Extra Home Game For WA Teams

[Obeanie1]

You get direct flights to Tassie.
Works out quicker than going to Melbourne.

Well that must be a special charter put on for the W teams then.

I just tried searching for a Perth Hobart flight and they all stop over either in Melbourne or Sydney and take 7>9 hours flight time.

If the AFL must now be allowing special charters they obviously realised the stop over legs were fundamentally unfair on the WA sides.

The point still stands, don't send WA sides to the 'ar$e end' of Australia just because clubs in Victoria such as Hawthorn and Melbourne need to make ends meet by selling games and playing them in the furthest corners of Australia. The WA sides travel more than any other side so don't send them to Hobart and / or Darwin.

Isn't it fair to spread the travel load / equality and make other teams that don't travel as much take some of the load?

Is that unfair?

 

[Obeanie1]

Not quite true. Prelims have 2 weeks notice. Venues for week 1 are often known 2 weeks out. It's really only semi final week that is 1 weeks notice.
A lot more prep is needed for the GF than weeks 1 and 2.


They are.

Is that minimum number 1?

Because that's all the games the Eagles are getting this year.

 

[blue harvest]

Well that must be a special charter put on for the W teams then.

I just tried searching for a Perth Hobart flight and they all stop over either in Melbourne or Sydney and take 7>9 hours flight time.

If the AFL must now be allowing special charters they obviously realised the stop over legs were fundamentally unfair on the WA sides.

The point still stands, don't send WA sides to the 'ar$e end' of Australia just because clubs in Victoria such as Hawthorn and Melbourne need to make ends meet by selling games and playing them in the furthest corners of Australia. The WA sides travel more than any other side so don't send them to Hobart and / or Darwin.

Isn't it fair to spread the travel load / equality and make other teams that don't travel as much take some of the load?

Is that unfair?

I don't think any charters are involved, Virgin just put on regular flights on the required day, pretty sure anyone can book on them if there are seats left, there were a few WA posters that confirmed this.

I agree that all the travel must suck, but from a travel perspective I still don't understand the "don't send us to Tassie and Darwin" argument. The flight time to both those destinations is almost exactly the same as Melbourne, but with the bonus of fewer airport and traffic delays.

And yep that minimum for the G is 1.

 

[Blackas87]

West Coast have won 3 premierships, Fremantle have made the Grand final as recent as 2013 without having home ground advantage in week one of the finals. The travel doesn't seem to be a problem.

 

[telsor]

But any other final can be put on with one weeks notice? Has more about ensuring revenue for the State of Victoria than logistical issues.

Do other finals have all the 'additional' entertainment stuff?
Or more importantly (for the AFL at least), do they have a lot of bigwigs from their sponsors wanting to go to the game and not wanting to be stuffed around with not knowing where they'll be?

Seating numbers is a bollocks arguement. Otherwise who ever builds the biggest stadium should get the GF. This is notwithstanding that much bigger sporting codes have showpiece games at far smaller grounds than the MCG (the NFL obviously needs to get your research as they could obviously be doing it better).

Look at the breakdown of the grand final seat allocation. Sure, you can drop the MCC from that, but Sponsors and AFL members between them make up more people than most grounds could handle. The AFL gets a lot of money from these people, so they aren't going to stuff them around. (personally, I'd be happy to drop the AFL members, but that doesn't look like happening anytime soon).

If its so important to play at the mcg why aren't non vic sides guaranteed to play a minimum number of games at the mcg?

When was the last time you didn't play there? There may not be a written guarantee, but I think that, in effect, there is one.

 

[telsor]

Well that must be a special charter put on for the W teams then.

I just tried searching for a Perth Hobart flight and they all stop over either in Melbourne or Sydney and take 7>9 hours flight time.

If the AFL must now be allowing special charters they obviously realised the stop over legs were fundamentally unfair on the WA sides.

The point still stands, don't send WA sides to the 'ar$e end' of Australia just because clubs in Victoria such as Hawthorn and Melbourne need to make ends meet by selling games and playing them in the furthest corners of Australia. The WA sides travel more than any other side so don't send them to Hobart and / or Darwin.

Isn't it fair to spread the travel load / equality and make other teams that don't travel as much take some of the load?

Is that unfair?

The problem isn't that you're traveling TO the arse end of Australia, it's that you're traveling FROM it. You're so isolated that every trip you take (and every trip taken to get to you) is always going to be a long flight. The only practical, realistic, way to travel less is to have more teams in WA, but it seems WA fans are so tied to their clubs that any more teams would automatically fail.

Teams moving home games to WA just so you get a massive advantage just isn't going to happen.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

When was the last time you didn't play there? There may not be a written guarantee, but I think that, in effect, there is one.

Happens quite regularly for Freo, occasionally for others sides. Its even happened to North, so its not entirely a non-Vic thing.

 

[Obeanie1]

The problem isn't that you're traveling TO the arse end of Australia, it's that you're traveling FROM it. You're so isolated that every trip you take (and every trip taken to get to you) is always going to be a long flight. The only practical, realistic, way to travel less is to have more teams in WA, but it seems WA fans are so tied to their clubs that any more teams would automatically fail.

Teams moving home games to WA just so you get a massive advantage just isn't going to happen.

Read my previous post with the solution that would help and you will see I'm not saying that at all. In fact my suggestion previously said let all the interstate teams play cross town rivals three times to reduce their travel AND also reduce travel for Victorian teams AND increase blockbuster games inside and outside Victoria.

The point I made to the post you are responding to is that why don't other teams who travel less get sent to the "Northern Antartica (Tassie) and then also to Darwin at the exact other end of the nation?

It's obvious that the AFL prefer to protect Victorian teams but send WA teams the longest distances into development states / territories.

Again I ask the question is this fair and equitable?

Why don't Victorian or NSW / QLD teams travel to Tassie and the NT more often?

 

[telsor]

Read my previous post with the solution that would help and you will see I'm not saying that at all. In fact my suggestion previously said let all the interstate teams play cross town rivals three times to reduce their travel AND also reduce travel for Victorian teams AND increase blockbuster games inside and outside Victoria.

The point I made to the post you are responding to is that why don't other teams who travel less get sent to the "Northern Antartica (Tassie) and then also to Darwin at the exact other end of the nation?

It's obvious that the AFL prefer to protect Victorian teams but send WA teams the longest distances into development states / territories.

Again I ask the question is this fair and equitable?

Why don't Victorian or NSW / QLD teams travel to Tassie and the NT more often?

Play crosstown rival 3 times...

So when WCE misses the finals because they play the (currently) strong Freo team 3 times, or Sydney finishes higher up the ladder and host home finals because they got to belt GWS 3 times, you really consider that to be less inequitable to the competition than getting on a plane another time?

 

[eastfreo75]

2.5 million people in a traditional football state, with 2 teams playing to a ground that's sold out before the season starts and you don't have the supporters for a 3rd team?

Perth is divided into North and South of the River. Most of Fremantle's support is in the South apart from Carine and West Coast support is in the North. A third team has no area to get any suppport and a third team would just struggle and be a burden on the competition just like Poor Melbourne clubs and Northern state teams.

 

[eastfreo75]

An extra home isn't the answer because it is unfair. The solution is fixturing. 2010 Fremantle play Brisbane on a Saturday night and got to Perth at 2am in the morning and then we played Collingwood at Home on a Friday Night. That's bullshit.

Everybody remembers Mark Harvey pulling out half the team against the Hawks in Tasmania. The game was on a Saturday afternoon and the Dockers had to travel to Melbourne and then to Tasmania. The next game was against Carlton on a Friday frickin night.

The club have asked in the past to reduce the number 6 day breaks and especially when travelling long distances. But most years Fremantle has had a high % of 6 day breaks compared to other teams.

Also, going to Darwin is a problem too. The Darwin is always at night and adds to the problem of travelling. Plus the grand final is always the MCG and playing in Darwin reduces the games at the G. That's unfair.

 

[Dazb86]

I'd agree to it but you just know the extra home game will be against clubs with small supporter bases who play every Sunday.

 

[Obeanie1]

Play crosstown rival 3 times...

So when WCE misses the finals because they play the (currently) strong Freo team 3 times, or Sydney finishes higher up the ladder and host home finals because they got to belt GWS 3 times, you really consider that to be less inequitable to the competition than getting on a plane another time?

Last season Swans lost against GWS, it was 1 - 1. GWS are an emerging side and in another two years they won't be getting belted 3 - 0 by the Swans.

Port v Crows are even money bets.

So is Lions v Gold Coast.

Freo and the Eagles were 1-1 last season and in the period 2004 > 2006 when the Eagles were peaking Freo were winning 2 - 0.

Home town rivalry games seem to bring out the best in the underdog and you get plenty of upsets.

Your point is moot.

 

[doppleganger]

Additional home town clashes lends itself to partitioning the league into smaller segments.

Have a national group, split into two with a central/west group and an north east group.

Then have a Victorian group which is split into two groups via west v east or somethiNG.

Will reinforce the local clashes, and reduce travel

 

[Scotland]

Should just let Vic clubs play home games in WA. Was fine in Qld and NSW...

 

[Jade]

Absolutely ridiculous idea (though I respect it is worth the debate).

We've done similar discussions many times before, and the WA teams have a MASSIVE home advantage as it is compared to the Vic teams in particular (who very often lose home advantage by playing a side that also calls the stadium home); that is more than enough to offset any disadvantage (and I don't buy it for a second) that may exist.

 

[WCErevival]

Why do Melbourne clubs make such a big deal about the trip to Perth if its nothing. They usually use it as an excuse for the game afterwards too.

 

[Jade]

Why do Melbourne clubs make such a big deal about the trip to Perth if its nothing. They usually use it as an excuse for the game afterwards too.

It's not nothing, it's probably the hardest trip to make. Unusually large ground, normally very good opposition, heat, stifling opposition crowds...

 

[Scotland]

Absolutely ridiculous idea (though I respect it is worth the debate).

We've done similar discussions many times before, and the WA teams have a MASSIVE home advantage as it is compared to the Vic teams in particular (who very often lose home advantage by playing a side that also calls the stadium home); that is more than enough to offset any disadvantage (and I don't buy it for a second) that may exist.

If the AFL was a proper H&A competition then it would be an absolute non-issue, but with our ridiculous 18 teams/22 games setup travel is one of the many inequities in play. I don't think extra home games is the answer, though. The biggest thing that annoys me with our travel is being sent all over the place (Tassie, Canberra, Qld etc.) each year at the mercy of the TV driven fixture. The AFL gives * all consideration to the effects of travel with shortened breaks etc.

 

[Jade]

If the AFL was a proper H&A competition then it would be an absolute non-issue, but with our ridiculous 18 teams/22 games setup travel is one of the many inequities in play. I don't think extra home games is the answer, though. The biggest thing that annoys me with our travel is being sent all over the place (Tassie, Canberra, Qld etc.) each year at the mercy of the TV driven fixture. The AFL gives **** all consideration to the effects of travel with shortened breaks etc.

Solid post. Agree with you entirely.

 

[kranky al]

Play crosstown rival 3 times...

So when WCE misses the finals because they play the (currently) strong Freo team 3 times, or Sydney finishes higher up the ladder and host home finals because they got to belt GWS 3 times, you really consider that to be less inequitable to the competition than getting on a plane another time?

Well it doesnt bother the afl when they give collingwood double hits against teams - i dont see it bothering them anytime they screw the fixture even more

 

[telsor]

Well it doesnt bother the afl when they give collingwood double hits against teams - i dont see it bothering them anytime they screw the fixture even more

And that's wrong and should be stopped, but you don't fix a problem by making it bigger.

(nb, I note you didn't complain about guaranteed the double hits all non-vic clubs get)

 

[eastfreo75]

For me Fremantle/West Coast should:
1. No away night games.
2. No games in Darwin,Tasmania, or any other places except team home grounds.
3. Travel to QLD and NSW only once and SA twice.
4. Play 3 games at the G

 

[Obeanie1]

Additional home town clashes lends itself to partitioning the league into smaller segments.

Have a national group, split into two with a central/west group and an north east group.

Then have a Victorian group which is split into two groups via west v east or somethiNG.

Will reinforce the local clashes, and reduce travel

I was thinking this as well.

If all the interstate sides play three home "derbies" and then play all the Victorian teams say once per year that's a 17 minor round season.

Then the Vics 8 teams can play off in a finals series and the interstate 8 teams play off in another finals series with a Victorian league champion and also another champion from the non Victorian league.

Once decided the top two team from each then play a National Champions league final series, play each other once and the top two then play off in the traditional AFL Grand Final.

We get less minor round fixtures but more finals, more block buster home games and more satisfied fans because they see more local games. If it works out we don't get enough games overall them get the top three or top four from each league to play off for the true national title. Bring back state of origin if we need more fixtures as well.

 

[Blackas87]

Being based in Vic is worth 2-3 extra wins for the best couple of Melb based teams.

Don't believe it, have a look at the win/lose ratios for the best Vic teams in the last 10 years.
These 18-19 wins seasons happen every year for vic teams. It's more a rarity for interstate teams and basically non existent for the WA teams

The major reason is travel

Would the Hawks be back to back champs if they were based in Perth ?? iMHO very very unlikely

Maybe it's because the Hawks have a far superior team than anything the WA teams have produced.