10 & 7 Sport...Harvey ''Freo copping a raw deal'' [Archive]

Ripper

1 Jul 2008, 23:33

Not really too much we can do about the draw really... plus we were expecting to do a hell of a lot better than 2-12 so far... no point whinging about the draw now...

Yes there is. They are working on next years draw now.

About time we got a break.

No doubt that we have had a rough deal since 2004.

How We consistently end up with a tougher one (according to champion stats that even don't take travel into account) than the mob up the road despite being a bottom eight team more often than not beggars belief.

Memories

2 Jul 2008, 01:34

We really need to play teams twice, until then it won't be fair. I'm not really happy about 2 more teams being added since it means the dream to play each time twice is gone.

We need to get rid of 2 melbourne clubs (at least) to allow for these other teams, and go to a 30 round season.

rotto

2 Jul 2008, 10:28

Dockers always play Cats at Geelong, Lions at Brisbane, Swans at Sydney, Port at AAMI and Crows at AAMI every year. That's what the most unfair in the draw. The amount of travelling we do, why do we travel to Sydney and Brisbane every year.

DeepPurple

2 Jul 2008, 11:19

my theory is that the AFL sees us as expendable. Because WA has strong footy heritage we will always support our team. The upper east coast is a different story, they like "winners" so giving the swans and lions an easy draw helps their chances of attracting more viewer. more viewers = more spondolies.

I think big D's unwillingness to even give tassie a look in is a guide to the draw we will get next year, about the same.

do port and the crows get similarly rough draws?

anyway, it will just be all the more sweet when we finally win one of these bloody things.

PapaJ

2 Jul 2008, 14:49

Due to the 'must games' (blockbuster games, rivalry games etc.) the actual room to manoeuvre is fairly limited. We (and the WC) have the added disadvantage of having to travel the furthest of any club.

We really need to play teams twice, until then it won't be fair. I'm not really happy about 2 more teams being added since it means the dream to play each time twice is gone.

We need to get rid of 2 melbourne clubs (at least) to allow for these other teams, and go to a 30 round season.

Spot on there. Anybody who complains about the draw and then doesn't support some idea like the above has no right to complain. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the AFL draw system is a pro-sport joke. There would be very few top level sport systems that are so inheritly uneven. The NFL's conference system isn't much better, but it is still at least an attempt at even. Coolingwood's ridiculous amount of Melbourne games is an often cited example of the inherit flaw of the AFL draw. God forbid, actually had to play away from the Melbourne every second week :eek:.

Back to the clip, It was, as usual, a very edited piece, and I don't think Harvey was complaining for the sake of it, he probably was alluding to the fact that because of the extra travel of teams like Freo and the low position we've generally found ourselves in, we (and others in our position) should be favoured in the draft not disadvantaged.

Belnakor

2 Jul 2008, 15:36

maybe with the two extra teams we could only play each team once, and rotate through ever 2 years.

tripple1zero

2 Jul 2008, 15:43

maybe with the two extra teams we could only play each team once, and rotate through ever 2 years.
I like this idea, but I (and the AFL) wouldnt like the reduced number of games.

nurries

2 Jul 2008, 16:01

dont bowl there

2 Jul 2008, 16:11

I dont agree that just because you missed the finals you should get an easier draw the next season.

PrinceOfPockets

2 Jul 2008, 17:29

How about if the top 8 teams from the year before play each other twice and the bottom 8 teams once. This would still mean 22 games played. Same goes with a bottom 8 team playing each other twice and top 8 teams once. So below are the teams Freo would play twice from last years result.

St Kilda
Brisbane Lions
Essendon
Western Bulldogs
Melbourne
Carlton
Richmond

because of blockbusters and derbies/showdowns this probably wouldnt happen but it would be a fair and equitable way to do it.

Have thought this for a long time too. This is also another way of evening out the comp similar to the draft. Bottom eight teams would have a better chance of finishing in the eight the next year, which would mean teams are less likely to have 'years in the wilderness'. Teams alternating between challenging for a premiership, making the eight or missing the eight would not be on such a cyclical basis.

I also don't see the need why 2 x blockbusters need to be played each year. You could still have your Anzac Day, Queens Birthday games but if you finished in different halves of the ladder that should be your only meeting. I think you'd find that as bottom 8 teams start performing well and looking like making the finals, different blockbuster games would emerge each year. For example there is no point in having a second derby in round 22 when both teams are at the foot of the ladder when you could be having a 2nd Dogs v Hawks at the G.

nurries

2 Jul 2008, 18:25

I dont agree that just because you missed the finals you should get an easier draw the next season.

But as this game is cyclical with the draft evening things up, you a bound to play at least 2 or 3 that would be in top 8 such as Bulldogs,Saints, Brisbane out of last years lot. Better IMO than playing AAMI twice,Brisbane in Brissy, Sydney in Sydney every year because that aint fair.

Bluto

2 Jul 2008, 20:01

I also don't see the need why 2 x blockbusters need to be played each year. You could still have your Anzac Day, Queens Birthday games but if you finished in different halves of the ladder that should be your only meeting. I think you'd find that as bottom 8 teams start performing well and looking like making the finals, different blockbuster games would emerge each year. For example there is no point in having a second derby in round 22 when both teams are at the foot of the ladder when you could be having a 2nd Dogs v Hawks at the G.

Three points.

1) I for one would be disappointed to not get a home derby each year. How do you decide the home team?

2) You might need to rethink your example, seeing as though the Bulldogs finished outside the 8 last year therefore they can only play the Hawks once under this system. Not to mention that a Freo vs WCE game in Perth doesn't really have any impact on whether or not the Dogs play the Hawks at the MCG

3) The real issue is not how many times we play top-8 teams but how many lopsided draws we get in terms of us traveling more etc. It's glaringly obvious that rarely playing Sydney or Brisbane in Perth is lopsided.

Including this years fixtures:

Sydney since 2001 (not including PF in Sydney): Played 10 times, 8 times in Sydney. Anyone can see that is insane.

Brisbane since 2001: Played 9 times, 5 times in Brisbane, including last 3. Better, but recently the trend is getting worse.

Vaders_1st

2 Jul 2008, 22:53

He wouldn't be complaining if they were even 7-7. Early worrying signs that a coach is already pulling out the excuses for his teams future poor performances.

NiGHTFuRY

3 Jul 2008, 01:12

He wouldn't be complaining if they were even 7-7. Early worrying signs that a coach is already pulling out the excuses for his teams future poor performances.

Your missing the point. Please re read the thread and perhaps watch the vid and take note. He wasn't making it an excuse, and this issue has been mentioned for may years. You'll hear the same from the west coast camp as well, even when they are successful. Would be nice if we had 15 matches played at "home" as well.
Not exactly a level playing field, but thats what we got.

Bluto

3 Jul 2008, 02:20

He wouldn't be complaining if they were even 7-7. Early worrying signs that a coach is already pulling out the excuses for his teams future poor performances.

Fair dinkum, any danger of you reading the thread? Congratulations on making a completely pointless, ignorant post. Enjoy your 18 home games this year. We will just have to make do with our fair and equitable 12. Idiot.

NiGHTFuRY

3 Jul 2008, 04:45

I highly doubt the twit will be back to read the replies... one of those tipe without thinking trolls... :o

samseenee

3 Jul 2008, 08:32

Underdog

3 Jul 2008, 12:13

Would be nice if we had 15 matches played at "home" as well.
Not exactly a level playing field, but thats what we got.

But Victorian sides rarely have a home ground advantage because they have 2 grounds to share between 10 teams. As such, most of them are 50/50 games.

I think it's fair enough they essentially get a draw full of 50/50's whilst we get a draw of half advantage, half disadvantage.

Traveling on the otherhand is perhaps the greatest toll the fixture puts on our players. It is proven to wear players out and cause a premature end to careers. But there is little we can do about that.

Having for example, West Coast catching 2 planes to travel to Tasmania and then coming back is simply ridiculous. Hawks should be playing a Victorian side for their Tassie home games.

The other issue that has cropped up in the past is the lack of fixtures at the MCG. I think a few years back we had a year where we played there once. For a competition that is so staunch in keeping the MCG as the home of football and finals, this is simply unacceptable that interstate contenders have no form on the ground whilst a perhaps inferior Victorian side gets to play on it 12 times a year

PrinceOfPockets

3 Jul 2008, 13:02

[quote=Bluto;11584742]Three points.

1) I for one would be disappointed to not get a home derby each year. How do you decide the home team?

If you miss the derby one year you get the first one the next. Just alternate.

2) You might need to rethink your example, seeing as though the Bulldogs finished outside the 8 last year therefore they can only play the Hawks once under this system. Not to mention that a Freo vs WCE game in Perth doesn't really have any impact on whether or not the Dogs play the Hawks at the MCG

You are right. Maybe I should have used Dogs v Saints or Blues. The point was meant to show that 2 traditionally lower drawing teams about to play finals are more likely to draw a larger crowd and TV audience than a supposed 'blockbuster' game that has to be played twice a year between 2 teams sitting at the bottom of the ladder. You can bet the tickets to the next derby won't be as hot as they were in Rd 21 2006.

3) The real issue is not how many times we play top-8 teams but how many lopsided draws we get in terms of us traveling more etc. It's glaringly obvious that rarely playing Sydney or Brisbane in Perth is lopsided.

Agreed.

PalaceGun

3 Jul 2008, 14:20

Including this years fixtures:

Sydney since 2001 (not including PF in Sydney): Played 10 times, 8 times in Sydney. Anyone can see that is insane.

Brisbane since 2001: Played 9 times, 5 times in Brisbane, including last 3. Better, but recently the trend is getting worse.

When they made the name change from VFL to AFL I'm not sure why they didn't call it the ECFL...

FootyEater

3 Jul 2008, 15:25

I wouldn't say Harvey is complaining he's just trying to point out that there are some clubs that get a better deal. Look at the Pies, the AFL are happy to give them more VIC games due to the crowd numbers they pull, and therefore the amount of money the AFL make out of that.
I dont begrudge the Pies there fan base, all im saying is it seems the AFL is more worried about there cash flow rather than and even and fair competition.

I thought the reason the AFL gave collingwood so many "home" games was so that they could play teams like the bulldogs, demons and roos in melbourne so bigger crowds were drawn to their home games, therefore giving those teams more revenue, allowing them to survive

Underdog

3 Jul 2008, 15:30

MadMac

3 Jul 2008, 19:13

I thought the reason the AFL gave collingwood so many "home" games was so that they could play teams like the bulldogs, demons and roos in melbourne so bigger crowds were drawn to their home games, therefore giving those teams more revenue, allowing them to survive

True. Even if all clubs played each other twice, that would mean 6 games outside Melbourne. OK, there may be more because of some games being played in Tassie, Gold Coast, Darwin and Canberra but we couldn't really expect a single club to play all of these anyway.

chook2734

4 Jul 2008, 01:27

We can expect it to only get worse if this is anything to go by :

Blues eye share of coast gold
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/blues-eye-share-of-coast-gold/2008/07/03/1214950952455.html

How is it that Victorian clubs are allowed to sell a home game, for guaranteed income, reduce their arduous :rolleyes: travel schedules, and yet force a club that travels more than any other to do the longest trip in the country?

When you add in this as well, it's simply ridiculous :

Poor clubs want more travel funds
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/poor-clubs-want-more-travel-funds/2008/07/02/1214950850392.html

How can clubs such as North and the Bulldogs (who are already selling off home games for guaranteed income) ask for yet more money from AFL coffers to fund their trips?

Freo and Port always seem to be the target of these games - both clubs need to start the fight now, or we'll be lucky to play on the MCG even if we do make it to a GF one day. :mad:

estibador

4 Jul 2008, 02:28

We can expect it to only get worse if this is anything to go by :

Blues eye share of coast gold
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/blues-eye-share-of-coast-gold/2008/07/03/1214950952455.html

Assuming we can get direct flights I'd rather play Carlton in Queensland than Melbourne. Completely negates their home town advantage.

And for any trip we can't get direct flights the club should charter a private plane. It's ridiculous that a million dollar professional sporting team should be at the mercy of inefficient airline stopovers when they have a physically gruelling cut-throat contest a day or two later.

chook2734

4 Jul 2008, 09:33

Assuming we can get direct flights I'd rather play Carlton in Queensland than Melbourne. Completely negates their home town advantage.

And for any trip we can't get direct flights the club should charter a private plane. It's ridiculous that a million dollar professional sporting team should be at the mercy of inefficient airline stopovers when they have a physically gruelling cut-throat contest a day or two later.

At the AFL's expense though, sureley esti? If everyone else is going to put their hand out, so should we.

estibador

4 Jul 2008, 17:52

At the AFL's expense though, sureley esti? If everyone else is going to put their hand out, so should we.

Naturally. In that article the other day about Brissy chartering a plane it said the AFL was willing to pay the usual amount of travel expenses towards it.

Unless that's just something they'll only do for their northern lovechilds.