Richmond's 7 Consecutive MCG Games

[Dr Awkward]

I would rather have had Brisbane's draw than ours this year

 

[BRAB]

Why are Richmond fans bumping this thread the entire discussion was over lmao

 

[Grrr]

Why are Richmond fans bumping this thread the entire discussion was over lmao

Well we didn't, it was bumped by a doggies supporter at 11.36pm on Saturday.

 

[raymond35]

Here we go. Collingwood get 15 games at the G each year. No one talks about them!

Yeah, nobody's ever mentioned that.......
Good grief!

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Teams are literally lining up to play against Richmond at the G

It would be unfair to have them play somewhere else, they all need the experience.

 

[telsor]

Teams are literally lining up to play against Richmond at the G

It would be unfair to have them play somewhere else, they all need the experience.

Yes, but they want OTHER TEAMS not to play us there...

 

[partycorolla]

Yes, and that definitely means that your hardest games for the year should come at the end of the season in consecutive games, at your home ground. I'm pretty certain no other side got this.

In the run home, where we started 9th, we had to play the teams that eventually finished (pre-finals) 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th (or 2nd 3rd, 5th and 6th) so it seems as though there were some tough games. We also had a 2018 prelim finalist scheduled (who knew they'd be such spuds this year) so it is actually a pretty tough draw for a prelim final losing team.

We only had 4 or 5 actual games with home ground/home state advantage for the season (WCE rnd 22, Syd rnd 5, Port in the teens, GWS and Bris rnd 23).

Meanwhile the 2018 premiers had at least 10 home games against interstate sides - what a massive advantage that should be.
The 2018 beaten grand finalists had more MCG games than the Tigers.

Just admit it - you're just another salty supporter who can't get over the fact that your mob gave up a top 4 spot by losing to the Dorks (and by giving up a 5 goal lead against the eventual premiers). The best team is the premiership team - same number of home and away games as anyone else. In fact as everyone else. We won in Qld (2/2), SA (1/2), WA (1/1) and Vic (/14/19) during the season. We won more games than anyone else and at the end of the day were the best team. We have the highest membership, the highest crowd averages, best winning record over the last 3 years and are just playing really good football. Which is overdue given 3 decades of crap.

Oh and we'll add the best defender next year, have the 2nd best player (currently) from last years draft crop to come back, and a 1-gamer who is going to be phenomonal next year. Strap yourself in, watch the Tiger army at the G, and don't be surprised if the AFL give us 17 games there in 2020 - because we pack the place out. Embrace your inner Tiger champ!

 

[threesixpio]

Does this undermine the integrity of the competition? Yes.

Richmond finished last year on top of the table with 18 wins. Their fixture as the reigning premier then looked unfair enough, but at least their games at the MCG weren't bunched together like this year. And yet, somehow, as the "best team" of 2018, they were somehow given 7 games in a row at the MCG to finish the season, and nothing is being made of it. If they didn't have such a dickride in terms of fixturing, they would not be in the Grand Final.

I made a thread earlier in the year before the run of games started, and it was promptly closed for some reason. According to Richmond fans, 7 consecutive games at their home ground was fair, because:
* They played 5 games outside of their state in the first 16 games.
* They had to walk across the road to Etihad to play 2 games.
* Games against co-tenants are the exact same as an away game, except they're still at their home ground, in their home state.

In reality, if we readjust the metrics to classify away games as those played outside your home state (as is the case for half th league), their fixture looks like this:
* 5 away games within 23 rounds, with one one those against a club who won 3 games for the year.
* 17 games in their home state, with 14 at their home ground.

So, the majority of their games were played in their home state, at their home ground.

This is the case for other MCG tenants, however. It's how the AFL usually fixtures. Collingwood once had 8 consecutive games at the MCG roughly a decade ago, though they didn't finish on top of the ladder the season before.

Given how Richmond went last year, why wasn't their fixture more punctuated with travel and non MCG games? How come they got 7 consecutive games at their home ground to compensate for their "increased travel" in the first half of the season? How is any of this fair for the rest of the competition?

What's more, for their interstate games, they played against sides that finished 17th (Gold Coast), 12th (Adelaide), 10th (Port Adelaide, 14th (Fremantle) and 7th (GWS) in the previous season - only a single top 8 side. In their MCG run, they played teams that finished 2nd (West Coast), 5th (Melbourne), 7th (GWS), and 3rd (Collingwood). They didn't play a single top 4 side away, and the majority of the toughest matches came in the 7 game run.

How did the AFL allow this fixture to eventuate in the first place?

‘Ken rigged

 

[telsor]

I'm just wondering what the OP suggests...


What would qualify as a fair fixture for him?

Curious...10 pages later, and still nobody can answer what they'd consider to be a fair fixture.

The obvious conclusion is that they don't have one, and just want to have a sook.

 

[CM9000]

In the run home, where we started 9th, we had to play the teams that eventually finished (pre-finals) 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th (or 2nd 3rd, 5th and 6th) so it seems as though there were some tough games. We also had a 2018 prelim finalist scheduled (who knew they'd be such spuds this year) so it is actually a pretty tough draw for a prelim final losing team.

We only had 4 or 5 actual games with home ground/home state advantage for the season (WCE rnd 22, Syd rnd 5, Port in the teens, GWS and Bris rnd 23).

Meanwhile the 2018 premiers had at least 10 home games against interstate sides - what a massive advantage that should be.
The 2018 beaten grand finalists had more MCG games than the Tigers.

Just admit it - you're just another salty supporter who can't get over the fact that your mob gave up a top 4 spot by losing to the Dorks (and by giving up a 5 goal lead against the eventual premiers). The best team is the premiership team - same number of home and away games as anyone else. In fact as everyone else. We won in Qld (2/2), SA (1/2), WA (1/1) and Vic (/14/19) during the season. We won more games than anyone else and at the end of the day were the best team. We have the highest membership, the highest crowd averages, best winning record over the last 3 years and are just playing really good football. Which is overdue given 3 decades of crap.

Oh and we'll add the best defender next year, have the 2nd best player (currently) from last years draft crop to come back, and a 1-gamer who is going to be phenomonal next year. Strap yourself in, watch the Tiger army at the G, and don't be surprised if the AFL give us 17 games there in 2020 - because we pack the place out. Embrace your inner Tiger champ!

How teams finish in 2019 has no impact on how the fixture is initially set up - the AFL is incapable of looking into the future. What matters in the previous season, which is taken into account when choosing who you play in the 23 round season. Money, crowd numbers and revenue should not ever be considered as important factors, because this literally undermines the integrity of the competition. It doesn't matter that you have 30,000 people signed up on pet and child memberships.

The fact remains that, despite finishing on top of the ladder in 2018, you played one team outside your home state that finished in the top 8 the year before. It doesn't matter that Brisbane finished second this year; the AFL, before the season started, gave you a bullshit fixture, with 7 consecutive games at your home ground against the toughest teams. Explain to me how it doesn't, at the very least, give you an advantage.

Curious...10 pages later, and still nobody can answer what they'd consider to be a fair fixture.

The obvious conclusion is that they don't have one, and just want to have a sook.

Ok, fine, how about this: not giving the minor premiers 7 consecutive games at their home ground the next season.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Curious...10 pages later, and still nobody can answer what they'd consider to be a fair fixture.

The obvious conclusion is that they don't have one, and just want to have a sook.

Look, we didn't play the strongest team in the competition at all, so the fixture clearly favours us

 

[TiggerMan22]

Where's the post about our 4 MCG games between rounds 3 and 16?

 

[TiggerMan22]

Old news bud, what's fair in the AFL anyway? Is it fair that GWS were gifted all the young talent from the under 17's and 18's?

Richmond took the fool force of the expansion clubs too. Starting a rebuild the year GC came in.

Not fair year 1 we were called the worst club since Fitzroy, bookies paid out on our wooden spoon by round 6 and yet our first pick was pick #6.
Year 2 we finish 12th and get pick #15 as our first.

This is of course drafts with players already taken out beforehand. So you are essentially even further down.

But yeh playing 7 much games in a row after player there 4 times in 3 months is totally the most unfair thing everrrrrr

 

[Coach_Required]

West Coast Supporter 2017: We need more games at the G against the top Vic teams to get more experience for finals

West Coast Supporter 2018: We don't need to play at the G anymore because our new home ground has similar dimensions, our record there is great.

West Coast Supporter 2019: Why do Richmond play so many games at the G ??? It's unfair

 

[Ron The Bear]

Curious...10 pages later, and still nobody can answer what they'd consider to be a fair fixture.

They should give us that "home" game v Sydney back from Marvel, so we have 11 home games at our home ground like the non-Victorian clubs.

 

[telsor]

Ok, fine, how about this: not giving the minor premiers 7 consecutive games at their home ground the next season.

So if they did that, you'd stop your little tanty?

All this over such a minor thing? Seriously?

 

[CM9000]

So if they did that, you'd stop your little tanty?

All this over such a minor thing? Seriously?

Would you be ok with Norf playing 7 consecutive games at in Hobart? Because, from the point of view of an interstate club, that is how it looked.

Maybe we should get 7 consecutive games at Perth Stadium? Even if it wasn't home games, we'd love it.

If you'd find that unfair, then you would get what I'm saying, rather than dismissing it as someone being "salty". I've been ******* pissed of about this for a while - just look at the date of the thread I made before this one.

 

[Juke]

Would you be ok with Norf playing 7 consecutive games at in Hobart? Because, from the point of view of an interstate club, that is how it looked.

Maybe we should get 7 consecutive games at Perth Stadium? Even if it wasn't home games, we'd love it.

If you'd find that unfair, then you would get what I'm saying, rather than dismissing it as someone being "salty". I've been ******* pi**ed of about this since the start of the season - just look at the date of the thread I mademoiselle before this one.

This is not a cogent point.

No one sane would begrudge the Eagles if they had 7 games in a row at their home ground if half the games were neutral and it was evened out over the course of the season.

On G8141 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Curious...10 pages later, and still nobody can answer what they'd consider to be a fair fixture.

The obvious conclusion is that they don't have one, and just want to have a sook.

A rolling fixture is the answer, just keeps going around in a circle year after year. You play every side every 17 rounds one at home and the next time away.
Now those against this will say you lose certain locked in blockbuster matches but the truth is they are still there and just played at different times during each season.
There is no prof what so ever that a rolling fixture would reduce AFL income.

So there you have it, in an 18 team comp this is the fairest a fixture can be.

 

[mellowyellow]

Lol why are West Choke fans complaining again? No use having home games if you can't even beat a team that has nothing to play for in R23 when you need to make top 4...

 

[The Plowking]

Fixture shmixture.
Tigers clear best .

 

[The Plowking]

A rolling fixture is the answer, just keeps going around in a circle year after year. You play every side every 17 rounds one at home and the next time away.
Now those against this will say you lose certain locked in blockbuster matches but the truth is they are still there and just played at different times during each season.
There is no prof what so ever that a rolling fixture would reduce AFL income.

So there you have it, in an 18 team comp this is the fairest a fixture can be.

That's not a bad option.

 

[CM9000]

This is not a cogent point.

No one sane would begrudge the Eagles if they had 7 games in a row at their home ground if half the games were neutral and it was evened out over the course of the season.

On G8141 using BigFooty.com mobile app

What if it was against all the top 8 teams from the year before? Or what if we finished top the previous season? It would significantly reduce our travel, while making other teams travel more. It can't be "evened out" over the cause of the season, because you still get 7 consecutive games in a row regardless - especially when it's at the hardest point of the year.

What your forgetting is that, for interstate sides, HGA isn't just the ground you play at, but also the state you play in. You already play the majority of games in your home state, so having them all at the same ground in consecutive weeks just exacerbates the problem.

 

[juss]

Rubbish, most sides that play at the Gabba hardly play there
Seriously

Hence the unique home and away advantage Cats have over every other club, don't have the travel of the interstate sides, yet only VIC side with a genuine home ground advantage.

There is no perfectly equitable fixture in the AFL with the number and distribution of teams. Throw up any suggestion you like, and we will probably be able to find a subjective or objective inequality in it.

 

[strongandbold12]

No offence to Brisbane, but I think your side was quite a bit off due to the lack of finals experience. It made you a bit easier to beat then the other top 4 sides.



Must be difficult having to play against co tenants, when half the competition have to travel interstate every second week. Must be hard walking across the road to Etihad.

im only a couple of pages into this debacle of a thread and you're literally just getting embarrassed by everyone. Log off and go outside (preferably dont come back).