MCG tenants on Grand Final day

[niceslacks]

Richmond won by 89 points. They kept GWS to 1 goal at half time and 3 for the match to score 25 points their lowest ever....

The MCG didn't lead to that, they had a bunch of loud travelling fans, they just completely shat the bed against a far superior side that would have won yesterday if the game was played anywhere.

We saw last year with the Eagles that if you are a better side, you will win the match.

Agree in regard to WC last year, however that is an anomaly in recent times. It doesn't prove that the MCG advantage doesn't exist. And also agree Richmond smoked them yesterday, vastly superior. However it doesn't negate the ongoing trend that the MCG based side wins far more often on GF day. That to me is making the GF boring, and let's face it, if the home ground advantage is just 5%, that is still an advantage. In the same way that I think interstate teams get a massive advantage when they play at home, but it means for little if WC for example finish top of the ladder, win 2 home finals and then have to face an MCG team on GF day.

But that's the comp, and as suggested, if I was in Essendon's shoes next time they're negotiating home ground contracts, I would be moving heaven and earth to get back to the G. That's why they built a training ground the same dimensions as the MCG, in the hope they could replicate some of that. Obviously means something on the big stage to spend money on doing that.

 

[Eternal Schism]

The grueling trip from Southern Cross to Richmond must be unbearable for teams! Its beyond a joke that you'd try to lump in higher ranked interstate sides having to travel to the G as some kind of indictment of extreme unfairness for travelling Docklands tenants. Last I checked Docklands tenants get quite a bit of practice playing on the MCG in away games, a lot more than interstate sides do; its completely on the Docklands clubs if they aren't good enough to win on the day. Its a 3-4 kilometer trip! You don't really care about the disadvantage for the interstate sides, but just want to be perceived as being wronged like them.

PS. Can you cite how St Kilda lost to an MCG tenant? Geelong traveled further to play the G than them and Kardinia is their home patch, Collingwood finished higher than St Kilda on the Ladder in 2010 so deserved the home advantage.

 

[Sir_Loin]

The AFL grand final is getting pretty easy to pick when there is an MCG tenant involved against a team from another home ground.

The last 13 have had 10 grand finals between an MCG tenant and another side, with 8 of those going to the MCG team. The other two were close games, 5 and 10 points respectively. Of those 8 wins, 5 were blowouts, and another became a blowout after Collingwood won the replay in 2010 easily. Of those, 4 times the team finishing lower on the ladder, but having the advantage of being at home on the MCG have won, with Adelaide, Fremantle, Sydney and St Kilda finishing seasons on top but losing to MCG teams come the Grand Final.

Now I know this has been brought up many times and many will just say that's just how it is, and these things change over time and whatever, but the reality is, the competition seems to be getting more lopsided towards the MCG home teams (For the GF anyway), and making for some very ordinary grand finals in recent years, with last year an exception. We settled in yesterday with the BBQ fired up, and eskies full, deep down just knowing the game was only going to go one way, and most of us would have stopped watching before half time. Thus it came to pass.

Of course the whole basis of the competition is pretty much unfair, with the uneven fixture etc, but I do wonder if this current trend continues whether there will end up being a bigger push for the GF to be moved around. If not, can Essendon please move back to the MCG? Just in case we get a half decent side together some time in the next whenever.

Of course, this could all flip again, and we have a club like Brisbane doing what they did 01-03, but with the era of teams being evened out via the drafts, and dilution of talent with more clubs involved, the home ground advantage seems to be more important than ever. (note: I know many will disagree, and that's ok, I'm just bitter that we've had to sit through another junk Grand Final)

No probs when the club EARNS the GF at home, the problem is when its gifted to them.

The sleazy deal to extend the 'GF @ the G' will haunt our game for a bloody long time & be the signature of the McLachlan era.

Richmond are a privileged club - The fact they were useless for 30 years is an indictment on them. Now that they have a semblance of competency in running the club, there is no denying that Richmond winning flags is infinitely easier to achieve than many other clubs because of the structural inequalities of the 'competition'

Even in Adelaide's two seasons of complete turd since that GF, Tigers haven't beaten Adelaide at Adelaide Oval - No way the 2017 flag goes yellow and black if the GF was played at the higher ranked team's ground

enjoy the fact you picked privileged club, makes enjoying the footy easier, I guess -

Adelaide broke themselves

don't get ahead of yourself

I've got a solution to this. Currently we have 5 what I would call 'Etihad Tennants', being Carlton, Essendon, North, StKilda and Bulldogs. Now I'm suggesting we expand that to 6 Etihad tennants, we'll do that by the lowest placed finisher of Collingwood, Geelong, Hawthorn, Melbourne and Richmond being 'relegated' to Etihad Stadium. Then we have 6 Etihad tennants and in 2020 instead of participating in the AFL they'll play in what we'll call the 'Etihad Cup'.

In the very exciting Etihad Cup they'll each play the other 5 etihad tennants 4 times for a 20 game season, and then the finals will start. We can have a final 4 system or whatever, it won't really matter because not many people will be watching. The winner however will get promoted back to the MCG (or allowed back home to Kardinia Park in Geelong's case) with the bottom placed MCG side relegated to the Etihad Cup in 2021!

 

[deck]

When Docklands (then known as Colonial Stadium) was built, it's owners offered big money deals to both Collingwood and Essendon to leave their MCG tenency. Collingwood chose to please their supporters by rejecting the big dollar offer and stay at the 'G. The Essendon board chose to chase the $$$$.

Actually Collingwood were offered the Essendon deal first but then used that to leverage a better deal with the MCC.

 

[deck]

It really makes you wonder how GWS made the grand final in the first place.

 

[Delorean]

This site is becoming embarrassing. How many new threads can we open up to carry on like tall poppies?

I promise you all now that because of all of this nonsense being thrown around - rather than admit Richmond are the best side in the league has made all of us tigers want to become more boastful and obnoxious than after 17'.

 

[BIRDBRAIN]

It really makes you wonder how GWS made the grand final in the first place.

Beating Collingwood at the MCG isn't that hard that's how.

 

[blue harvest]

Only the non Vic team wins close games, Vic teams win by a lot probably due to familiarity with the ground

The OP is talking about MCG tenants, this isn't another #vicco thread.

 

[deck]

Beating Collingwood at the MCG isn't that hard that's how.

The Gabba?

 

[niceslacks]

The grueling trip from Southern Cross to Richmond must be unbearable for teams! Its beyond a joke that you'd try to lump in higher ranked interstate sides having to travel to the G as some kind of indictment of extreme unfairness for travelling Docklands tenants. Last I checked Docklands tenants get quite a bit of practice playing on the MCG in away games, a lot more than interstate sides do; its completely on the Docklands clubs if they aren't good enough to win on the day. Its a 3-4 kilometer trip! You don't really care about the disadvantage for the interstate sides, but just want to be perceived as being wronged like them.

PS. Can you cite how St Kilda lost to an MCG tenant? Geelong traveled further to play the G than them and Kardinia is their home patch, Collingwood finished higher than St Kilda on the Ladder in 2010 too.

Geelong have been an MCG tenant through this period, and only got to play at Kardinia Park against interstate sides. The bulk of their games in Melbourne were at the MCG. This has now changed, and they may come to regret that as they play less at the MCG each year. Maybe not financially however.

St Kilda lost to both Geelong (MCG tenant at the time) and Collingwood (MCG tenant).

And yes of course I'd be a little more dismissive if Essendon were at the MCG, that's natural bias in action, always hard to look past that. Essendon went for the money and got the money. Club decision. But I do care about grand final day being the best showcase of AFL football, and a day we all sit down and watch the two best sides of the year (hopefully) go at it. I think there is a reason some people like to say the preliminary finals are more likely to be the better games of the final series.

It is a shame we don't have our own Wembley, a neutral turf. That is the reality however, and I'm just trying to prompt discussion because it is a thing. And what would we do if we didn't have things to disagree about in football. We wouldn't be on big footy for a start

 

[Chode1]

Agree in regard to WC last year, however that is an anomaly in recent times. It doesn't prove that the MCG advantage doesn't exist. And also agree Richmond smoked them yesterday, vastly superior. However it doesn't negate the ongoing trend that the MCG based side wins far more often on GF day. That to me is making the GF boring, and let's face it, if the home ground advantage is just 5%, that is still an advantage. In the same way that I think interstate teams get a massive advantage when they play at home, but it means for little if WC for example finish top of the ladder, win 2 home finals and then have to face an MCG team on GF day.

But that's the comp, and as suggested, if I was in Essendon's shoes next time they're negotiating home ground contracts, I would be moving heaven and earth to get back to the G. That's why they built a training ground the same dimensions as the MCG, in the hope they could replicate some of that. Obviously means something on the big stage to spend money on doing that.

Twice yesterday commentators said “Richmond really know how to defend this ground well”
Wonder why gws or others don’t - because they never fn play there!!! 9 of the last 10 at the G - they are a great team and deserved to be crowned champions but cmon!!!

 

[JayJ20]

When Docklands (then known as Colonial Stadium) was built, it's owners offered big money deals to both Collingwood and Essendon to leave their MCG tenency. Collingwood chose to please their supporters by rejecting the big dollar offer and stay at the 'G. The Essendon board chose to chase the $$$$.

That sums up our last 2 decades. Still annoyed at that incredibly frustrating decision.

 

[Kwality]

I'm glad we are all on the same page about the eagles win last year being the best of all time

Count me out.

 

[Barlos Crathwaite]

Count me out.

You've already replied to this quote. What are you on about??? Going to ignore you now goodbye

 

[Kwality]

Twice yesterday commentators said “Richmond really know how to defend this ground well”
Wonder why gws or others don’t - because they never fn play there!!! 9 of the last 10 at the G - they are a great team and deserved to be crowned champions but cmon!!!

Losing then winning the next year is the opportunity, BUT 2 x GFs in a row is a tough gig, the Tiges couldnt do it (nor could my mob 2019)

 

[Freshwater]

The grueling trip from Southern Cross to Richmond must be unbearable for teams! Its beyond a joke that you'd try to lump in higher ranked interstate sides having to travel to the G as some kind of indictment of extreme unfairness for travelling Docklands tenants. Last I checked Docklands tenants get quite a bit of practice playing on the MCG in away games, a lot more than interstate sides do; its completely on the Docklands clubs if they aren't good enough to win on the day. Its a 3-4 kilometer trip! You don't really care about the disadvantage for the interstate sides, but just want to be perceived as being wronged like them.

PS. Can you cite how St Kilda lost to an MCG tenant? Geelong traveled further to play the G than them and Kardinia is their home patch, Collingwood finished higher than St Kilda on the Ladder in 2010 too.

It’s not the distance, but the familiarity with the ground. Size, shape, stands, wind, noise etc. Bulldogs play there twice a year if lucky. Less than ‘out of town’ teams like Geelong and some interstate teams. We would love some more H&A games there, if only as the away team. But the AFL would hate to have a fairer ‘fixture’, wouldn’t they? It’s all about crowd size for the now, not long term, so Gil can get his bonuses.

 

[Barlos Crathwaite]

Twice yesterday commentators said “Richmond really know how to defend this ground well”
Wonder why gws or others don’t - because they never fn play there!!! 9 of the last 10 at the G - they are a great team and deserved to be crowned champions but cmon!!!

Fair call mate. Wouldn't have mattered if GWS had played fifty games there yesterday but fair call

 

[Cuzz09]

Sometimes a win... against the home side... 5 goals down... with a goal from impossible position... can make a small margin victory all that much sweeter.



On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Sonny Bonds]

Richmond would've won playing in the car park outside the MCG. Were just too good.

 

[captain blood 17]

Who have been the GF winners since 2000? I think Vic clubs are one ahead of interstate teams now after yesterday? WCE beat a tennant last year.

 

[Barlos Crathwaite]

Sometimes a win... against the home side... 5 goals down... with a goal from impossible position... can make a small margin victory all that much sweeter.

View attachment 755333

On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

That's the most beautiful thing ever posted on this website. They should make a movie of the 2018 GF and get hugh Jackman to star

 

[blue harvest]

Geelong have been an MCG tenant through this period, and only got to play at Kardinia Park against interstate sides.

St Kilda lost to both Geelong (MCG tenant at the time) and Collingwood (MCG tenant).

I'm not sure you could call Geelong an MCG tenant, they played 8 home games at Kardinia that year (2009) including 3 against Vic sides, another 2 home at the G and 1 at Etihad. This year I think they had 2 home at the G again, so nothing has really changed.

 

[Podsnap]

Richmond won by 89 points. They kept GWS to 1 goal at half time and 3 for the match to score 25 points their lowest ever....

The MCG didn't lead to that, they had a bunch of loud travelling fans, they just completely shat the bed against a far superior side that would have won yesterday if the game was played anywhere.

We saw last year with the Eagles that if you are a better side, you will win the match.

Thats the problem - you need to be the better side rather than have two equal or competitive sides that provide decent grand-finals.

 

[blue harvest]

Who have been the GF winners since 2000? I think Vic clubs are one ahead of interstate teams now after yesterday? WCE beat a tennant last year.

I think it's 9 games each for Vic against non Vic in GFs since AFL began.

 

[FrakturedHalo]

Sorry which other stadium in Australia has the facilities and capacity to hold 103,000 fans, with the logistics of getting there, getting in without too much hassle, being able to feed yourself or get a drink if thats what you want to do, and is already the perfect shape of the ground as per the AFL code regulations?? It would cost far too much to move the Grand Final considering AFL head office is here, so if it were interstate thats one hell of a travel expense bill by the time they send all their staff etc to attend it/work/perform their applicable duties...and the expense thats spent on that, what do you think it is at the expense of? Spending in other areas ie. grass roots football, game and player development etc etc. For the sake of a few people/clubs having a whinge about the perceived inequity, does it justify the expense considering whats going to lose out in the process?

The GF has always been here (in Melbourne) and here its going to stay, getting yourselves all worked up about it is an exercise in futility. Besides, didnt you essentially join the Victorian Football League and the name then changed?