Unfair Advantage?

[Ludwig]

The ABC Radio National All in the Mind program is quite interesting this week. Link: The forces that shape us - All In The Mind - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

According to Dr. Adam Alter teams that are garbed in red should win more that 60% of the time, just due to the colour. It's quite an interesting program and worth listening to in its entirety. Some good passages about racial profiling as well.

So do the Swans have an unfair advantage just because of the jumper colours? And what should the AFL do about it? Because we know how distraught they can become about any Swans' advantage. Perhaps the Swans should be docked something like 10 premiership points every season just to even things out? It just doesn't seem right that we have everything, like Buddy, Tippo and the colour Red.

Luckily Eddie McGuire is highly unlikely to listen to All in the Mind. (Eddie says: What - No Prizes. What kind of a show is that?")

[Dosser]

I know that red is supposed to make me feel hungry, which is why I am always biting my nails during swans games.
Just imagine how powerful St George was during the 70s with Rod Reddy playing for them!
I'm off to get some chips.

[Bloods05]

Luckily Eddie McGuire is highly unlikely to listen to All in the Mind. (Eddie says: What - No Prizes. What kind of a show is that?")

Yeah, and then you go and make it all public like.

[wolftone57]

Interesting that red is supposed to have an advantage. Someone might have told the Swans teams of the 1983-85, 1990-95, 1971-75, 1956-69 & the list of missing finals goes on (AFLtables.com). St Kilda has red in it's jumper and it has only ever won one premiership. Western Bulldogs likewise, even though they won 9 VFA premierships (Wiki). Essendon are the most successful of the clubs that wear red. The crows could boast that privilege, due to only being in the comp for a limited time winning two premierships, on average. Gold Coast don't count because they have just arrived. Melbourne were successful in the early days having won 12 premierships (Wiki) but their recent history has been underwhelming.

Is wearing red a conduit to success? I think the results would suggest this is not a factor in success at all. Certainly teams with red have been successful but many have been very unsuccessful as well. Here is the break down;

Red Teams Premierships (6): 37

Non Red Teams (14): 80

Red Team Runners up (6): 37

Non Red Team (14): 94 (Wiki)

Even the Premiership frequency table very much favours non red teams, Brisbane being the top team. In fact Essendon & Melbourne are the only teams that make the top eight (Wiki).

The Non Red teams include University, Brisbane Bears (both defunct) & fledgling GWS while the Red teams include Gold Coast. If you take the defunct teams and the fledgling teams away then the average is about even. In premierships wo there is a slight advantage to the Red sides but it is miniscule. But if you look at appearances in the GF then the advantage is squarely to the Non Red.

[Nico]

It is amazing how many horses win races wearing red and white colours.

[0918330512]

Roger Federer & Martina Hingis share a red & white national banner .... they did alright between them

[royboy42]

Yep, but also amazing how many don't.

[JPK12]

England have reverted back to their red strip in soccer and that hasnt helped them at all.

[wolftone57]

The reason red in world sport is a very successful colour is that if the figures of teams wearing some sort of red were totalled opposing teams who don't wear red it would probably be a huge win to the reds. In the English Premier Leaguwe there are so many teams that wear red in their strip. With Australian rules it was a concious decision to vary the colours of the teams so there would be as little clash as possible. In leagues such as the Premier league there are colour clashes almost every game so therefore home & away strips. Southampton wear red and white and haven't been extremely successful. mind you there are only a handful of teams in the Premier League with a chance of winning due to their financial dominance. Stupid competition as far as I'm concerned, very boring. The same thing is happening to our league since Free Agency.

[JPK12]

Yeah i cant handle the EPL. What incentive is there to watch a league if you dislike the big 4? None.

mind you there are only a handful of teams in the Premier League with a chance of winning due to their financial dominance. Stupid competition as far as I'm concerned, very boring. The same thing is happening to our league since Free Agency.

Well if the hawks are allowed to do as they please then we are half way there.

I dont understand why victorians have no issue in allowing hawthorn to be the dominant club for a long while? Why they have no issues that the hawks are allowed to poach the good players from other teams or recruit top shelf players after a flag, let alone 2 in a row? Yet we win an amazing GF on the back of very good list management and smart recruiting, we sign a player or two under risky but legal conditions..and we are the devils spawn? Disgusting narrative set by the vic media but hardly surprising from that city down south.

The hawks have fooled so many down south. While most victorians were being told bull@@@@ lies about non vic clubs thus allowing pitch forks to be raised..the hawks on the sly have basically built a list that will dominant for a long long time much to the detriment of the smaller vic clubs.

[goswannies]

Yeah i cant handle the EPL. What incentive is there to watch a league if you dislike the big 4? None.



Well if the hawks are allowed to do as they please then we are half way there.

I dont understand why victorians have no issue in allowing hawthorn to be the dominant club for a long while? Why they have no issues that the hawks are allowed to poach the good players from other teams or recruit top shelf players after a flag, let alone 2 in a row? Yet we win an amazing GF on the back of very good list management and smart recruiting, we sign a player or two under risky but legal conditions..and we are the devils spawn? Disgusting narrative set by the vic media but hardly surprising from that city down south.

The hawks have fooled so many down south. While most victorians were being told bull@@@@ lies about non vic clubs thus allowing pitch forks to be raised..the hawks on the sly have basically built a list that will dominant for a long long time much to the detriment of the smaller vic clubs.

I'm a Victorian - albeit one who's misplaced in SA - & I have a huge issue with Hawthorn (or any other non-Swans club) being a dominant club (or even enjoying a modicum of success)

[JPK12]

Yeah but you're a swans fan..we are irrelevant in the scheme of things down there. I've even heard us called a franchise club now.

[Ludwig]

Based on the All in the Mind broadcast, there were many tests that demonstrated the red advantage. IIRC, at the Olympics, they randomly assigned red and blue shorts to opponents in perhaps thousands of boxing (I think) matches, and then someone got the results based on colour and found that the red shorts won more than 60 % of the time. Since it was random, over a large sample size the only differentiating factor was the colour of the shorts. So it would seem that based on red vs. non-red contests, the reds have a considerable edge. You can't just do some anecdotal comparison, like Liverpool and Man Utd are red, so that's why red wins more often. The point of the program was that wearing red psychologically makes you feel dominant and your opponent weaker. The findings were based on a scientific study.

[wolftone57]

Yeah but you're a swans fan..we are irrelevant in the scheme of things down there. I've even heard us called a franchise club now.

Yes we haven't been a franchise club since Eddleston went broke and Willessee handed the club back to the AFL. This is a member driven club not a franchise. Very angry at those who say we are a franchise as they are lying.

[wolftone57]

Based on the All in the Mind broadcast, there were many tests that demonstrated the red advantage. IIRC, at the Olympics, they randomly assigned red and blue shorts to opponents in perhaps thousands of boxing (I think) matches, and then someone got the results based on colour and found that the red shorts won more than 60 % of the time. Since it was random, over a large sample size the only differentiating factor was the colour of the shorts. So it would seem that based on red vs. non-red contests, the reds have a considerable edge. You can't just do some anecdotal comparison, like Liverpool and Man Utd are red, so that's why red wins more often. The point of the program was that wearing red psychologically makes you feel dominant and your opponent weaker. The findings were based on a scientific study.

It was a psychological study in fact. Part of basic psychology same as Pavlov's Dog. The study found that in sport wearing red was a distinct advantage due to several factors. Red is the brightest and most aggressive colour in the spectrum. By aggressive I mean that placed next to other colours it overpowers. Red is also psychologically linked to high aggression, competitiveness and violence due to it's association with blood. sayings like 'He saw Red', 'Red with Rage' denote anger. Bulls are supposed to only attack a red cloth, of course this a bull@@@@ as bulls are colour-blind. I think we have to be careful though as the results of tests are generational. One generation finds red cowering, another does not. They are also cultural. As with IQ tests, most of which are rubbish as they don't test artistic intelligence, colour testing should be based on cultural grounds. For instance one thing that must be taken into account is that to some cultures red is a revered colour and if the participant from these cultures was to draw blue they would have no chance of winning. The opposite applies to a person who draws blue who is a Thai who supports the Yellow political movement, he/she will attempt to kill the red.