, b/c it isn't full of one-eyed supporters of the Victorian team (if there is one).

I for one would much rather play either WCE or Adelaide at Homebush!

[sharp9]

Yeah...but can you give some (recent) example of where home support has "got a team over the line."

Last year's PFs were close (not that I have seen either of them) but I don't think anyone believes that the better team lost.

[NMWBloods]

I think home ground was a big factor in Sydney's win over WC last year.

Similarly, it was a critical factor in the Port win over StKilda. If that had been played at the MCG I think StKilda would have won.

Collingwood v. Port at MCG in 2003 - arguably also a major factor.

Essendon v. West Coast at TD in 2002.

Port v. Essendon at Football Park in 2002.

Collingwood v. Adelaide at MCG in 2002.

Brisbane v. Port at Gabba in 2001.

How much of an impact, it's hard to tell, but I think it was a factor in those games.

[Go Swannies]

The younger, or less finals experienced, the away team - the greater the home ground final advantage.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by sharp9
Yeah...but can you give some (recent) example of where home support has "got a team over the line."

Last year's PFs were close (not that I have seen either of them) but I don't think anyone believes that the better team lost.

The phrase "the better team won" is always self-justifying. Why are they better? Because they won! To cite an obvious recent example, if the Geelong player who took the after-the-siren kick in R20 had nailed it, the headlines would have been 'Melbourne fold under pressure and end their season'. As it was, Melbourne were comeback heroes plucking out an unlikely victory when everyone had written them off. The game actually played by 22 Melbourne players across 120 minutes was identical either way.

Proving that if the game had been played somewhere else the result would definitely have been different is obviously impossible and meaningless. 'Proving' that Collingwood wouldn't have knocked off Adelaide in R21 if they'd played in Melbourne is impossible-- you can only make suppositions based on the way the teams actually played, and the factors that you think would have been different in another city. But based on the momentum of the game, I think it's wildly unlikely that the last quarter of St K v Port would have played out favourably to Port if that match was in Melbourne. I could cite other examples, but they can by their nature only be speculation.

"Home ground advantage" is much more than "home team support". I also don't believe that we would have beaten WCE in the qual final last year if that match had been played in Perth-- apart from all of the other factors, there wouldn't have been an electrical storm and torrential downpour in WA; and even though we were on top when it hit, that was an event of some importance in sealing WCE's fate.

[sharp9]

Originally posted by SimonH

Home ground advantage doesn't make a 10 goal worse team win, and obviously a 10 goal better team doesn't need it. It can turn close games (or games that would have been close if played at a neutral venue). To take a couple of examples: I have very little doubt that St Kilda would have got home in the last quarter of the 2004 prelim final (even if the first 3 q's had been identical) if the game was in Melbourne. It's also very hard to imagine that Collingwood would have enjoyed their 'false dawn' 2003 qualifying final win over Brisbane if that game had been at the Gabba.

this is all great, but, correct me if i'm wrong...that PF was played at the MCG even though Brissy were the higher team (hence all the controversy)

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
The younger, or less finals experienced, the away team - the greater the home ground final advantage.

Like many good theories this one has the elegance of simplicity and the view of "it's so obvious why wasn't it said before".

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Like many good theories this one has the elegance of simplicity and the view of "it's so obvious why wasn't it said before".

aw, shucks.

[TheHood]

If West Coast lose on the weekend and we play the first final over there, then I have full confidence we can/should win that game.

We will still go in as rank underdogs, however we have the game, the cattle, the attitude and the experience to win over there.

Take the crowd out of it with fast points and anything can happen.

Finals are a funny thing and you would have to agree that going into that game, the public pressure would be firmly on West Coast. They would be expected to win and that bunch of mimbos would struggle under that kind of pressure.

I respect WCE for their form, but that has slackened significantly of late. Injuries are an issue, but not an excuse.