Preview The Home Ground Factor in Finals is hugely overrated

[kranky al]

Damn that one game is really swaying me

The statistics for all interstate finals are damning enough.

 

[meltiger]

genuine question (which i've asked before but nobody responded). what made WCE the "higher-ranked team" prior to the GF in 2015? had freo won the prelim they would have both finished top and won all their finals which would presumably make them the undisputed #1 team before GF day. so, given the hawks beat the #1-ranked team until that point, why were the eagles the higher-ranked team going into the big dance? was it because they won their QF, or was it because they finished higher after H&A?

Would surely be a combination of both mate.

Reverse the QF result

Hawthorn plays West Coast in the GF. Hawks would be higher ranked team based on having won their QF and West Coast didn’t even though the Eagles would have had to go ‘away’ to the top ranked team.

Hawthorn plays Freo. They haven’t played, both won their 2 finals so H&A finishes would apply and Freo would be notionally the higher ranked team.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kranky al]

You lose because you don't have the massive advantage that your own ground gives you over other teams.

Another team has it.

They earned it.

 

[footyfan1978]

genuine question (which i've asked before but nobody responded). what made WCE the "higher-ranked team" prior to the GF in 2015? had freo won the prelim they would have both finished top and won all their finals which would presumably make them the undisputed #1 team before GF day. so, given the hawks beat the #1-ranked team until that point, why were the eagles the higher-ranked team going into the big dance? was it because they won their QF, or was it because they finished higher after H&A?

Fremantle were ranked 1 going into preliminary final week.
West Coast 2.
When Fremantle lose their prelim final they finish 3rd for the season, therefore the previous highest ranked team (Eagles) ranked the higher of teams left in final week. Got beaten and finished runner ups. Fairly straight forward I would have thought.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Would surely be a combination of both mate.

Reverse the QF result

Hawthorn plays West Coast in the GF. Hawks would be higher ranked team based on having won their QF and West Coast didn’t even though the Eagles would have had to go ‘away’ to the top ranked team.

Hawthorn plays Freo. They haven’t played, both won their 2 finals so H&A finishes would apply and Freo would be notionally the higher ranked team.

thanks for the response. so, presumably if 4th beats 1st in the QF and both teams go through to the GF, 4th has the higher ranking based on not having lost?

Fremantle were ranked 1 going into preliminary final week.
West Coast 2.
When Fremantle lose their prelim final they finish 3rd for the season, therefore the previous highest ranked team (Eagles) ranked the higher of teams left in final week. Got beaten and finished runner ups. Fairly straight forward I would have thought.

it is straightforward, i've just never really paid attention to more than who plays who and where.

 

[Pessimistic]

This article with the swans pushing a best of idea:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...s-after-grand-final-snub-20180413-p4z9h0.html

Finals were meant to be at a neutral ground (obviously Melbourne fc at the MCG have always been an exception)

There’s been a transition since teams like eagles were asked to play suc neutral games at Waverley and the mcg

Problem is our lopsided home and away means home state finals are sometimes earned by a superior draw

Particularly 2 v 3 and to a lesser extent 6 v 7. Especially if those teams finish close and are not from the same state


One way would be to play the first week of the finals over 2 weeks, home and away. After that it could be said the final six teams have earned their seeding.
Not sure if series games suit well with AFL though

 

[meltiger]

thanks for the response. so, presumably if 4th beats 1st in the QF and both teams go through to the GF, 4th has the higher ranking based on not having lost?

Yep exactly what I’m saying

Using the same principle of / 4th gains home field for week 3, whereas 1st has forfeited week 3 home field in your example there






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[footyfan1978]

thanks for the response. so, presumably if 4th beats 1st in the QF and both teams go through to the GF, 4th has the higher ranking based on not having lost?

it is straightforward, i've just never really paid attention to more than who plays who and where.

Yes, when 4th beats 1st in a QF quite clearly that winning team is only one of two clubs going through to preliminary final with a week off. Of course they still going to be considered to be higher ranked if they meet the side they beat again.
Pay attention in future and you will realise how straight forward it becomes each year.
The one thing is though, after week one it plays out more like a tennis tournament and you are on one side of draw to get to grand final via preliminary finals. Before the top 4 teams play in week one they can end up getting there via either preliminary finals paths.

It was even more straight forward under the final five. You always played a side then that was the next ranking spot next to you. There was no sides of draw or two preliminary finals back then.

 

[Long Live HFC]

i don't need to pay further attention- it's already been explained to me in the last 5 minutes cheers.

 

[footyfan1978]

Finals were meant to be at a neutral ground (obviously Melbourne fc at the MCG have always been an exception)

They still are neutral except where two teams are playing from different states some team is going to be playing in their home state but nobody is actually meant to be seen as home team. Cannot be avoided in such a big country.

Richmond were the only MCG co-tenant with Melbourne from late 60's to mid 80's but Melbourne never made finals in that time. So when Richmond were playing in grand finals in late 60's, 1972 to 74 ,1980 and 1982 they were playing sides that had played 2 games at MCG during home and away series. About the same most interstate do now. Was never really an issue. Then the self-entitled sooks that joined later wanted to get protection of home ground advantages as they feel they entitled to special advantages. It is all they want to know. Quite a few clubs do not really have genuine home grounds but the self-entitled sooks do not care. They just want whatever advantages them and could not care less beyond that.

 

[HTT]

The statistics for all interstate finals are damning enough.

And are irrelevant because of the point I made. You’d expect the home team to win anywhere. One off examples don’t exactly prove much.

 

[99cents]

Technically there is no home game advantage in a final, it's home state, say Port host a final they won't be allowed to sing that song before the game as the AFL host the final.

Swings and roundabouts I guess- Port don't get to play a song, geelong don't get to host a final, Carlton aren't allowed to unleash the hovercraft...

 

[99cents]

To get rid of the differences between 'home and away' clubs ought to adopt the exact same routine for every match, regardless of venue.
ie

When the eagles are playing at Perth stadium, they gather as a team on the thursday or whatever, team polos, bags packed, catch a coach to the airport, fly around a for an hour or two, land, collect bags and head to the team hotel for the next couple days- simple.

 

[99cents]

The AFL tried manipulating the result in '13 by sending us to Geelong instead of Melb like the previous year (2012 EF).

Would have preferred to play at the G although it didnt matter.

Gee people whinge. 'AFL manipulated?' Pissweak

 

[Tbonefreo]

Gee people whinge. 'AFL manipulated?' Pissweak

1cent off a dollar.


Typical.

 

[mcgarnacle]

I'm not sure if I'm alone but I really think the home ground advantage in finals is a myth. They are not like home and away games and no club actually owns the venue for finals. The ticket allocation is completely different, even the rooms are random, and no team needs motivation.

I have confirmed with the expert in the analytics thread there is no valid data to suggest either way to the notion there is an advantage. Mostly people extrapolate home and away data and I reject it's validity.

Not really relevant but personally I really like the MCG and would love to go there in September to watch our guys. I went twice past year and it's a great experience. The infrastructure, ease of moving around, and even queues were impressive.

I haven't been to Optus but would welcome the opportunity.

More relevant is there's no doubt the playing group dream of playing in the last week in September at the G. And would prefer a QF at the MCG or Optus to an EF at Spotless or Manuka.

Surely all interstate teams have a similar view.

it's an advantage. whether the home team turns that advantage into their favour is a separate claim

 

[HTT]

Rankings as the finals go on seem to generally be decided after week 1

1-2: QF winners
3-4: QF losers
5-6: EF winners
7-8: EF losers

To tiebreak that it seems to come down to ladder position, but the only time that's needed for the GF and by then its symbolic more than anything.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Swings and roundabouts I guess- Port don't get to play a song, geelong don't get to host a final, Carlton aren't allowed to unleash the hovercraft...

Not sure club specific things are necessarily banned. They would have to be reciprocal I think. The 2016 QF there was some of our usual pre game stuff and some of the Swans. We play AC/DC just before the game, but it's not really like the Port singalongs. Sadly the Giant footsteps just before the team emerges seems to have gone the way of the Dodo. That could be reciprocal in a finals matchup.

 

[99cents]

Mate, I goto the MCG a lot. Compared to going to grounds with home ground advantage there is no experience of any distinct advantage. Even as far back as when I first started going to footy when most clubs had their own ground and only Demons and Tigers played at MCG. If you played a game at MCG or Waverley Park you could tell it was as close to neutral as you could find but goto Moorabin, Geelong, our own ground at Princes Park, Western Oval, Windy Hill, Perth, Adealide etc etc, the massive home ground advantage were clear. Now we removed most of those home ground advantages it comes back to far less with Geelong, Perth based clubs and Adelaide based with the big advantages that other clubs used to enjoy. Those clubs with distinct home ground advantage are the loudest about the talk of it WHEN they do not enjoy the protection of having it.

Having abandoned your home ground you are deciding that other clubs should be compelled to do the same?
All home games and home finals should be played on each team's home ground.

 

[DrEvil_]

Technically there is no home game advantage in a final, it's home state, say Port host a final they won't be allowed to sing that song before the game as the AFL host the final.

Should make all Port home games finals. Cringeworthy song and totally manufactured.

 

[sprockets]

To get rid of the differences between 'home and away' clubs ought to adopt the exact same routine for every match, regardless of venue.
ie

When the eagles are playing at Perth stadium, they gather as a team on the thursday or whatever, team polos, bags packed, catch a coach to the airport, fly around a for an hour or two, land, collect bags and head to the team hotel for the next couple days- simple.

That doesn't explain why a team like Richmond has a poor record at Etihad, for example. IMO it comes down to the ground itself, size and shape.

 

[doppleganger]

Vic clubs have won 11/50 interstate finals. None of the 11 winning teams finished higher on the ladder than their opponent (only possible in weeks 2 - 3 from 1987 - 1999, and week 3 from 2000 - 2017). That's a 22% win rate for a side ranked lower on the ladder in finals

In every final since 1987, the lower ranked team on the ladder after round 22 has won 32% of finals against higher ranked sides, regardless of teams or venue.

Victorian clubs have played 16 grand finals against non-Victorian teams. From those 16, 6 have been won by a lower ranked Victorian side, 5 have been won by a lower ranked non-Victorian side, and 5 were won by the highest ranked side. That's 38%, 31% and 31% respectively.

This post has some actual stats.

The lower ranked team normally loses...wow go figure! But that won’t stop some WA wowsers quoting some 11 from 50 stat as something of note.

And it again highlights that come GF daythe ladder and rankings are almost irrelevant. 71% of GFs are won by the lower ‘ranked’ teams...the vic or non-vic is shared again, unsurprisingly to all but the WA wowsers.

Because the rankings are based on H&A performance, they don’t equate to GF rankings.

Performance in H&A games isn’t relevant when talking GF, being a Pie we have more knowledge than all about domination of H&A and then finding ways of cocking up finals.

The GF is about who has GF experience, and which team actually has its best players on the park for the GF.

Adelaide lost last year because they had a spate of injuries and Richmond were flying with 40 of 42 players available.

Adelaide’s 2018 also impacted by the poor pre-season, and Richmond just keeps rolling along.

 

[doppleganger]

That doesn't explain why a team like Richmond has a poor record at Etihad, for example. IMO it comes down to the ground itself, size and shape.

Richmond has a better finals record at Waverley compared to the G.

 

[roacheee]

We’ve gone around in circles about this previously kranky but let’s look at this season as an example. Richmond could likely play fellow mcg Tennant hawthorn in their first final and then Collingwood in the prelim. So for those 2 finals Richmond’s advantage for finishing top is nothing, naught, zero. The eagles however will have a serious home ground advantage in both their finals with fellow Tennant Freo out of the finals.
Do we complain? No, it’s all swings and roundabouts.

need to save this post and reply to every kranky post with it

 

[footyfan1978]

Having abandoned your home ground you are deciding that other clubs should be compelled to do the same?
All home games and home finals should be played on each team's home ground.

What rubbish.
No such thing as designated home finals. Hence when we did have our homeground our finals were played at other grounds bigger which has always meant to be the deciding factor. 1995 when we were top of ladder by 4 wins no finals at our homeground. Zilch, Nada!!!
Like I said the only time we did was 1945 and that was because the MCG was not available so our ground became the main venue for the big finals that year, just like in 1991 when MCG was not available , Waverley Park took over.