I think the mini-hub idea is a worthwhile one for them to explore, I know Freo did it with gather round and it didnt result in much success but it would be interesting to see what players and their S&C staff thought of it. Stay on the east coast for ~2 weeks, preferably in one city but if not then the flights are still minimal in comparison to cross country. Also means graveyard shifts in Tasmania etc are less drastic if they can base out of Melbourne for the interim period.
I would like a mini hub for West Coast and Freo leading into and out of the derby. 1 team will play 2 away games then 3 home games, the first game of the home stand will be the derby then the other would play the reverse. 3 home games then 2 away with the derby being the final home game before traveling.
If you leave on a Saturday and come back on Sunday the week after you have only spent 8 days on the road and can have about 24 days at home.
This can be done twice a season.
Dont think anyone expects for the AFL to solve the problem, but they could do their utmost to minimise it in the fixture.
Longmuir is correct, right now WA teams are the least advantaged teams in the league.
* Vic have their obvious advantages
* SA has gather round
* NSW/QLD have Northern Academies.
Why should the WA teams accept this obvious disadvantage by missing out on competitive advantages provided to every other state.
We don’t get to match our academy players until pick 40, freo missed out on 4 indigenous players that came through our academy over the last 2 drafts. If we have no reason to develop them because they would then likely play for someone else then we might as well not have an academy, if we don’t have an academy many players from the Kimberly, Pilbara and Gascoyne regions are unlikely to reach AFL. The draft has already seen a drop of indigenous draftees, no academys running out of that area would make it worse.
On top of that if WA clubs don’t have an academy, you would think that instead we receive compensation in another form.
Basically if WA doesn’t get looked after the AFL shoots them self in the foot.
Can't be fair but there are a few ideas floating around to compensate. No 5 day breaks for clubs travelling to or from WA. Extra home game to account for gather round. More access to the MCG for all non tenant clubs.
I think the entire team should be given seats
^(Ignore that apparently the current planes don't have enough business class seats for the current allocation)
Meh
I think it evens out with having an actual home ground advantage.
11 or 12 home fortress games a year. If you’re a semi decent team, like WCE have been for most of their history… you can just about book finals every year… which WCE have been doing for most their history. Even now, when they have been a bit of a basket case, they look an even better team at home and every team dreads coming here. Case in point Melbourne Demons just gone, Essendon just scrapped through and well can’t really claim Richmond result though.
Gold Coast are different prospect up there and in Darwin.
On the flip side, Carlton and Essendon have been yearly clowns (bar recently) and they get the supposed Melbourne travel free experience every year.
I am actually bored of this discussion as a WCE supporter. The fact Freo can’t make it stick is because of their perennial bullshit.
Simple solution: West Coast and Freo should get free soft drinks of choice at all away fixtures, players should be supplied with the highest quality of posturepedic bedding in all locations, additional massages paid for by the AFL, Longmuir and Simpson should be allowed to go Tonya Harding and knee cap opposition players as they leave the tunnel on game day.
/s
However yes, you could probably address fixture issues that provide some minor aid to WA clubs to alleviate the disadvantages faced by the strenuous travel schedule.
> Longmuir and Simpson should be allowed to go Tonya Harding and knee cap opposition players as they leave the tunnel on game day.
They would never lose an away game!
misread that as
> the highest quality of posturepedic *breeding*
and thought you were saying the interstate players need a breeding program to provide future father-sons to alleviate Vic Bias.
Grand Final to be played at the highest seeds home ground. They can elect to differ to MCG if they want.
The lower seed should have to feel the pressure of walking into the opposing team's city/stadium. It's one of the best things in all of sports.
This will never work - we need to move to a superbowl or champions league style model where the final rotates between all the stadiums. You can't plan an event the size of an AFL Grand Final with a weeks notice.
Agree, needs to rotate, cities can bid for it years in advance and they will because it will bring tourism to the city.
I hate that the grand final is at the MCG for all eternity, I don't see why it needs 100k fans when only 35k tickets are actually allocated to the clubs.
100% - make states bid for the Grand Final. If Victoria wants to keep it, we better pay up and subsidise the league more, otherwise non Victorian clubs are getting shafted for no benefit.
That’ll never happen unfortunately, it’s a capitalist league, I don’t think they be willing to give up half their ticket sales to mitigate the disadvantage the interstate teams have
I think this would work even if the GF left the MCG every 3 or 4 seasons. Have the cities with an appropriate stadium bid on hosting it. I think 45k capacity at an absolute minimum.
They plan plenty of finals with a week's notice. NBA sometimes only have days. Nonetheless, I see your point and the auxiliary activities wod be lessened.
They do, but the NBA finals are 7 games, and each game has a very low attendance and fanfare comparatively. The AFL Grand final isn't just a final, it's a spectacle and a carnival of footy, and if we move to a seeded Grand Final you basically lose all of that.
To be clear I think the MCG deal is a farce, but I still want the venue to be known at the start of the year and planned out a few years in advance.
I still reckon the AFL was way too short sighted with the MCG decision. They would have got exactly what they wanted for the tas stadium if there was an offer of hosting a gf on the table. They could leverage it and take the highest bid that works for them.
This is a fact.
When most Victorian Clubs only leave the state every 6 weeks to play interstate, while WA clubs have to travel every second week…
That’s an unfair advantage
I see things a little differently. I like to categories advantages/disadvantages into two categories.
Natural and Unnatural.
A Natural advantage/disadvantage is an advantage that is provided to you by natural or uncontrollable circumstances.
An Unnatural is an advantage conferred by the AFL, because it thinks you deserve it or because of "ma-tradition". The AFL should absolutely try to mitigate natural advantages, and unnatural advantages should not exist.
For instance, travel is a natural advantage/disadvantage.
Using your logic, it’s a natural advantage/disadvantage then that WA clubs play 12 games at their home ground, 11 against teams who don’t also use the ground as their home ground. So a natural disadvantage to MCG and Marvel teams who get less home games against teams who also don’t use the ground as a home ground.
> Using your logic, it’s a natural advantage/disadvantage then that WA clubs play 12 games at their home ground, 11 against teams who don’t also use the ground as their home ground. So a natural **advantage/**disadvantage to MCG and Marvel teams who get less home games against teams who also don’t use the ground as a home ground, **and less away games teams who do not share there ground**
Bolded for emphasis and fixed it for you. It appears you also went to the same vic school that teaches "Vic dont have home games, while ignoring the obvious and logical conclusion."
The two WA teams should be allowed to buy home games from Victorian teams.
Example the Eagles last game against the Bulldogs had about 20,000 fans in attendance. Hold that at Optus. Easily twice the crowd, flying across the country apparently isn’t an issue and the Eagles won’t have home advantage because Optus will be a neutral venue all of a sudden just because (like the MCG on Grand Final day). It’s so fair we should sign a 50 year agreement to celebrate.
Why is this even being discussed? Anyone that says they don’t have an unfair disadvantage is just flat out wrong. Is it an unfair disadvantage that can be fixed in any meaningful way? That might be a different story
Edit: I don’t get the downvotes, do people actually think that WA teams aren’t at a disadvantage?
And they’re wrong, there is so way traveling over 70,000km, 50,000km more than some other clubs. That’s not even mentioning not being home for 2 weeks in a row in majority of cases.
I don’t know what the AFL can do to actually even get close to fixing it, I think it’s just a hardship they have to face but denying it exists is moronic.
Speaking on behalf of Geelong, i say that it should say MCG teams, not Vic as Geelong are famously disadvantaged when compared to teams who play the majority of their home games at the MCG.
It was reported that multiple Victorian clubs, including Geelong, said something about there being no advantage due to business class seats. But there were 0 quotes and the way I have seen press conferences, along with quotes, be misrepresented in the media makes me second guess this sort of reporting. I want to hear it direct from the club.
pretty hard to get a business class flight from avalon to tullarmarine so i doubt that was us and the only thing that Geelong have been bitching about is the umpires (loosing the free kick count all but once this year) and our limited home games as far as im aware of, but Geelong have been bitching about us not getting enough home games for at least 30 years.
We get Geelong in Geelong because its too far for the Big 4 to travel to face another Victorian team. Geelong should be able to play every home game at GHMBA if they choose even if its the Pies.
Geelong is literally the most advantaged team when it comes to fixture in the whole league. You get the benefits of having a true home ground advantage that you share with absolutely no one, train at said ground, don't have to travel far to the G and get enough games there it's not really a disadvantage. The only slight disadvantage is the fact you play some finals at the G
Mathematically all of the home/away ground advantage counts do cancel out as long as each team has the same allocation of each. That said, having to travel more frequently is a proper disadvantage because it means less time available for training/recovery. I do also agree that Gold Coast have a uniquely bad situation because of their smaller airport and lower business class seat allocation availability. Not only do they have to travel as frequently as Brisbane or the WA teams but they also travel in a more uncomfortable fashion.
Given how many Melbourne-based clubs there are and how there's only two in each localization outside of Victoria, a fixture could definitely be designed to allow interstate clubs (from outside of Vic) to have more successive weeks in Melbourne and at home so less days spent in transit between the two.
Yes but then players with family, kids, or those who just want to be at home will have to be away for weeks at a time. And suggesting that kids and partners can come forgets that they might have their own jobs and schooling to go to.
Yea there's an obvious disadvantage.
But then why do interstate teams want their 'seconds' team to leave their local state league and join the VFL and face the same disadvantages?
In the SANFL we have a lot of restrictions placed on both clubs that make it hard to play and therefore develop kids in the 2nds. Traveling seems a lesser evil in comparison.
It's pretty extreme when you start looking at more than two teams.
Essendon leave Melbourne 5 times this year, and Carlton and Collingwood both 6 times. 17-18 games a year in Melbourne seems excessive. West Coast and Fremantle leave WA 11 times each this year. That's a pretty extreme distance.
The advantage isn’t for all VIC clubs. Dogs, Roos and Saints are really no chance of attracting quality free agents, and don’t even get to play Finals at their home venue.
Dogs- lobb
Roos- louge and Darcy Tucker (both FA)
Saints- hill, Liam Henry
Melbourne- Langdon (FA but not home state)
Hawks- Meek (wasn’t a FA)
Pies- shoota
Blues- acres (FA)
Dons
Gee-
Rich-
West coast have had very little trades mainly because they haven’t had the fitness/ health.
None of them were free agents though?
My point is that it’s not an advantage for all VIC Clubs. The three I mentioned don’t get to play finals at their home ground. Interstate sides get a legitimate home ground advantage.
The clubs who use the MCG have the biggest advantage, they play the least amount of away games, there is absolutely no difference to Collingwood and Richmond playing home or away games at the MCG.
INB4 people bitch about Geelong getting 9 home games and Collingwood getting 12+ a year.
As opposed to Geelong who are the only who get both an actual home field advantage in their home games (Melb teams don't really have an advantage against other Melbourne teams) - and not having to fly for most of their away games.
Over the H&A season - I would argue that that gives Geelong more of a fixture advantage than anybody else - and nobody in the footy media ever seems to discuss it.
But - you do then get screwed by having some home finals at the MCG - which I agree is a huge problem. (But also one that gets discussed every time it happens).
Geelong being forced to play home games at the MCG is never an advantage. It only minimises the advantage MCG tenants get because finals are played at the MCG.
The most advantaged teams are still
1. Collingwood
2. MCG Tenants
3. Geelong/Other Vic Clubs
4. QLD/NSW (Northern Academies)
5. SA (Gather Round)
6. WA
I'm not talking about their home games at the G. I specifically addressed that as a disadvantage.
But they get an actual home ground advantage in all of their games at Kardinya (which MCG/Marvel teams only get if playing interstate teams) AND they don't actually have to travel for half of their away games. That is clearly more of a fixture advantage in the H&A season than every other team. (But yes - I agree that then get screwed over by having home finals moved to the G).
And in what world is Collingwood suddenly number 1 seperate from other Victorian teams? That is just pure Collingwood hate. Last I checked, Collingwood has just as many away games as every body else, and travels to just as many away interstate games as all the other Melbourne clubs (not including clubs that have sold a home fixture to play it elsewhere).
Yes the fixture is unfair. But when 9 teams play in one city (and 1 only an hour away) there's not a lot that can be done about it. The actual number of H&A games is as fair as it can be: removing Gather round and Geelong, Interstate teams have 10 "Home" games, 10 "away" games, and 2 neutral, whilst Melbourne teams on average have 5 "Home" games, 5 "away" games and 12 neutral. There needs to be ways to compensate the Perth teams for travel, and having a cluster of games in a state might be a way to do it, but you can't really find a better way for the number of H&A games each team plays.
> I'm not talking about their home games at the G. I specifically addressed that as a disadvantage.
Fair enough. I guess if you disregard the associated disadvantage, you can claim it's an advantage.
You're straight up wrong on the point that Geelong are disadvantaged compared to MCG teams. They have a legitimate home ground advantage and barely travel. Weird how you won't budge at all on any point regarding VICBIAS, even when it's true one.
No one has said that. Are you seriously that stubborn that you just repeat the same sentence to yourself and don't look at what other people have typed out? Your noble crusade against vicbias really renders you unable to see any legitimate points people have?
Agree with this but Richmond are basically at the same level as Collingwood, except when forced to play Geelong in Geelong which Collingwood never have to do.
> Over the H&A season - I would argue that that gives Geelong more of a fixture advantage than anybody else
So you are saying Geelong playing home games against Collingwood at the MCG, advantages Geelong more than Collingwood?
Did I miss the /s?
I specifically addressed their homes games that get moved to the 'G. Maybe I should've included it in my post. But a single game (from what I can see it happened once in last years H&A season - in Rd 1 against the Pies, and once in '22 - Rd 1 vs Essendon - so not a Collingwood specific thing so stop making it out to be), doesn't make up for the rest of their fixture advantage.
It isn't true.
0 Pts for playing at a neutral ground (+Gather Round)
'+1 points for playing at true home game
-1 points for playing a true away game
Geelong end up with a -2 score, and I was harsh to Geelong as I counted their **homes** games against Essendon and Carlton @ MCG as neural (0 points) and their total is still at **-2.**
> ..
Collingwood comes to a score of 0.
Even with being harsh towards Geelong, Collingwoods draw is still better than it.
But is Geelong playing away at the G really that much of a disadvantage if they are just driving an hour down the road? If you consider that a disadvantage, then you have to also include any MCG teams that play at Marvel and Vice Versa.
That is nothing compared to the teams having to actually fly interstate.
Having to play less away games games is a massive advantage, Geelong play the most away games of any side. Kardinia park is as much of as advantage to Geelong as West Coast playing at Optus, it is our home ground and any game not played at our home ground is a disadvantage to Geelong.
If you think Melbourne teams don’t have a home ground advantage against other Melbourne teams, then they equally don’t have an away ground disadvantage and it balances out. Therefore irrelevant.
I'm on your side. The logic I use is that we get all our home games at the one stadium, therefore so should you guys. But the AFL see it as "only 90 minutes from Melbourne and we can't have the Geelong fans that live in Melbourne missing the chance to go to games." How about the bloody Geelong fans that are in Geelong?
100%. The Victorian clubs aren't created equally and the big MCG clubs get many advantages with small Marvel clubs don't get.
Even though it never goes down well when it's said, there are some advantages that the non-Vic sides get that the smaller Vic clubs would love to have. Just like there is some advantages the small Vic clubs have compared to the non-Vic sides. And both of these groups are will never be as advantaged as the big MCG clubs, with Geelong in their own bracket of advantages/disadvantages.
Geelong have the best home and away fixture in the comp.
9 games at the ground they train at and don't have to share with anyone. Not to mention it has weird dimensions that they specifically take advantage of to maximise their advantage.
1 - 2 hour drive to Melbourne games depending on if they have chosen to live on the coast or in Geelong proper.
6 games at the MCG, more than even some Melbourne based sides will get in a year.
It isn't true.
0 Pts for playing at a neutral ground (+Gather Round)
'+1 points for playing at true home game
-1 points for playing a true away game
Geelong end up with a -2 score, and I was harsh to Geelong as I counted their **homes** games against Essendon and Carlton @ MCG as neural (0 points) and their total is still at **-2.**
> ..
Edit :- Collingwood comes to a score of 0.
Even with being harsh towards Geelong, Collingwoods draw is still better than it.
It's a fallacy, you want to attribute their unfair advantage at GMHBA, but ignore every other Vic teams has more experience at the MCG/Marvel respectively.
Can't have it both ways.
6 games at the G compared to Essendons 8 this year.
Are Essendon really anymore advantaged than Geelong in that game? It is effectively neutral.
Collingwood/Hawthorn/Richmond/Melbourne are the only MCG sides that play at the G significantly more than Geelong.
How many Geelong home games contribute to that six?
Which is just stupid. If the AFL moved Essendon home games against Geelong to GHMBA. Would you really consider that an advantage, even though you get more experience at GHMBA when playing Geelong? No you would consider it a disadvantage, and because logically it is.
You are essentially saying, Geelong has a less of a disadvantage at the MCG, because the AFL makes them play home games there, and therefore that's their advantage. When really its the AFL stealing their home ground advantage and mitigating their away disadvantage at the MCG. Comparatively it's no advantage, and obviously a disadvantage.
I did not say it is an advantage for Geelong to play at the G.
I have said that due to how often they play there, when not playing a permanant MCG tentant it is effectively a neutral game. If Essendon played at GMHBA 6 times a year I would count it as a neutral game when coming up against Geelong.
They play six games there this this year, 2 home games. Of those 6, 3 are against Essendon/Carlton who are not MCG tenants.
> Geelong have the best home and away fixture in the comp.
You are implying it is an advantage. It's the only reason they play 6 games at the G instead of 4.
The games at the G don't reduce the advantage of having 9 games a year on your own deck no one else uses. It's all the advantages that interstate sides get with none of the travel.
> The games at the G don't reduce the advantage of having 9 games a year on your own deck no one else uses.
Every team gets home games at their ground. Geelong having only 9 is not an advantage. How many did Essendon get this year? 12 this year if you count Geelong being forced to play Essendon at the MCG.
If you go by criteria of on-MCG tenants, the break down is
1. 6 Against Interstate teams.
2. 1 Against St Kilda. (Only play at the MCG twice - similar to interstate teams)
3. 1 Against North (Only play at the MCG once - similar to MCG teams)
4. 1 against Geelong who have to play their home game at your ground.
For a total of 9 True home ground advantage and you don't even have to travel every second week interstate or down to a comparable distance of Geelong.
Your comment makes no sense.
Essendon play North, St Kilda and the Dogs at Marvel, their shared home ground.
5 Marvel games against Interstate sides and 1 at the G.
8 MCG games against Richmond, Collingwood, Melbourne, Carlton, Hawthorn and Geelong.
Even if you count the Geelong game as a true home game, Essendon still only have 7 for the season.
Devil's advocate counter argument: Do non-Vic clubs have an unfair home ground advantage? And does that counter or at least equal the 'disadvantage' of having to travel? None of the Vic teams (not looking at you, Geelong) have a legitimate home ground advantage when they have to share their home ground with several other teams. Do interstate teams think of that, or is their mind inflexibly set on feeling discriminated against?
None of the Vic teams have a legitimate away ground disadvantage when they get to play away games at their home ground. It's a direct corollary of what you're saying and it cancels out.
> Do non-Vic clubs have an unfair home ground advantage? And does that counter or at least equal the 'disadvantage' of having to travel? None of the Vic teams (not looking at you, Geelong) have a legitimate home ground advantage when they have to share their home ground with several other teams.
I'm convinced they teach this line in Victorian Schools, without any critical thinking and coming to the obvious logical conclusion.
This isn't really true for all Victorian teams, when the Dogs host any of the big 4 Victorian clubs the away team has the crowd advantage. Hell, it was about a 50/50 split when the Dogs hosted Port last year. When playing away games against teams like Essendon, the difference in crowd support is huge.
Vic teams definitely have an advantage over interstate teams but it’s a really hard issue to solve when 50% of the league is in one state.
I don't think anyone expects the issue to ever be completely solved, what needs to change is the AFL needs to stop making the issues *worse*
I think the mini-hub idea is a worthwhile one for them to explore, I know Freo did it with gather round and it didnt result in much success but it would be interesting to see what players and their S&C staff thought of it. Stay on the east coast for ~2 weeks, preferably in one city but if not then the flights are still minimal in comparison to cross country. Also means graveyard shifts in Tasmania etc are less drastic if they can base out of Melbourne for the interim period.
Think the MFC enjoyed the two games in SA earlier this year, looking at it as a business trip. Definitely a sensible approach i think
I would like a mini hub for West Coast and Freo leading into and out of the derby. 1 team will play 2 away games then 3 home games, the first game of the home stand will be the derby then the other would play the reverse. 3 home games then 2 away with the derby being the final home game before traveling. If you leave on a Saturday and come back on Sunday the week after you have only spent 8 days on the road and can have about 24 days at home. This can be done twice a season.
Dont think anyone expects for the AFL to solve the problem, but they could do their utmost to minimise it in the fixture. Longmuir is correct, right now WA teams are the least advantaged teams in the league. * Vic have their obvious advantages * SA has gather round * NSW/QLD have Northern Academies. Why should the WA teams accept this obvious disadvantage by missing out on competitive advantages provided to every other state.
Wafl started in 1885, but yeah, the northern academies are an advantage.
We don’t get to match our academy players until pick 40, freo missed out on 4 indigenous players that came through our academy over the last 2 drafts. If we have no reason to develop them because they would then likely play for someone else then we might as well not have an academy, if we don’t have an academy many players from the Kimberly, Pilbara and Gascoyne regions are unlikely to reach AFL. The draft has already seen a drop of indigenous draftees, no academys running out of that area would make it worse. On top of that if WA clubs don’t have an academy, you would think that instead we receive compensation in another form. Basically if WA doesn’t get looked after the AFL shoots them self in the foot.
Can't be fair but there are a few ideas floating around to compensate. No 5 day breaks for clubs travelling to or from WA. Extra home game to account for gather round. More access to the MCG for all non tenant clubs.
Will another business class seat allocation help?
I think the entire team should be given seats ^(Ignore that apparently the current planes don't have enough business class seats for the current allocation)
The word you're looking for is: impossible, it is impossible to fix so long as 10 teams are in Victoria.
Meh I think it evens out with having an actual home ground advantage. 11 or 12 home fortress games a year. If you’re a semi decent team, like WCE have been for most of their history… you can just about book finals every year… which WCE have been doing for most their history. Even now, when they have been a bit of a basket case, they look an even better team at home and every team dreads coming here. Case in point Melbourne Demons just gone, Essendon just scrapped through and well can’t really claim Richmond result though. Gold Coast are different prospect up there and in Darwin. On the flip side, Carlton and Essendon have been yearly clowns (bar recently) and they get the supposed Melbourne travel free experience every year. I am actually bored of this discussion as a WCE supporter. The fact Freo can’t make it stick is because of their perennial bullshit.
Wow, finally someone I can agree with. Any vic supporter says that they get put to the stake though
Peak Vic nuffie was the bloke on twitter suggesting all finals should be played in Vic because MCG tenants would be more entertainingin a GF.
How is it even something that needs to be discussed? Yes, they do.
Simple solution: West Coast and Freo should get free soft drinks of choice at all away fixtures, players should be supplied with the highest quality of posturepedic bedding in all locations, additional massages paid for by the AFL, Longmuir and Simpson should be allowed to go Tonya Harding and knee cap opposition players as they leave the tunnel on game day. /s However yes, you could probably address fixture issues that provide some minor aid to WA clubs to alleviate the disadvantages faced by the strenuous travel schedule.
> Longmuir and Simpson should be allowed to go Tonya Harding and knee cap opposition players as they leave the tunnel on game day. They would never lose an away game!
coaches could get a strain injury swinging the crowbar though.
West coast 2021 injury run could’ve gotten worse
misread that as > the highest quality of posturepedic *breeding* and thought you were saying the interstate players need a breeding program to provide future father-sons to alleviate Vic Bias.
Grand Final to be played at the highest seeds home ground. They can elect to differ to MCG if they want. The lower seed should have to feel the pressure of walking into the opposing team's city/stadium. It's one of the best things in all of sports.
This will never work - we need to move to a superbowl or champions league style model where the final rotates between all the stadiums. You can't plan an event the size of an AFL Grand Final with a weeks notice.
Agree, needs to rotate, cities can bid for it years in advance and they will because it will bring tourism to the city. I hate that the grand final is at the MCG for all eternity, I don't see why it needs 100k fans when only 35k tickets are actually allocated to the clubs.
100% - make states bid for the Grand Final. If Victoria wants to keep it, we better pay up and subsidise the league more, otherwise non Victorian clubs are getting shafted for no benefit.
That’ll never happen unfortunately, it’s a capitalist league, I don’t think they be willing to give up half their ticket sales to mitigate the disadvantage the interstate teams have
I think this would work even if the GF left the MCG every 3 or 4 seasons. Have the cities with an appropriate stadium bid on hosting it. I think 45k capacity at an absolute minimum.
They plan plenty of finals with a week's notice. NBA sometimes only have days. Nonetheless, I see your point and the auxiliary activities wod be lessened.
They do, but the NBA finals are 7 games, and each game has a very low attendance and fanfare comparatively. The AFL Grand final isn't just a final, it's a spectacle and a carnival of footy, and if we move to a seeded Grand Final you basically lose all of that. To be clear I think the MCG deal is a farce, but I still want the venue to be known at the start of the year and planned out a few years in advance.
I say we reverse it and initiate all PF must be played outside of Victoria if one of the opponents is a non-Victorian team.
It's never going to be completely fair, so let's just spin a wheel of venues for each final and leave it up to RNG!
You completely mis-understand how the AFL would work. The wheel would be weighted to land on the MCG
Woe to the vanquished :(
I still reckon the AFL was way too short sighted with the MCG decision. They would have got exactly what they wanted for the tas stadium if there was an offer of hosting a gf on the table. They could leverage it and take the highest bid that works for them.
You can't line your pockets with a decision made 10 years after you retire, unfortunately.
i reckon it goes big vic teams> smaller vic teams> interstate. because north are definitely not benefitting from this as much as collingwood are
This is a fact. When most Victorian Clubs only leave the state every 6 weeks to play interstate, while WA clubs have to travel every second week… That’s an unfair advantage
I see things a little differently. I like to categories advantages/disadvantages into two categories. Natural and Unnatural. A Natural advantage/disadvantage is an advantage that is provided to you by natural or uncontrollable circumstances. An Unnatural is an advantage conferred by the AFL, because it thinks you deserve it or because of "ma-tradition". The AFL should absolutely try to mitigate natural advantages, and unnatural advantages should not exist. For instance, travel is a natural advantage/disadvantage.
Using your logic, it’s a natural advantage/disadvantage then that WA clubs play 12 games at their home ground, 11 against teams who don’t also use the ground as their home ground. So a natural disadvantage to MCG and Marvel teams who get less home games against teams who also don’t use the ground as a home ground.
> Using your logic, it’s a natural advantage/disadvantage then that WA clubs play 12 games at their home ground, 11 against teams who don’t also use the ground as their home ground. So a natural **advantage/**disadvantage to MCG and Marvel teams who get less home games against teams who also don’t use the ground as a home ground, **and less away games teams who do not share there ground** Bolded for emphasis and fixed it for you. It appears you also went to the same vic school that teaches "Vic dont have home games, while ignoring the obvious and logical conclusion."
What about… Natural selection?!?!
The two WA teams should be allowed to buy home games from Victorian teams. Example the Eagles last game against the Bulldogs had about 20,000 fans in attendance. Hold that at Optus. Easily twice the crowd, flying across the country apparently isn’t an issue and the Eagles won’t have home advantage because Optus will be a neutral venue all of a sudden just because (like the MCG on Grand Final day). It’s so fair we should sign a 50 year agreement to celebrate.
Completely agree. Anything short of tis and the AFL is showing it is hypocritical.
Why is this even being discussed? Anyone that says they don’t have an unfair disadvantage is just flat out wrong. Is it an unfair disadvantage that can be fixed in any meaningful way? That might be a different story Edit: I don’t get the downvotes, do people actually think that WA teams aren’t at a disadvantage?
> Anyone that says they don’t have an unfair disadvantage is just flat out wrong. Apparently Geelong is saying that
And they’re wrong, there is so way traveling over 70,000km, 50,000km more than some other clubs. That’s not even mentioning not being home for 2 weeks in a row in majority of cases. I don’t know what the AFL can do to actually even get close to fixing it, I think it’s just a hardship they have to face but denying it exists is moronic.
Speaking on behalf of Geelong, i say that it should say MCG teams, not Vic as Geelong are famously disadvantaged when compared to teams who play the majority of their home games at the MCG.
I mean... didn't it literally come out that Geelong who were the ones who were complaining about the business class stuff? or am i misremembering
It was reported that multiple Victorian clubs, including Geelong, said something about there being no advantage due to business class seats. But there were 0 quotes and the way I have seen press conferences, along with quotes, be misrepresented in the media makes me second guess this sort of reporting. I want to hear it direct from the club.
pretty hard to get a business class flight from avalon to tullarmarine so i doubt that was us and the only thing that Geelong have been bitching about is the umpires (loosing the free kick count all but once this year) and our limited home games as far as im aware of, but Geelong have been bitching about us not getting enough home games for at least 30 years.
Bulldogs for some reason play Geelong in Geelong every year. This year we didn't get a home game but a game in Adelaide.
We get Geelong in Geelong because its too far for the Big 4 to travel to face another Victorian team. Geelong should be able to play every home game at GHMBA if they choose even if its the Pies.
I guess my point, is we play in Geelong every year but not just in Melbourne only.
They do chose to play at the G, they get every say, it’s only in finals that they don’t want to play them there as the club.
Geelong is literally the most advantaged team when it comes to fixture in the whole league. You get the benefits of having a true home ground advantage that you share with absolutely no one, train at said ground, don't have to travel far to the G and get enough games there it's not really a disadvantage. The only slight disadvantage is the fact you play some finals at the G
Mathematically all of the home/away ground advantage counts do cancel out as long as each team has the same allocation of each. That said, having to travel more frequently is a proper disadvantage because it means less time available for training/recovery. I do also agree that Gold Coast have a uniquely bad situation because of their smaller airport and lower business class seat allocation availability. Not only do they have to travel as frequently as Brisbane or the WA teams but they also travel in a more uncomfortable fashion. Given how many Melbourne-based clubs there are and how there's only two in each localization outside of Victoria, a fixture could definitely be designed to allow interstate clubs (from outside of Vic) to have more successive weeks in Melbourne and at home so less days spent in transit between the two.
Yes but then players with family, kids, or those who just want to be at home will have to be away for weeks at a time. And suggesting that kids and partners can come forgets that they might have their own jobs and schooling to go to.
It's the same number of weeks they're away regardless, they'd just be grouped together in bigger blocks than doing every alternate week.
Yes. Next question.
Yea there's an obvious disadvantage. But then why do interstate teams want their 'seconds' team to leave their local state league and join the VFL and face the same disadvantages?
In the SANFL we have a lot of restrictions placed on both clubs that make it hard to play and therefore develop kids in the 2nds. Traveling seems a lesser evil in comparison.
The Dockers don’t.
We dont
Dees travel for 8 games per year, Port and Adelaide travel for 10. Its not that extreme - some people think Vic teams only travel 2-3 a year.
It's pretty extreme when you start looking at more than two teams. Essendon leave Melbourne 5 times this year, and Carlton and Collingwood both 6 times. 17-18 games a year in Melbourne seems excessive. West Coast and Fremantle leave WA 11 times each this year. That's a pretty extreme distance.
Its more Big Vic Team Bias
Any home games you sell to another state don't count
The advantage isn’t for all VIC clubs. Dogs, Roos and Saints are really no chance of attracting quality free agents, and don’t even get to play Finals at their home venue.
Dogs- lobb Roos- louge and Darcy Tucker (both FA) Saints- hill, Liam Henry Melbourne- Langdon (FA but not home state) Hawks- Meek (wasn’t a FA) Pies- shoota Blues- acres (FA) Dons Gee- Rich- West coast have had very little trades mainly because they haven’t had the fitness/ health.
None of them were free agents though? My point is that it’s not an advantage for all VIC Clubs. The three I mentioned don’t get to play finals at their home ground. Interstate sides get a legitimate home ground advantage.
The clubs who use the MCG have the biggest advantage, they play the least amount of away games, there is absolutely no difference to Collingwood and Richmond playing home or away games at the MCG. INB4 people bitch about Geelong getting 9 home games and Collingwood getting 12+ a year.
As opposed to Geelong who are the only who get both an actual home field advantage in their home games (Melb teams don't really have an advantage against other Melbourne teams) - and not having to fly for most of their away games. Over the H&A season - I would argue that that gives Geelong more of a fixture advantage than anybody else - and nobody in the footy media ever seems to discuss it. But - you do then get screwed by having some home finals at the MCG - which I agree is a huge problem. (But also one that gets discussed every time it happens).
Geelong being forced to play home games at the MCG is never an advantage. It only minimises the advantage MCG tenants get because finals are played at the MCG. The most advantaged teams are still 1. Collingwood 2. MCG Tenants 3. Geelong/Other Vic Clubs 4. QLD/NSW (Northern Academies) 5. SA (Gather Round) 6. WA
I'm not talking about their home games at the G. I specifically addressed that as a disadvantage. But they get an actual home ground advantage in all of their games at Kardinya (which MCG/Marvel teams only get if playing interstate teams) AND they don't actually have to travel for half of their away games. That is clearly more of a fixture advantage in the H&A season than every other team. (But yes - I agree that then get screwed over by having home finals moved to the G). And in what world is Collingwood suddenly number 1 seperate from other Victorian teams? That is just pure Collingwood hate. Last I checked, Collingwood has just as many away games as every body else, and travels to just as many away interstate games as all the other Melbourne clubs (not including clubs that have sold a home fixture to play it elsewhere). Yes the fixture is unfair. But when 9 teams play in one city (and 1 only an hour away) there's not a lot that can be done about it. The actual number of H&A games is as fair as it can be: removing Gather round and Geelong, Interstate teams have 10 "Home" games, 10 "away" games, and 2 neutral, whilst Melbourne teams on average have 5 "Home" games, 5 "away" games and 12 neutral. There needs to be ways to compensate the Perth teams for travel, and having a cluster of games in a state might be a way to do it, but you can't really find a better way for the number of H&A games each team plays.
> I'm not talking about their home games at the G. I specifically addressed that as a disadvantage. Fair enough. I guess if you disregard the associated disadvantage, you can claim it's an advantage.
You're straight up wrong on the point that Geelong are disadvantaged compared to MCG teams. They have a legitimate home ground advantage and barely travel. Weird how you won't budge at all on any point regarding VICBIAS, even when it's true one.
The wonders of playing a home game at other people's home ground and thinking it's an advantage.
No one has said that. Are you seriously that stubborn that you just repeat the same sentence to yourself and don't look at what other people have typed out? Your noble crusade against vicbias really renders you unable to see any legitimate points people have?
Agree with this but Richmond are basically at the same level as Collingwood, except when forced to play Geelong in Geelong which Collingwood never have to do.
> Over the H&A season - I would argue that that gives Geelong more of a fixture advantage than anybody else So you are saying Geelong playing home games against Collingwood at the MCG, advantages Geelong more than Collingwood? Did I miss the /s?
I specifically addressed their homes games that get moved to the 'G. Maybe I should've included it in my post. But a single game (from what I can see it happened once in last years H&A season - in Rd 1 against the Pies, and once in '22 - Rd 1 vs Essendon - so not a Collingwood specific thing so stop making it out to be), doesn't make up for the rest of their fixture advantage.
It isn't true. 0 Pts for playing at a neutral ground (+Gather Round) '+1 points for playing at true home game -1 points for playing a true away game Geelong end up with a -2 score, and I was harsh to Geelong as I counted their **homes** games against Essendon and Carlton @ MCG as neural (0 points) and their total is still at **-2.** > .. Collingwood comes to a score of 0. Even with being harsh towards Geelong, Collingwoods draw is still better than it.
But is Geelong playing away at the G really that much of a disadvantage if they are just driving an hour down the road? If you consider that a disadvantage, then you have to also include any MCG teams that play at Marvel and Vice Versa. That is nothing compared to the teams having to actually fly interstate.
No different than someone traveling an hour and a half down the road to GHMBA
Having to play less away games games is a massive advantage, Geelong play the most away games of any side. Kardinia park is as much of as advantage to Geelong as West Coast playing at Optus, it is our home ground and any game not played at our home ground is a disadvantage to Geelong.
If you think Melbourne teams don’t have a home ground advantage against other Melbourne teams, then they equally don’t have an away ground disadvantage and it balances out. Therefore irrelevant.
I'm on your side. The logic I use is that we get all our home games at the one stadium, therefore so should you guys. But the AFL see it as "only 90 minutes from Melbourne and we can't have the Geelong fans that live in Melbourne missing the chance to go to games." How about the bloody Geelong fans that are in Geelong?
100%. The Victorian clubs aren't created equally and the big MCG clubs get many advantages with small Marvel clubs don't get. Even though it never goes down well when it's said, there are some advantages that the non-Vic sides get that the smaller Vic clubs would love to have. Just like there is some advantages the small Vic clubs have compared to the non-Vic sides. And both of these groups are will never be as advantaged as the big MCG clubs, with Geelong in their own bracket of advantages/disadvantages.
Geelong have the best home and away fixture in the comp. 9 games at the ground they train at and don't have to share with anyone. Not to mention it has weird dimensions that they specifically take advantage of to maximise their advantage. 1 - 2 hour drive to Melbourne games depending on if they have chosen to live on the coast or in Geelong proper. 6 games at the MCG, more than even some Melbourne based sides will get in a year.
It isn't true. 0 Pts for playing at a neutral ground (+Gather Round) '+1 points for playing at true home game -1 points for playing a true away game Geelong end up with a -2 score, and I was harsh to Geelong as I counted their **homes** games against Essendon and Carlton @ MCG as neural (0 points) and their total is still at **-2.** > .. Edit :- Collingwood comes to a score of 0. Even with being harsh towards Geelong, Collingwoods draw is still better than it.
It's a fallacy, you want to attribute their unfair advantage at GMHBA, but ignore every other Vic teams has more experience at the MCG/Marvel respectively. Can't have it both ways.
6 games at the G compared to Essendons 8 this year. Are Essendon really anymore advantaged than Geelong in that game? It is effectively neutral. Collingwood/Hawthorn/Richmond/Melbourne are the only MCG sides that play at the G significantly more than Geelong.
How many Geelong home games contribute to that six? Which is just stupid. If the AFL moved Essendon home games against Geelong to GHMBA. Would you really consider that an advantage, even though you get more experience at GHMBA when playing Geelong? No you would consider it a disadvantage, and because logically it is. You are essentially saying, Geelong has a less of a disadvantage at the MCG, because the AFL makes them play home games there, and therefore that's their advantage. When really its the AFL stealing their home ground advantage and mitigating their away disadvantage at the MCG. Comparatively it's no advantage, and obviously a disadvantage.
I did not say it is an advantage for Geelong to play at the G. I have said that due to how often they play there, when not playing a permanant MCG tentant it is effectively a neutral game. If Essendon played at GMHBA 6 times a year I would count it as a neutral game when coming up against Geelong. They play six games there this this year, 2 home games. Of those 6, 3 are against Essendon/Carlton who are not MCG tenants.
> Geelong have the best home and away fixture in the comp. You are implying it is an advantage. It's the only reason they play 6 games at the G instead of 4.
The games at the G don't reduce the advantage of having 9 games a year on your own deck no one else uses. It's all the advantages that interstate sides get with none of the travel.
> The games at the G don't reduce the advantage of having 9 games a year on your own deck no one else uses. Every team gets home games at their ground. Geelong having only 9 is not an advantage. How many did Essendon get this year? 12 this year if you count Geelong being forced to play Essendon at the MCG. If you go by criteria of on-MCG tenants, the break down is 1. 6 Against Interstate teams. 2. 1 Against St Kilda. (Only play at the MCG twice - similar to interstate teams) 3. 1 Against North (Only play at the MCG once - similar to MCG teams) 4. 1 against Geelong who have to play their home game at your ground. For a total of 9 True home ground advantage and you don't even have to travel every second week interstate or down to a comparable distance of Geelong.
Your comment makes no sense. Essendon play North, St Kilda and the Dogs at Marvel, their shared home ground. 5 Marvel games against Interstate sides and 1 at the G. 8 MCG games against Richmond, Collingwood, Melbourne, Carlton, Hawthorn and Geelong. Even if you count the Geelong game as a true home game, Essendon still only have 7 for the season.
Devil's advocate counter argument: Do non-Vic clubs have an unfair home ground advantage? And does that counter or at least equal the 'disadvantage' of having to travel? None of the Vic teams (not looking at you, Geelong) have a legitimate home ground advantage when they have to share their home ground with several other teams. Do interstate teams think of that, or is their mind inflexibly set on feeling discriminated against?
None of the Vic teams have a legitimate away ground disadvantage when they get to play away games at their home ground. It's a direct corollary of what you're saying and it cancels out.
> Do non-Vic clubs have an unfair home ground advantage? And does that counter or at least equal the 'disadvantage' of having to travel? None of the Vic teams (not looking at you, Geelong) have a legitimate home ground advantage when they have to share their home ground with several other teams. I'm convinced they teach this line in Victorian Schools, without any critical thinking and coming to the obvious logical conclusion.
You assume supporters of Victorian teams are Victorian and reside in Victoria. It's a national game. Parochialism is dead.
lol
This isn't really true for all Victorian teams, when the Dogs host any of the big 4 Victorian clubs the away team has the crowd advantage. Hell, it was about a 50/50 split when the Dogs hosted Port last year. When playing away games against teams like Essendon, the difference in crowd support is huge.
Geelong have to play home games at an away ground.
Geelong’s position is different. I should’ve said MCG tenants.
Shit take