The ANZ/SCG myth

[Beerman]

I'm back on the hobby-horse. I keep hearing how it hurts the team to play at ANZ. So, I went back over the records to check our results, and here is what I found. Looking at the "Longmire years" ie. 2011-12

ANZ - 66% win rate:

4 wins (GWS x 2, Essendon, St Kilda)
2 losses (Collingwood x 2)

SCG - 68.75% win rate:

11 wins (fremantle, north, melbourne, bulldogs x 2, geelong, brisbane x 2, st kilda, port, richmond)
5 losses (adelaide, geelong, carlton, hawthorn, fremantle)


Adding 2010 to the mix changes it as follows:

ANZ - 50% win rate

5 wins (GWS x 2, Essendon, St Kilda, Carlton)
5 losses (Collingwood x 3, St Kilda, Geelong)


SCG - 75% win rate

18 wins (fremantle, north x 2, melbourne, bulldogs x 3, richmond x 2, west coast, brisbane x 3, essendon, Hawthorn, geelong, port, st kilda)
6 losses (adelaide, geelong, carlton, hawthorn, fremantle)


Although we have a much higher win rate at the SCG, it is chiefly due to the fact that games against better teams get played at ANZ. The 5 losses at ANZ have all been against teams that were in the top 4 at the time. (The St Kilda game was in round 1, but they finished 3rd that year).

Looking at results against teams in the top 8 at the time we played them (or after round 8 for games in the first 8 rounds)

ANZ - 37.5% win rate

3 wins (essendon, st kilda, carlton)
5 losses (collingwood x 3, st kilda, geelong)

SCG - 40% win rate

4 wins (Hawthorn, bulldogs, fremantle, geelong)
6 losses (fremantle, geelong, carlton, hawthorn, fremantle, adelaide)


It's a bit hard to interpret because we play so few games at ANZ, but there Doesn't seem to be much difference to me. So, can we please stop talking about how it disadvantages the team to play at ANZ?

Continue discussing the soulless nature of the venue and the difficulty to get to as normal.

[Dirtyburt]

I'm back on the hobby-horse. I keep hearing how it hurts the team to play at ANZ. So, I went back over the records to check our results, and here is what I found. Looking at the "Longmire years" ie. 2011-12

ANZ - 66% win rate:

4 wins (GWS x 2, Essendon, St Kilda)
2 losses (Collingwood x 2)

SCG - 68.75% win rate:

11 wins (fremantle, north, melbourne, bulldogs x 2, geelong, brisbane x 2, st kilda, port, richmond)
5 losses (adelaide, geelong, carlton, hawthorn, fremantle)


Adding 2010 to the mix changes it as follows:

ANZ - 50% win rate

5 wins (GWS x 2, Essendon, St Kilda, Carlton)
5 losses (Collingwood x 3, St Kilda, Geelong)


SCG - 75% win rate

18 wins (fremantle, north x 2, melbourne, bulldogs x 3, richmond x 2, west coast, brisbane x 3, essendon, Hawthorn, geelong, port, st kilda)
6 losses (adelaide, geelong, carlton, hawthorn, fremantle)


Although we have a much higher win rate at the SCG, it is chiefly due to the fact that games against better teams get played at ANZ. The 5 losses at ANZ have all been against teams that were in the top 4 at the time. (The St Kilda game was in round 1, but they finished 3rd that year).

Looking at results against teams in the top 8 at the time we played them (or after round 8 for games in the first 8 rounds)

ANZ - 37.5% win rate

3 wins (essendon, st kilda, carlton)
5 losses (collingwood x 3, st kilda, geelong)

SCG - 40% win rate

4 wins (Hawthorn, bulldogs, fremantle, geelong)
6 losses (fremantle, geelong, carlton, hawthorn, fremantle, adelaide)


It's a bit hard to interpret because we play so few games at ANZ, but there Doesn't seem to be much difference to me. So, can we please stop talking about how it disadvantages the team to play at ANZ?

Continue discussing the soulless nature of the venue and the difficulty to get to as normal.

I think the telling statistic is the players saying they prefer to play at the scg. Says it all really

[Beerman]

I think the telling statistic is the players saying they prefer to play at the scg. Says it all really

That's only because they all live in the Eastern suburbs and don't like to travel all the way out to Homebush

[Dirtyburt]

That's only because they all live in the Eastern suburbs and don't like to travel all the way out to Homebush

Lol, could be that, the fact they train and play at scg, the strange non-afl nature of the dimensions of the ground, it's soulless nature or the fact the surface is appalling. It is definitely one or all of those!

[ernie koala]

Beerman...please....

2 of the 4 wins for 2011/2012, and 2 of the 5 wins for 2010-2012, at the olympic calamity ...were against GWS !

Let's be fair dinkum....We would of beaten them in the olympic pool.

[SwansFan1972]

Pies love the joint. Need there be any other reason to never put our boots out there again?

Place is lousy for watching footy. Most seats are either (a) obstructed view, or (b) miles away from the ground on poorly rising deep seating bays.

Surface still crap, but better than it has been in years (and not as bad as the sandpit at Etihad).

Beer served from the bar under aisle 105 tasted like there was soap in the lines (and that was before the result made things taste even worse)!

[Bloody Hell]

I think the most telling thing is that every statistic you've put up says our win rate is better at the SCG than ANZ.

How can you possibly use those figures to make an argument for?!?

[Go Swannies]

Thanks Beerman - you have just expanded on what the Swans coaches and players have been saying about the two venues - it doesn't make much difference. And those who argue otherwise must logically conclude that the Swans won't win a Grand Final against any team because it's played at the MCG where we will not only be facing the other best team but playing a venue where we never win these days.

I think we'd do better if we played with 16 a side and all our home games were played on astroturf in Antarctica. Fortress Antarctica I say. And that's as likely as the Swans not playing blockbusters at ANZ where there's a chance for a big payout if the crowds roll in (well 45,000 on a lousy night).

I really wish the "drop ANZ" campaign would end because it just makes us look like silver spoon serial moaners. We certainly have not sewn up the SCG as a fortress the way the Cats have with Simonds Stadium but I don't recall them complaining about playing big games down the road at the MCG. Either the team is good enough to win or it's not. Strangely, we were good enough to win on Saturday but had the kicking yips. That, not the venue, is a problem.

[jono2707]

One day the universes will align and I will be able to watch my beloved Swannies lose to the Pies at our rightful home the SCG.

[Cheer Squad]

Thanks Beerman - you have just expanded on what the Swans coaches and players have been saying about the two venues - it doesn't make much difference. And those who argue otherwise must logically conclude that the Swans won't win a Grand Final against any team because it's played at the MCG where we will not only be facing the other best team but playing a venue where we never win these days.

I think we'd do better if we played with 16 a side and all our home games were played on astroturf in Antarctica. Fortress Antarctica I say. And that's as likely as the Swans not playing blockbusters at ANZ where there's a chance for a big payout if the crowds roll in (well 45,000 on a lousy night).

I really wish the "drop ANZ" campaign would end because it just makes us look like silver spoon serial moaners. We certainly have not sewn up the SCG as a fortress the way the Cats have with Simonds Stadium but I don't recall them complaining about playing big games down the road at the MCG. Either the team is good enough to win or it's not. Strangely, we were good enough to win on Saturday but had the kicking yips. That, not the venue, is a problem.

+ 1

[Jewels]

Thanks Beerman - you have just expanded on what the Swans coaches and players have been saying about the two venues - it doesn't make much difference. And those who argue otherwise must logically conclude that the Swans won't win a Grand Final against any team because it's played at the MCG where we will not only be facing the other best team but playing a venue where we never win these days.

I think we'd do better if we played with 16 a side and all our home games were played on astroturf in Antarctica. Fortress Antarctica I say. And that's as likely as the Swans not playing blockbusters at ANZ where there's a chance for a big payout if the crowds roll in (well 45,000 on a lousy night).

I really wish the "drop ANZ" campaign would end because it just makes us look like silver spoon serial moaners. We certainly have not sewn up the SCG as a fortress the way the Cats have with Simonds Stadium but I don't recall them complaining about playing big games down the road at the MCG. Either the team is good enough to win or it's not. Strangely, we were good enough to win on Saturday but had the kicking yips. That, not the venue, is a problem.

I hate the place but completely agree with everything you have said, particularly the last sentence.

[Beerman]

Lol, could be that, the fact they train and play at scg, the strange non-afl nature of the dimensions of the ground, it's soulless nature or the fact the surface is appalling. It is definitely one or all of those!

Non-afl dimensions? Sure, it's a bit narrow (170m x 128m) but Pattersons is 175 x 122 and we do really well there. (MCG is 171 x 146).

Beerman...please....

2 of the 4 wins for 2011/2012, and 2 of the 5 wins for 2010-2012, at the olympic calamity ...were against GWS !Let's be fair dinkum....We would of beaten them in the olympic pool.

True, and lots of our wins at the SCG are against rubbish teams. That's why I gave stats for games against top-8 teams only.

I think the most telling thing is that every statistic you've put up says our win rate is better at the SCG than ANZ.

How can you possibly use those figures to make an argument for?!?

I haven't run the stats for significance, but given the very small sample size they are almost certainly within the margin of error. What I'm saying is that the team does just as well at ANZ as it does at the SCG.

Personally, I would be happy for every game to be played at the SCG, because it is convenient for me. In fact, playing Heffron Oval at Maroubra or Pioneer Park at Malabar are my first preferences but I recognise that what is best for me is not what's best for the team (in terms of winning) or the club (in terms of money).

I would love it if the SCG could hold 80,000 people and all our games could be held there. But it doesn't and they can't. I'm just don't think we're sacrificing our chances of winning by holding them out there.

[Beerman]

Place is lousy for watching footy. Most seats are either (a) obstructed view, or (b) miles away from the ground on poorly rising deep seating bays.

This is what mystifies me. Look at most modern stadiums and they are really steep, so you can be high up, but still close to the field. If you want an elevated seat in the middle of ANZ, you have to sit about 50m from the near sideline. Terrible design.

[kangle4]

Main thing is playing Collingwood at ANZ, never mind the other results they are the one team we need to play at the SCG from now on.

[stellation]

Our seats at Homebush are woeful for visibility along one wing, but really that's on me for laziness for not bothering to organise a switch of seats at any of the many opportunities that I've had. Hugo sits in our bay, I don't want to dissapoint him by having him turn up one season not to see me there.

That said, I actually like to go out there for a game. I prefer the SCG, but it's something a bit different. It should be noted that I'm a pretty happy fellow, and generally find a way to enjoy most things so I'm not sure I'm good example of fan sentiment- but, and forgive me for this, I'm not sure that whiney folks are either (winey yes, well hello Wardy!)