telsor
Hall of Famer
You'd think so, but a quick look at the most games played from guys whose careers have included the past 10 years shows a disproportionate number playing in non-vic clubs, so if anything the evidence goes the other way!
The Perth travel myth
- Thread starter crazywildhorse
- Start date
- Tagged users None
You'd think so, but a quick look at the most games played from guys whose careers have included the past 10 years shows a disproportionate number playing in non-vic clubs, so if anything the evidence goes the other way!
crazywildhorse
Brownlow Medallist
- Thread starter
- #102
Didn't Glass and Cox both play 290 games? Cox for sure could have gone around 1 more time. In fact I believe he would have if Naitanui wasn't around.
Cox was completely past it and was carried in his last season which is why we often played 3 ruckmen that year
travel is not a myth, not an excuse either.
But it certainly is real, any club that has to travel an extensive distance more a season that 10 other competitors in the same comp cannot possibly have an effect.
How much it has in impact is the question but it is there and no sensible person can deny it isn't. Some great sides have overcome it but that was simply because they are a better side.
But it certainly is real, any club that has to travel an extensive distance more a season that 10 other competitors in the same comp cannot possibly have an effect.
How much it has in impact is the question but it is there and no sensible person can deny it isn't. Some great sides have overcome it but that was simply because they are a better side.
Surely youre not trying to say that travel cost Cox a 300 game career? Not just good old fashioned old age?
Did I say anything of the sort?
I'm just disputing that he could have played on a season.
In terms of in season recovery the travel is a factor though. That is undeniable. It's also a factor that we'll just have to deal with
Listening tothe commentators at the freo hawks game - mel-per-mel
Is about twice the distance of per-mel-per
Is about twice the distance of per-mel-per
Said like a shortarse - air travel is the fn pits when you are tall - my knees are jammed into the seat in front of me - any flight more that a couple of hours means im stiff as a board when i get off. Let alone after a game of footy.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 31,628
- 48,149
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Yeah, no doubt air travel would be tougher on your rucks and key position players, even if they are springing for premium economy.
Aflmicroscope
Draftee
- Oct 6, 2015
- 1
- 0
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Travel is a huge factor that would be contemplated when it comes to playing footy for an interstate team. According to Travis King and Alex Malcolm, Collingwood was up in the sky for roughly 20 hours this year. In comparison, both Western Australian teams racked up close to 80 hours each, irrefutably taking years off a player’s career and making Western Australian teams a far less tempting proposition to play for. With both Western Australian teams finishing one and two this year, a strong argument can be made that it has no impact. Both West Coast and Fremantle boasted very healthy records at Domain Stadium this year, suggesting that the home ground advantage is furthered in Perth compared to other stadiums.
Perhaps the disadvantage with the Perth travel factor is that the Grand Final is always played at the MCG. It was just three weeks ago that we witnessed Eagles at Domain Stadium who put the Hawthorn to the sword. This weekend couldn’t have been more different, with Hawthorn destroying West Coast in every facet of the game at the MCG. There is no doubt that had the game been played in Perth, the result could have been very different. Nevertheless, to win a premiership you must be able to beat the best at the MCG.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-01-27/extra-home-games-for-wa-teams
Perhaps the disadvantage with the Perth travel factor is that the Grand Final is always played at the MCG. It was just three weeks ago that we witnessed Eagles at Domain Stadium who put the Hawthorn to the sword. This weekend couldn’t have been more different, with Hawthorn destroying West Coast in every facet of the game at the MCG. There is no doubt that had the game been played in Perth, the result could have been very different. Nevertheless, to win a premiership you must be able to beat the best at the MCG.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-01-27/extra-home-games-for-wa-teams
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Why did West Coast not get to Melbourne earlier and train at the MCG?
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
It's called the AFL, it's a national competition. So teams need to travel. Getting over these whinging non Victorians. West Coast, a Brisbane, Sydney, Port Adelaide, Adelaide have won 11 premierships between them since 1992, in that time Victorian clubs have won 13. 8 of those 11 wins have been against Victorian sides and 5 non Victorian sides have lost to Victorian premiers in they time. Facts are as clear as they can get. Good teams travel and win. Average teams don't.
West Coast in 2015 was an AVERAGE team, they were young, inexperienced, and their leaders DID NOT STAND UP WHEN IT MATTERED. Hawthorn are the opposite, they proved that when they beat Fremantle in a preliminary final in Perth the week before.
These threads have got to stop, seriously. Moderators, do your job and put an end to these useless threads dressed up with a different title but containing the same debate. This was started by a Vic supporter but it'll only stir up the whining non Victorians with chips on their shoulders.
Non Victorian supporters, GET OVER IT! The Grand Final is at the MCG, get it? That's where it's played. Interstate teams haven't been good enough to win a flag since 2012, and that is because Hawthorn have been amazing. Stop sooking and move on.
West Coast in 2015 was an AVERAGE team, they were young, inexperienced, and their leaders DID NOT STAND UP WHEN IT MATTERED. Hawthorn are the opposite, they proved that when they beat Fremantle in a preliminary final in Perth the week before.
These threads have got to stop, seriously. Moderators, do your job and put an end to these useless threads dressed up with a different title but containing the same debate. This was started by a Vic supporter but it'll only stir up the whining non Victorians with chips on their shoulders.
Non Victorian supporters, GET OVER IT! The Grand Final is at the MCG, get it? That's where it's played. Interstate teams haven't been good enough to win a flag since 2012, and that is because Hawthorn have been amazing. Stop sooking and move on.
Schrodingers football supporter.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,077
- 34,328
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Yeah, it's pretty funny that we're constantly reminded of the disadvantage of travelling from WA to Victoria and back again. But Hawthorn travelled over to WA 3 times at the business end of the season (in addition to their 9 other flights interstate, or 10 if you include the NAB Challenge.) Meanwhile West Coast flew east just once in the last 2 months of the season prior to Grand Final week. Hawthorn were supposed to be "tired" and the Eagles would "run over the top of them". But that failed to eventuate. Suddenly the disadvantage of the WA travel factor is swept aside and all the talk(whining) is of MCG "home ground advantages".
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Bang. Eagles travelling once in 2 months, Hawks twice in 2 weeks I. finals. Don't give me this knee jerk rubbish about 'home ground advantages'. West Coast should have been as fresh at they ever were all year, in fact the qualifying win proves they were in peak form, but they froze like a dear in the headlights on the big stage. But yeah, let's blame the ground because it's such a big deal.Yeah, it's pretty funny that we're constantly reminded of the disadvantage of travelling from WA to Victoria and back again. But Hawthorn travelled over to WA 3 times at the business end of the season (in addition to their 9 other flights interstate, or 10 if you include the NAB Challenge.) Meanwhile West Coast flew east just once in the last 2 months of the season prior to Grand Final week. Hawthorn were supposed to be "tired" and the Eagles would "run over the top of them". But that failed to eventuate. Suddenly the disadvantage of the WA travel factor is swept aside and all the talk(whining) is of MCG "home ground advantages".
- Banned
- #118
Blame Freo they could have beat us in a home Prelim and you wouldn't be bitching....
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Yep, had the week off and the 'home ground advantage', but as Hawthorn proved, really good sides win anywhere under any circumstances, not like West Coast.
- Banned
- #120
Reality is West Coast only had about a 50% winning record vs Top 8 opposition and most of those wins probably came at Subiaco... West Coast and Hawthorn played 3 times ( 2 at Subiaco) and Hawthorn still won the head to head 2-1.... Best team won the Flag.
MWPP
Flying High
I do blame Freo . I was barracking for them (like I was in 2013), not just for my own team's sake either.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
A great side is an interstate side that can win anywhere. Brisbane could do it.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,985
- 26,723
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Would've been a far better GF if Fremantle had made it through, clearly not up to it. Best side won because they performed when it mattered.
Oh I'm sorry, I thought the whole point of this thread was that it proved there is no travel advantage?
Magpie Monopoly
A Good Bloke
- Banned
- #125
My point is you cant have it both ways. The actual act of travelling accounts for cents on the dollar when considering the pros and cons of interstate games.
Having 7,8,9 times as many games with a home ground advantage every year is a massive advantage, those who complain about the GF being at The G choose to ignore the role that plays in getting them to the MCG in the first place
