Once again we have a higher ranked team playing away gf - solution:

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Yeah, because a few free kicks is a much more relevant stat than how the 6 non Vic clubs (excluding the expansion clubs) are over represented in grand finals...

There are 6. Out of 18. That's 33.3% (or 37.5% if you exclude expansion clubs).

In the last 10 years, there have been 20 Grand Finalists.

6 of those have been interstate sides. That's 30%.

They're not over represented.

And why exclude the expansion clubs?

If you do, the under representation in Grand Finals is even worse.

 

[telsor]

There are 6. Out of 18. That's 33.3% (or 37.5% if you exclude expansion clubs).

In the last 10 years, there have been 20 Grand Finalists.

6 of those have been interstate sides. That's 30%.

They're not over represented.

And why exclude the expansion clubs?

If you do, the under representation in Grand Finals is even worse.

Sure, it comes down to where you draw the lines, but longer term, they've been there more than would be expected.


Why no expansion clubs? Because for most of their lives they were never going to be realistic contenders, and rather than deciding they only count after 4 or 5 years, I just left them out.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Sure, it comes down to where you draw the lines, but longer term, they've been there more than would be expected.


Why no expansion clubs? Because for most of their lives they were never going to be realistic contenders, and rather than deciding they only count after 4 or 5 years, I just left them out.

More than would be expected by self entitled Victorian club supporters. Why wouldn't you expect them in finals at their "rate"? The competition isn't there simply to provide a financial foundation for the big Victorian clubs to win Grand Finals. If you want that, follow the EPL or the Soccer World Cup.

Have you considered that the interstate clubs are simply better run? You want to exclude the expansion clubs? You should also exclude the basket cases that have been Carlton, Melbourne, and Richmond for the last decade.

 

[kranky al]

Sure, it comes down to where you draw the lines, but longer term, they've been there more than would be expected.


Why no expansion clubs? Because for most of their lives they were never going to be realistic contenders, and rather than deciding they only count after 4 or 5 years, I just left them out.

Leave out the bottom vic clubs then - same same

 

[99cents]

In 1989 Hawks played 1 game at the G up until the GF compared with the Cats 7.
We just sucked it up because the GF is played at the G and we all know that.

But yes it would be nice to get a few more games at the G, this issue has been around for decades though.

Crowd was split though. You weren't up against 80,00 rabid catmen and women

 

[kranky al]

Telsor does your interstate coub winning more games model account for carlton being a basket case as a result of sanctions for salary cap cheating

And essendon fielding a reserves team for a year for systematic doping?

 

[kranky al]

Sure, but if half the teams were there, so all teams would get a reasonable chance of playing several games there every year, and Perth stadium was significantly better than any other stadium in the country, and Perth wasn't the most isolated city in the world, I'd deal with it.


Perth is actually a big part of why the MCG will keep the game....WA is the second biggest market, so if the game was to move anywhere, it would have to be part of rotation, and yet it's so isolated that having the game there would be a logistical nightmare, and it's easier to say 'we'll keep it at a fixed place' than say 'we'll move it, but not to Perth'.

Melbourne looks pretty isolated from where we stand.

Id be willing to bet money - any money you like our sa brethren would rather play a granny vs a vic - or esp an mcg tenant at perth oval than the g.

True neutral venue.

 

[99cents]

Melbourne looks pretty isolated from where we stand.

Id be willing to bet money - any money you like our sa brethren would rather play a granny vs a vic - or esp an mcg tenant at perth oval than the g.

True neutral venue.

I've actually come around to the idea of neutral venues for GF. Announce it in advance- every now and then a team will get 'lucky' and qualify for a home GF- but why should home GF only apply to Melb teams (and to a lesser extent Geelong)?

 

[sjohns12]

I was just correcting your comment about the people building it over 100 years ago didn't have the foresight to make it wider for AFL and so we are stuck with what they did - when in fact it has already been widened.

I think we’ve probably misunderstood each other then, I was referring to the fact that the ground has been long and skinny all it’s existence, there was no way for the original developers to plan for this issue, and now almost no way it can be changed to the degree required.

Adelaide Oval increased width by 9 metres and reduced length by 7, even that was considered sacrilege by some. To match the MCG would require another 10+ metres each way. That would never pass because of the SACA, and quite frankly shouldn’t, because Adelaide Oval has a rich cricket history, and the shape of the Oval is part of that.

Even if you remove the cricket aspect of that issue, there still would have been the logistical issue of having an existing stand that was built to match the long and skinny shape, it would have left us with a lopsided Oval.

 

[Walshawk]

You do understand that Adelaide Oval was opened in 1871, one year after Port Adelaide was created, 25 years before the VFL/AFL was created, about 110 years before the VFL started going national and about 120 years before the Crows. Do you expect them to have had the foresight to recognise this problem?

It was redeveloped five years ago. Could have widened the wings and shortened the length if winning at the MCG was suddenly going to become impossible.

 

[sjohns12]

Sure, it comes down to where you draw the lines, but longer term, they've been there more than would be expected.


Why no expansion clubs? Because for most of their lives they were never going to be realistic contenders, and rather than deciding they only count after 4 or 5 years, I just left them out.

Expected by who?

The last expansion club to enter was Port, (excluding GWS and GC) they made the GF in 2004, I think that’s probably a reasonable time frame to say the competition had settled as all six, minus Freo were able to establish themselves and achieve success. Since then 11 of 26 grand finalists have been non-Vic, which accounts for 42.3%, and 3 our of 13 premiers have been non-Vic which is 23.07%, compared to 37.5% of clubs being non-Vic, excluding GWS and Gold Coast. Where is this over representation you are talking about?

 

[sjohns12]

It was redeveloped five years ago. Could have widened the wings and shortened the length if winning at the MCG was suddenly going to become impossible.

See earlier posts

 

[LoungeLizard]

Premiers since 1990

Adelaide=2

Brisbane=3

Carlton=1

Collingwood=2

Essendon=2

Fremantle=0

Geelong=3

Hawthorn=5

Melbourne=0

North Melbourne=2

Port Adelaide=1

Richmond=1

St.Kilda=0

Sydney=2

West Coast=3

Western Bulldogs=1

Looks to me with the exception of Hawthorn, the grand final gets shared around fairly even.

 

[kranky al]

It was redeveloped five years ago. Could have widened the wings and shortened the length if winning at the MCG was suddenly going to become impossible.

I guess thats one really expensive idea - make all the sportsgrounds conform to the one odd sportsground.


Heres an idea - instead of victorian footy demanding that all grounds be redeveloped to the same size as an unusual mcg

We could just paint the lines at the size of the “home teams” size.

Much much cheaper.


Then a VIC mcg tenant team - thats higher ranking - can say - we will have normal size markings thanks.

A VIC etihad tenant can say - we will have it etihad sized thanks


A WA perth oval team etc etc

A SA AO. Team ditto


All for the price of a can of *ing paint.




But no - the roman empire will have us render unto Victoria

 

[LoungeLizard]

I guess thats one really expensive idea - make all the sportsgrounds conform to the one odd sportsground.


Heres an idea - instead of victorian footy demanding that all grounds be redeveloped to the same size as an unusual mcg

We could just paint the lines at the size of the “home teams” size.

Much much cheaper.


Then a VIC mcg tenant team - thats higher ranking - can say - we will have normal size markings thanks.

A VIC etihad tenant can say - we will have it etihad sized thanks


A WA perth oval team etc etc

A SA AO. Team ditto


All for the price of a can of ruddy paint.




But no - the roman empire will have us render unto Victoria

It's a valid idea.

Get it done mate.

 

[Makeshft_Mauler]

Premiers since 1990

Adelaide=2

Brisbane=3

Carlton=1

Collingwood=2

Essendon=2

Fremantle=0

Geelong=3

Hawthorn=5

Melbourne=0

North Melbourne=2

Port Adelaide=1

Richmond=1

St.Kilda=0

Sydney=2

West Coast=3

Western Bulldogs=1

Looks to me with the exception of Hawthorn, the grand final gets shared around fairly even.

Lets kick them out of the league till everyone has 5

 

[kranky al]

It's a valid idea.

Get it done mate.

I’ll call the wolf

 

[kranky al]

Lets kick them out of the league till everyone has 5

That will be another thousand years the way you lot go

 

[JackOutback]

Sure, but if half the teams were there, so all teams would get a reasonable chance of playing several games there every year, and Perth stadium was significantly better than any other stadium in the country, and Perth wasn't the most isolated city in the world, I'd deal with it.


Perth is actually a big part of why the MCG will keep the game....WA is the second biggest market, so if the game was to move anywhere, it would have to be part of rotation, and yet it's so isolated that having the game there would be a logistical nightmare, and it's easier to say 'we'll keep it at a fixed place' than say 'we'll move it, but not to Perth'.

Have many Victorians never left their state? This is Perth, not Timbuktu, you make it sound as if people have to fly, take the train, then hop on a camel to get here.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Top 4 teams this year.

Adelaide (11-3 at Adelaide Oval, 6-1-4 away from Adelaide Oval)
Geelong (6-1 at Skilled, 10-1-7 away from Skilled)
Richmond (12-2 at the MCG, 6-5 away from the MCG)
GWS (10-1-1 at Spotless & Manuka, 5-1-7 away from Spotless & Manuka)

Winning away from home is a lot harder than winning at your home ground, interstate clubs have to hope they land another interstate club who is likely to also play 2 times a year at the MCG.

Having a grand final at your home ground is just a ludicrous advantage its pretty obvious.

 

[tugga]

So Melbourne Storm should have been able to play the North Queensland Cowboys and should have played the Sharks last year at Etihad then?

 

[sprockets]

I think we’ve probably misunderstood each other then, I was referring to the fact that the ground has been long and skinny all it’s existence, there was no way for the original developers to plan for this issue, and now almost no way it can be changed to the degree required.

Adelaide Oval increased width by 9 metres and reduced length by 7, even that was considered sacrilege by some. To match the MCG would require another 10+ metres each way. That would never pass because of the SACA, and quite frankly shouldn’t, because Adelaide Oval has a rich cricket history, and the shape of the Oval is part of that.

Even if you remove the cricket aspect of that issue, there still would have been the logistical issue of having an existing stand that was built to match the long and skinny shape, it would have left us with a lopsided Oval.

So tradition and history dictates AO can't and won't be changed. Tradition and history also dictates that the MCG is where the AFL GF is played.

 

[sprockets]

More than would be expected by self entitled Victorian club supporters. Why wouldn't you expect them in finals at their "rate"? The competition isn't there simply to provide a financial foundation for the big Victorian clubs to win Grand Finals. If you want that, follow the EPL or the Soccer World Cup.

Have you considered that the interstate clubs are simply better run? You want to exclude the expansion clubs? You should also exclude the basket cases that have been Carlton, Melbourne, and Richmond for the last decade.

The AFL became what it is to make money for Victorian clubs. Having interstate sides win the GF every now and then is a by-product of the original intent.

 

[blue harvest]

We could just paint the lines at the size of the “home teams” size.

Much much cheaper.


Then a VIC mcg tenant team - thats higher ranking - can say - we will have normal size markings thanks.

A VIC etihad tenant can say - we will have it etihad sized thanks


A WA perth oval team etc etc

A SA AO. Team ditto


All for the price of a can of ruddy paint.




But no - the roman empire will have us render unto Victoria

Some ovals are longer than the G, do we take some rows of seats out on GF day? Cheersquads won't be happy.

 

[kranky al]

Some ovals are longer than the G, do we take some rows of seats out on GF day? Cheersquads won't be happy.

You do realise ive written about this maybe 20 or so times. Each time bar this ive said you do what is practicable. Not what is ludicrous.

The fact that you are picking petty faults is a good sign.

It means you are running out of real objections.