Swans pushing for 3 Grand Finals

[liz]

I had a debate with an Essendon supporting work colleague about how the AFL competition favours Victorian clubs, specifically the Grand Final issue and player drain from non-football states. He's normally quite an intelligent person but his main points were the Grand Final is at neutral venue (!!!), interstate clubs have an unfair advantage because of their home grounds regardless of travel, loss of players to Victorian clubs etc (!!!). and that Victorian clubs play derbies every week which affects their pre-match build up and post-match recovery whereas non-Victorian clubs only play one or two derbies a year, giving them yet another advantage (!!!!).
It will be a long, long, long time, probably multiple generations before the inherent inequalities that exist in the AFL due to geographic location are negated.

Maybe you should suggest to him that his team relocate so that they can gain a competitive advantage over the eight teams that remain in Melbourne. Alice Springs must surely be ripe for an AFL team? Or if he's an Essendon fan, maybe the Tiwi Islands would better suit (given they seem to feel some connection to that part of the country).

[barry]

Statistically its actually much easier for a Victorian team to finish top 4 than a non-victorian.

A non-victorian has (roughly) 11 games of distinct home ground advantage, and 11 games of distinct away ground disadvantge. Their win/loss distribution graph is centred around 11 wins, but quite narrow at the sides. (ie the distribution is narrow).

A vic side has (roughly) 18 games of neutral ground advantage, 2 games of distinct away disadvantage, and 2 games of distinct home advantage. The win/loss distribution graph is centred around 11 wins also, but much wider variance because of the high number of 50/50 games.

What this means is that West Coast, Adelaide and Sydney of the last 3 years were super teams to defy this probability, and if all hosted grand finals at a neutral venue they would win in a canter because their victorian opponents got into top 2/4 without having to win a lot of away disadvantaged games, and so were a weaker list.

Also means Brisbane and GC are/were really a lot worse list-wise than other teams when they are finishing last. It means they cant even win more than a couple of heavily home ground advantaged games.

[Boddo]

I said in this thread before that I believed the FIXture would be the next issue that non-Vic clubs go after next, then the extension of draftees to a 3 year contract. This advantages Victorian clubs massively. Then 3rd party deals.

There’s nothing keeping these clubs quiet anymore, no COLA, no retention allowance, the academy advantages have shifted to the Victorian clubs, the FIXture, Victorian clubs travelling less etc etc.

The administrators have shifted the balance so far in the Victorian clubs favour that the non-Vic clubs having nothing to lose now.


I actually think this could be a massive turning point in dragging a so called national league to become a truly national league n grow the game.

[barry]

I said in this thread before that I believed the FIXture would be the next issue that non-Vic clubs go after next, then the extension of draftees to a 3 year contract. This advantages Victorian clubs massively. Then 3rd party deals.

There’s nothing keeping these clubs quiet anymore, no COLA, no retention allowance, the academy advantages have shifted to the Victorian clubs, the FIXture, Victorian clubs travelling less etc etc.

The administrators have shifted the balance so far in the Victorian clubs favour that the non-Vic clubs having nothing to lose now.


I actually think this could be a massive turning point in dragging a so called national league to become a truly national league n grow the game.

None of these 3 things applied to West Coast, Freo, Port or Adelaide, so why were they quiet ?

[Boddo]

None of these 3 things applied to West Coast, Freo, Port or Adelaide, so why were they quiet ?

The academy disadvantage does apply to WA/SA. I identified this on here a long time ago before this came about. A submission has already been sent to the AFL.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/indigenous-academy-backlash-20180620-p4zmq3.html

If Franklin grew up in Collingwoods zoned area he’d be tied to Collingwood whether that be their country or metro zone.

But if say he grew up in Bunbury, Fremantle would have no rights to him. Even though Bunbury is basically the same size as Launceston. The place North have rights to indigenous players like Tarryn Thomas.

Non Victorian clubs just want an even playing field n not these backroom mates clubs sweat heart deals that Vic clubs are used to.

The days of these shonky Victorian deals are going to die a slow death. The writing is on the wall.

[mcs]

Maybe you should suggest to him that his team relocate so that they can gain a competitive advantage over the eight teams that remain in Melbourne. Alice Springs must surely be ripe for an AFL team? Or if he's an Essendon fan, maybe the Tiwi Islands would better suit (given they seem to feel some connection to that part of the country).

I like your thinking Liz. The Tiwi Island Bombers all the way for mine.... just take their fans with them please rofl

[mcs]

The academy disadvantage does apply to WA/SA. I identified this on here a long time ago before this came about. A submission has already been sent to the AFL.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/indigenous-academy-backlash-20180620-p4zmq3.html

If Franklin grew up in Collingwoods zoned area he’d be tied to Collingwood whether that be their country or metro zone.

But if say he grew up in Bunbury, Fremantle would have no rights to him. Even though Bunbury is basically the same size as Launceston. The place North have rights to indigenous players like Tarryn Thomas.

Non Victorian clubs just want an even playing field n not these backroom mates clubs sweat heart deals that Vic clubs are used to.

The days of these shonky Victorian deals are going to die a slow death. The writing is on the wall.

Sadly the NGA's have much of the shonky deals feel about them - its zoning by stealth. At least it is limited to certain players so can't be a complete reintroduction of zoning by stealth, but there are already multiple examples of where players with already very well established pathways to AFL footy are being hoovered up by clubs under the NGA, claimed as their own - even where the clubs have had to do practically nothing to develop the talent.

- - - Updated - - -

Statistically its actually much easier for a Victorian team to finish top 4 than a non-victorian.

A non-victorian has (roughly) 11 games of distinct home ground advantage, and 11 games of distinct away ground disadvantge. Their win/loss distribution graph is centred around 11 wins, but quite narrow at the sides. (ie the distribution is narrow).

A vic side has (roughly) 18 games of neutral ground advantage, 2 games of distinct away disadvantage, and 2 games of distinct home advantage. The win/loss distribution graph is centred around 11 wins also, but much wider variance because of the high number of 50/50 games.

What this means is that West Coast, Adelaide and Sydney of the last 3 years were super teams to defy this probability, and if all hosted grand finals at a neutral venue they would win in a canter because their victorian opponents got into top 2/4 without having to win a lot of away disadvantaged games, and so were a weaker list.

Also means Brisbane and GC are/were really a lot worse list-wise than other teams when they are finishing last. It means they cant even win more than a couple of heavily home ground advantaged games.

Good points Barry. Whenever one picks an argument with a Victorian based team's supporter, they always underplay the substantial advantage of playing a number of their 'away' games either at their home ground, or one just a few minutes down the road. Its a hard one to unpick, but I like the way you have presented it here.

[KTigers]

Maybe ask a Richmond or Hawthorn fan how they'd feel about the Swans playing 14 to 16 home & away games a year at the SCG,
a few more at Spotless and all of our six grand finals since 1996 at the SCG as well.

[Boddo]

Sadly the NGA's have much of the shonky deals feel about them - its zoning by stealth. At least it is limited to certain players so can't be a complete reintroduction of zoning by stealth, but there are already multiple examples of where players with already very well established pathways to AFL footy are being hoovered up by clubs under the NGA, claimed as their own - even where the clubs have had to do practically nothing to develop the talent.

I pointed this out on here when the NGA’s were first introduced. Every single player that will be taken by a Victorian club had a pathway and was already in the system, from Quaynor from Collingwood to Bedford from Melbourne.

Back on topic though. The biggest fall down for me is how much tickets are available to MCC members. It’s way way to much. A reduction in MCC member access to the GF and more tickets for competing clubs would have seen this new contract more acceptable to supporters.

Anyone that lives outside Victoria would find the MCC membership not worth having.

For example if your a Port Adelaide supporter and you wanted to gain access to a GF ticket via your MCC membership to every GF they have played in it would have cost you $12,000+ over the AFL lifetime of the club. Just not worth it plain simple. $12,000+ for a ground that you hardly get to play on in the H&A season, cheaper to obtain a ticket via the club, access to GF tickets that basically has cost you $6,000 a ticket and access to cricket games that you can see by not leaving Adelaide.

It’s a membership set up basically for Victorian residents only.

Reduce the MCC access n they would have found that the new contract would have been a lot more acceptable to non Vic supporters.

Reduce it by atleast half. If competing clubs don’t use up the tickets then pass them back to the MCC.

The AFL could have held out longer n recieved a lot better outcome as the contract got closer to finishing. Instead they got sold for a few magic beans.

[Boddo]

Maybe ask a Richmond or Hawthorn fan how they'd feel about the Swans playing 14 to 16 home & away games a year at the SCG,
a few more at Spotless and all of our six grand finals since 1996 at the SCG as well.

This issue could have been fixed in the contract negotiations as the biggest difference between the stadiums is the dimensions.

The games administrators have no foresight but if they had realised years ago that this issue would raise its head they would have made Marvel stadium the same dimensions as the MCG or negotiated to have the MCG dimensions closer to Marvel dimensions as possible.

This way you reduce one of the issues in regards to GF day at the MCG by having non Vic clubs play on grounds more that have more similarities with where the GF is played. I’ve always believed that this is one of the reasons Brisbane were so good at the MCG during their years of success in the early 2000’s.

Sadly the administrators are from a bygone era and thought it would have been “cool” to have have massively different dimensions like the good old days from ground to ground.

IMO this is what has stifled the games growth in the northern states. Bad administrators that have no inclination of forward planning.

[Blood Fever]

This issue could have been fixed in the contract negotiations as the biggest difference between the stadiums is the dimensions.

The games administrators have no foresight but if they had realised years ago that this issue would raise its head they would have made Marvel stadium the same dimensions as the MCG or negotiated to have the MCG dimensions closer to Marvel dimensions as possible.

This way you reduce one of the issues in regards to GF day at the MCG by having non Vic clubs play on grounds more that have more similarities with where the GF is played. I’ve always believed that this is one of the reasons Brisbane were so good at the MCG during their years of success in the early 2000’s.

Sadly the administrators are from a bygone era and thought it would have been “cool” to have have massively different dimensions like the good old days from ground to ground.

IMO this is what has stifled the games growth in the northern states. Bad administrators that have no inclination of forward planning.

You make very good points here in relation to ground dimensions, but home ground advantage is also about atmosphere and psychology. For example, the 2017 GF is a vastly different game if played in Adelaide.

[KTigers]

It's mind boggling that the AFL signed a 40 year deal to play the GF at the MCG in the first place. 40 years !
Was there a competing offer from the A League to use the ground on a Saturday late in September in the mid 2050s?
Was Michael Gudinski thinking Marvel Stadium wouldn't be big enough for the then 66 year old Ed Sheeran to play his "farewell"
series of outdoor shows in 2057, and the AFL thought they better tie up the venue till then.
Are no new stadiums going to be built in Australia in the next 40 years? Even though the countries population is mooted
to be north of 60 million by then.
Nope, none of the above. The 40 year deal just shows what the AFL really thinks about a national competition.

[Boddo]

You make very good points here in relation to ground dimensions, but home ground advantage is also about atmosphere and psychology. For example, the 2017 GF is a vastly different game if played in Adelaide.

I fully agree it’s not just ground dimensions. It’s one part.

As I pointed out in another post in regards to crowd make up the GF would always have more supporters from Victoria due to the vast majority of MCC members being from Victoria due to it not being worth while have an MCC membership if your from outside Victoria. That’s part of the atmosphere.

You add these 2 together n you can see how much of a massive advantage it is for Victorian clubs playing in the GF at the MCG.

The point I was making is that if the administrators wanted a truly fair GF they would have considered these things plus more and tried to negotiated these into a new contract with the MCC.

Instead they grabbed the magic beans n ran.

Do people really think in twenty years time we’ll look back at the contract signing n go “wow what a deal”. No they’ll laugh n think we were all sold a lemon.

The MCC made out like bandits.


Yes I agree Adelaide would have destroyed Richmond. Would have been over very very early. Ala Geelong thrashing Port in ‘07. Richmond are the most pathetic premiers behind The Bulldogs imo.

[CureTheSane]

It's mind boggling that the AFL signed a 40 year deal to play the GF at the MCG in the first place. 40 years !
Was there a competing offer from the A League to use the ground on a Saturday late in September in the mid 2050s?
Was Michael Gudinski thinking Marvel Stadium wouldn't be big enough for the then 66 year old Ed Sheeran to play his "farewell"
series of outdoor shows in 2057, and the AFL thought they better tie up the venue till then.
Are no new stadiums going to be built in Australia in the next 40 years? Even though the countries population is mooted
to be north of 60 million by then.
Nope, none of the above. The 40 year deal just shows what the AFL really thinks about a national competition.

They are pretty fair points.
Will possibly be a huge regret if the structure of the competition changes over that period.

In 1978 (40 years ago) we had
12 teams in the competition
no interstate teams
games played at local ground
1 game per week at the MCG
a night series
attendance less than half what it is now, which is somewhat reflective of...
138 games player compared to 207
average player payments of 15% of the average wage
TV rights were held between ch2 and ch7 at $600,000 per year

Smacks of a very Victorian centric AFl, who are worried about future national developments and want to lock it in to Victoria for a long time.
Fast forward 10 to 15 years and we'll likely be discussing the pros and cons of buying out of the 40 year contract with the MCG.

[bloodspirit]

They are pretty fair points.
Will possibly be a huge regret if the structure of the competition changes over that period.

In 1978 (40 years ago) we had
12 teams in the competition
no interstate teams
games played at local ground
1 game per week at the MCG
a night series
attendance less than half what it is now, which is somewhat reflective of...
138 games player compared to 207
average player payments of 15% of the average wage
TV rights were held between ch2 and ch7 at $600,000 per year

Smacks of a very Victorian centric AFl, who are worried about future national developments and want to lock it in to Victoria for a long time.
Fast forward 10 to 15 years and we'll likely be discussing the pros and cons of buying out of the 40 year contract with the MCG.

Neat post, CTS. Do you carry all that data at your finger tips?!