telsor
Hall of Famer
Just denying the facts it demonstrates.
Analysis Amateur graphical look at interstate v vic games
- Thread starter Swanks McSwankserton
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Just denying the facts it demonstrates.
We all realize that the term “interstate” is relative to the location you’re in, right?
why not just stop the charade and call them non-Victorian clubs?
why not just stop the charade and call them non-Victorian clubs?
- Oct 29, 2017
- 18,929
- 36,533
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Because they ARE "Interstate teams"
.
Not so. Compare apples with apples.
All teams are interstate. Just depends on the location of the conversation.Because they ARE "Interstate teams"
telsor
Hall of Famer
So long as you get to pick and choose the apples, right?
Noidnadroj
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 8, 2020
- 5,995
- 20,632
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Great work OP. Your next challenge is to analyse whether a non-Vic team is more chance of winning the flag despite the MCG advantage of the GF due to regular home advantage in the lead-in finals that Vic teams often don’t get.
Example: Richmond in 2018 finished top and played Hawks and Pies in finals on a neutral venue. Eagles finished 2nd and played Pies and Demons at home.
Cats of 2007 played Roos and Pies at MCG in neutral venue (arguably not even neutral). Port played Eagles and Roos at home.
2001: Lions played Port and Tigers at home in lead-in finals. Bombers players Tigers and Hawks at neutral venue.
And so on .....
So we hear A LOT about the MCG advantage of the Grand Final, but the ‘overall’ chance of winning the flag pre-finals often favours the non-Vic teams who’ve secured home finals.
So in 2001 it was:
Bris: home / home / away
Bombers: neutral / neutral / home
In 2007 it was:
Cats: neutral / neutral / home (not even neutral)
Port: home / home / away
So it would be interesting to know who has the best statistical chance of winning the flag before finals start in those examples.
Then a deeper analysis over time of who is the most chance of winning the flag based purely on win/loss chances of home/neutral/finals given the breakdown of Vic v Non-Vic teams.
I’d say that despite a ‘home’ GF, in 2001 and 2007 Bris & Port had an overall statistical edge leading into finals over their Vic rivals due to 2/3 finals getting a huge home ground advantage both Bombers and Cats didn’t get.
Maybe the OP can make it his next project ....
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Example: Richmond in 2018 finished top and played Hawks and Pies in finals on a neutral venue. Eagles finished 2nd and played Pies and Demons at home.
Cats of 2007 played Roos and Pies at MCG in neutral venue (arguably not even neutral). Port played Eagles and Roos at home.
2001: Lions played Port and Tigers at home in lead-in finals. Bombers players Tigers and Hawks at neutral venue.
And so on .....
So we hear A LOT about the MCG advantage of the Grand Final, but the ‘overall’ chance of winning the flag pre-finals often favours the non-Vic teams who’ve secured home finals.
So in 2001 it was:
Bris: home / home / away
Bombers: neutral / neutral / home
In 2007 it was:
Cats: neutral / neutral / home (not even neutral)
Port: home / home / away
So it would be interesting to know who has the best statistical chance of winning the flag before finals start in those examples.
Then a deeper analysis over time of who is the most chance of winning the flag based purely on win/loss chances of home/neutral/finals given the breakdown of Vic v Non-Vic teams.
I’d say that despite a ‘home’ GF, in 2001 and 2007 Bris & Port had an overall statistical edge leading into finals over their Vic rivals due to 2/3 finals getting a huge home ground advantage both Bombers and Cats didn’t get.
Maybe the OP can make it his next project ....
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
What a surprise, the above's the 1st effort to derail a very good OP.
The obsession continues....
Last edited:
telsor
Hall of Famer
Better to obsess over proving what a lie vicbias is, than to obsess over believing the lie like WCE supporters.
And here they go....
telsor
Hall of Famer
West Coast and Adelaide benefited from talented initial squads and West Coast at least had better access to WA talent which helped set up the 90s premiership.
Brisbane benefited from the merger with Fitzory.
Sydney benefited from a much larger salary cap than everyone else.
Despite these advantages (which were all removed after pushing from VIC clubs) apparently we just scrape into equality.
Noidnadroj
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 8, 2020
- 5,995
- 20,632
- AFL Club
- Richmond
What about 2018? WC Finish 2nd and get first 2 finals with genuine home ground advantage. Richmond finish top and play first 2 finals at a neutral venue.
Who got the finals advantage then?
Same as Brisbane in 2001, where they got 2 x home finals leading in and Bombers played 2 x neutrals v Tigers and Hawks. Or 2007, where Port got 2 lead in home finals and Cats played 2 x lead-ins at the ‘away’ venue being the MCG which was Roos and Pies home ground.
The list goes on .....
So what are your thoughts on the advantages a non-Vic team often gets in finals prior to the GF?
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Boy oh boy wowee imagine if there was a negative impact on Geelong's winning margin in 2007
I daresay the players would prefer to play at home (or home state, sorry Geelong) regardless of opponent.
Noidnadroj
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 8, 2020
- 5,995
- 20,632
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Boy oh boy wowee imagine if there was a negative impact on Geelong's winning margin in 2007
I daresay the players would prefer to play at home (or home state, sorry Geelong) regardless of opponent.
I think you’ve completely ignore the actual point.
On the assumption Brisbane and Essendon of 2001 were of equal quality, and their opponents were of equal quality, who was statistically more likely to make the GF? Brisbane with home/home lead in finals, or Essendon with neutral/neutral lead in finals?
In 2018, who had the advantage ? Eagles with home/home lead in finals, or Tigers with neutral/neutral?
So non-Vic teams might cry about MCG Grand Finals, but the actual odds of a non-Vic team winning 3 x finals as home/home/away, is higher than a Vic team with neutral/neutral/home.
Particularly as the GF crowd is a lot more evenly spread than finals in the first 3 x weeks prior to GF.
It’s an uncomfortable truth I know, but very relevant in any discussion around fairness and Vic bias.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Amusing when the Richmond circle-jerk about West Coast couldn't even last 5 posts..
Nice way to derail your fellow supporter's actual well-thought out OP.
So basically what you are saying is that Victorian bias is pretty much comprehensive except against West Coast, just one "interstate" side, who have been able to somewhat bring the ledger closer to the middle. 1 club, by becoming the biggest, richest and most supported club in the land have been able to go against the grain an combat blatant Victorian Biases.
Some outcome of Statistical Hypothesis Test: Victorian Bias is all pervasive and Statistically real, but becoming bigger, richer more supported than any other club in the League gives you a statistically better chance of combatting that Bias.
Some outcome of Statistical Hypothesis Test: Victorian Bias is all pervasive and Statistically real, but becoming bigger, richer more supported than any other club in the League gives you a statistically better chance of combatting that Bias.
Noidnadroj
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 8, 2020
- 5,995
- 20,632
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Hey Papa. Tell me, in 2007 who had the advantage in regard to making the Grand Final?
Port who played home/home in their first 2 finals.... or Geelong who played first 2 finals on the MCG against MCG tenants Roos and Pies?
Did Port have a clear advantage in regards to qualifying for the Grand Final v the team who finished clearly top of the ladder?
Home/home lead in finals v Neutral/neutral is a massive advantage, isn’t it? Or you non-Vic supporters blind to that leg up you often have over Vic clubs?
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Port played the 3rd placed West Coast and then the 4th placed North Melbourne to get to the Grand Final.
Geelong played the 4th placed and the 6th placed Collingwood to get to the Grand Final. Statistically. you'd have to say that Geelong's pathway was much easier.
Defending a system where the Grand Final can be hosted at the home ground of the lower ranked team makes a mockery of claims to fairness.
Which is why a lot of people are supportive of a truly neutral grand final venue. But what happened instead? And who was involved in those "negotiations"?
This. "The Eagles have been successful therefore there is no bias" argument is ridiculous.
And I'd also argue that VicBias is often shorthand for "big Vic clubs defending and maintaining the status quo because they're the main beneficiaries, even during the years they've been too poorly run to take proper advantage". And which clubs do the primary defenders of the current system in this thread and others that claim there is no bias support?
Smaller Vic clubs are also screwed over in terms of scheduling etc.
I look forward to the argument on Grand Final venue, game scheduling (ie Eagles and Freo playing in Tassie while Collingwood never have) shifting to "money means nothing will change" (like it always does), which is merely another tacit acknowledgement that the bias is real
Cancelled Adelaide v Geelong match?
Swanks McSwankserton
Senior List
- Thread starter
- #73
ohhhhhhhhhhhh that would be it, that didn't even occur to me, thanks for pointing that out
Noidnadroj
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 8, 2020
- 5,995
- 20,632
- AFL Club
- Richmond
So was it fair that 2nd ranked Port got home/home finals and Geelong got neutral/neutral? A simple yes or no will do.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Swanks McSwankserton
Senior List
- Thread starter
- #75
So expected premierships is the sum of what percentage of the comp was interstate for each year since 1982 (9 * 8/18 + 1 * 7/17 + ... + 5 * 1/12). So the idea is that if the comp was completely even, everyone would get a premiership once every 18 years, so at the current rate interstate sides as a group would get it 8 in every 18 of those years. And then if the comp was even in the past, we'd have hopefully seen the evolution of actual premierships match up with the steady growth of expected premierships.
Of course, there's like a bajiquintillionjillion factors that determine who gets even a single premiership, and 'in an even comp it would be their turn to get it' isn't one of them, and imo luck makes up a significant amount of those factors which was why I didn't have high expectations leading into doing this
