No non-Vic team has defeated a Vic team in the Grand Final without list or salary cap concessions

[Spook]

I have watched footy for 40 years and it is only in this modern era that supporters believe ground dimensions are a big part of their teams losing, never in the history of the sport at any level have ground dimensions been used as an excuse as they are now. In my opinion it is absolute nonsense.
In the professional era of the game if you think coaches are scratching their heads saying how are we going to deal with the 8m difference on the wing or the 15m difference in length of the ground then seriously you are caught up in a social media bizarro world.
Home ground advantage is alive and well in all sports and always has been but it has very little to do with the dimensions of the ground, it is travel, home crowd, uninterrupted week, familiar surroundings that are the advantage.
Unfortunately for the non Vic sides the game that you win the cup in is played at the MCG which is always going to be an unfamiliar place to play and hence if they play 10 grand finals against Vic sides I reckon they will win 2-3 of them at the most. It is no different with Vic sides playing interstate games or finals, they win a small percentage of them. None of those games you can win the premiership in though.
Yes there is an advantage for a Vic side playing a Non Vic side on Grand Final day, anyone who knows anything about football knows this. But if you believe it to be ground dimensions then you need to talk to your club and let them know they should get some adults to play for them because the players they have if they think ground dimensions are killing them will never win you a flag.

so true. People forget that for most of the history of the VFL and WAFL the MCG and Subiaco ere home ground to only 1 team, Melbourne FC and Subiaco FC.

 

[brett15]

The poster i quoted suggested that our records at the mcg were good. They arent.

Fair enough

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

When its all said and done, the MCG was built for cricket players. The AFL really should not be taking credit for it and nor should the Vic supporters.
Victoria carrys on about the Holy grail of footy grounds but lets face it, it isn't.

Yep, it's a bloody sporting stadium FFS. "Spiritual home of footy" is just so much sentimental bollocks.

There are arguments for having the GF at the MCG, but that ain't one of them.

 

[Boston tiger]

When its all said and done, the MCG was built for cricket players. The AFL really should not be taking credit for it and nor should the Vic supporters.
Victoria carrys on about the Holy grail of footy grounds but lets face it, it isn't.

Always wondered what the C stood in the MCG. Thanks for that .

 

[Rich01]

Yep, it's a bloody sporting stadium FFS. "Spiritual home of footy" is just so much sentimental bollocks.

There are arguments for having the GF at the MCG, but that ain't one of them.

Yep. There’s hundreds of millions of reasons why the GF is at the MCG. Until state governments can address this, there’s no point whining about it.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Yep. There’s hundreds of millions of reasons why the GF is at the MCG. Until state governments can address this, there’s no point whining about it.

So, money. Doesn’t seem to trouble plenty of other leagues round the world who shift their final every year and still seem to take in the dough by the truckload.

Why isn’t Melbourne building a 500,000 seater?

 

[Rich01]

So, money. Doesn’t seem to trouble plenty of other leagues round the world who shift their final every year and still seem to take in the dough by the truckload.

You got it in one.

Tell me, would you expect a business that needs a $650m line of credit to tear up a contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars at this time?

If not, who do you propose pay for the loss? Perhaps State Governments would come to the table (hint: like the Vic govt did with the original contract).

It’s an easy one to solve. Just lobby the State Governments to pony up on the cash.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You got it in one.

Tell me, would you expect a business that needs a $650m line of credit to tear up a contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars at this time?

If not, who do you propose pay for the loss? Perhaps State Governments would come to the table (hint: like the Vic govt did with the original contract).

It’s an easy one to solve. Just lobby the State Governments to pony up on the cash.

I agree the contract should be honoured. Wasn’t for a moment suggesting otherwise.

Not actually a topic I feel that strongly about.

Just think if the AFL were at all concerned about the appearance of fairness in a national comp, they’d at least be making noises about looking into a floating GF venue.

But I feel fixing the fixture is a much more pressing priority, and there’s nothing to suggest they’re remotely interested in addressing that.

Just glad my great club managed to snare a couple of memorable flags under this jaundiced setup.

 

[Rich01]

But I feel fixing the fixture is a much more pressing priority, and there’s nothing to suggest they’re remotely interested in addressing that.

Agree with that you there. For better or worse, the AFLs priority is keeping 18 clubs afloat during this time. Everything else is peripheral.

 

[Final Siren]

There should absolutely be a floating GF, and the league can afford it. They turned over $800 million last year, excluding the clubs' own revenue, with 7.5 million people attending games; they're not going to sink if they can't sell an extra 50,000 GF tickets. And all contracts are renegotiable.

That said, West Coast fans in particular seem to have an oversized idea of how much difference Home Ground Advantage makes, probably because West Coast have the league's biggest home & away performance gap. Most GF results are convincing wins; there are only two this century that have been close enough that playing them in the top team's home state might have made a difference (2005 & 2006).

 

[Spanish_Fly]

Just think if the AFL were at all concerned about the appearance of fairness in a national comp, they’d at least be making noises about looking into a floating GF venue.

I'm not sure why people make out as though the AFL have some pretense of fairness. Nothing in the AFL is fair.

Draft - If it was to be fair the second round should start in reverse order from the first, cubs who finish lower get a huge advantage all the way through the draft

Fixture - Again the AFL's stated policy is to give the easiest draw based on previous years results to the teams who finish lower, nowhere is fairness mentioned, and the policy strictly enforces lack of fairness.

AFL Distributions - Again the stated policy is lack of fairness, some poorly run clubs get millions whilst other better run clubs are taxed for their excellence

Acadamy Players - Huge advantage for the NSW and QLD teams who get priority access to elite talent, that they know they have exclusive access to so can begin development from an early age.

Honestly, we could keep going all day, pretty much every aspect of the AFL is unfair in some way, shape or form, and most of it is literally written into the rules.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I'm not sure why people make out as though the AFL have some pretense of fairness. Nothing in the AFL is fair.

Draft - If it was to be fair the second round should start in reverse order from the first, cubs who finish lower get a huge advantage all the way through the draft

Fixture - Again the AFL's stated policy is to give the easiest draw based on previous years results to the teams who finish lower, nowhere is fairness mentioned, and the policy strictly enforces lack of fairness.

AFL Distributions - Again the stated policy is lack of fairness, some poorly run clubs get millions whilst other better run clubs are taxed for their excellence

Acadamy Players - Huge advantage for the NSW and QLD teams who get priority access to elite talent, that they know they have exclusive access to so can begin development from an early age.

Honestly, we could keep going all day, pretty much every aspect of the AFL is unfair in some way, shape or form, and most of it is literally written into the rules.

Totally agree with every one of your points but I still think fairness is a good goal to have.

 

[Spanish_Fly]

I still think it’s a good goal to have.

I agree completely.

My main point was that people say the AFL "says" it tries to be fair when it quite clearly doesnt. Almost all the off field rules are inherently unfair and designed to be so.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Just think if the AFL were at all concerned about the appearance of fairness in a national comp

But they're not, it's glaringly obvious the league is structured around being a business no matter how much hot air HQ spruiks about 'evenness' hence the bulk of the market gets the bulk of the footy.

It's pretty simple and it amazes me how many still believe in this conspiracy theory that HQ is set up to be against anything non vic from an emotive view point.

 

[Final Siren]

I agree completely.

My main point was that people say the AFL "says" it tries to be fair when it quite clearly doesnt. Almost all the off field rules are inherently unfair and designed to be so.

Man, people go overboard with this. Compared to the real world, the AFL is scrupulously fair. It's two teams with the same number of players on the same field with the same rules. There are salary & spending caps, drafts, and equalization funding to stop clubs accumulating advantages over time.

The very fact that people kick up a massive stink over things like who gets 2 double-up games against Gold Coast is proof that on the whole, the comp is very fair. It's not magical fairy-land fair, but it's close enough.

 

[juss]

I think ground dimension discrepancy has a lot more to do with it than the short travel, which let's face it means very little on the 2 hours of gameday in a Grand Final once they are all recovered, set and ready to go with the adrenaline pumping. These are elite athletes, they are ready to go on GF day.

Consider the Eagles significant improvement at the MCG since Optus Stadium has been built and their win in 2018.

It's not the travel in GF week, it's the comfort on the ground.

 

[juss]

Man, people go overboard with this. Compared to the real world, the AFL is scrupulously fair. It's two teams with the same number of players on the same field with the same rules. There are salary & spending caps, drafts, and equalization funding to stop clubs accumulating advantages over time.

The very fact that people kick up a massive stink over things like who gets 2 double-up games against Gold Coast is proof that on the whole, the comp is very fair. It's not magical fairy-land fair, but it's close enough.

I'd challenge someone to name me a perfectly equitable league at the elite level in world sport from any code that equalises travel, fixturing, salary cap, drafts, recruiting, team management, club expenditure or any other metric of equalisation.

They don't exist, but the AFL does a decent job in some areas compared to other sports, and less so in others.

 

[Spanish_Fly]

I'd challenge someone to name me a perfectly equitable league at the elite level in world sport from any code that equalises travel, fixturing, salary cap, drafts, recruiting, team management, club expenditure or any other metric of equalisation.

They don't exist, but the AFL does a decent job in some areas compared to other sports, and less so in others.

For me the main point of contention with this debate revolves around the words "fair" and "equitable or equalisation". They are not the same IMO,

For me fair means same rules for everybody, so in this sense almost all off field areas of the AFL are clearly not fair, but this lack of fairness is designed to make things more equitable, i.e - the draft, equalisation payments to clubs, fixture etc etc etc

Something like the Premier League is Fair, so all the rules are the same for everyone. Their draw is perfectly fair, play everyone once at home and away, no travl inequity, no unfair draft, or acadamy restrictions on drafting, no equalisation payments to smaller clubs to keep them competitive, no salary cap. In fact almost all soccer leagues operate on completley fair terms, but this does not deliver equitable results.

The AFL deliberately makes all the off field stuff unfair, in favour of the less advantaged teams, to try and create an equitable competition where everyone has some chance of winning.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

But they're not, it's glaringly obvious the league is structured around being a business no matter how much hot air HQ spruiks about 'evenness' hence the bulk of the market gets the bulk of the footy.

It's pretty simple and it amazes me how many still believe in this conspiracy theory that HQ is set up to be against anything non vic from an emotive view point.

But I'm saying it'd be a good thing if they did start to make an effort to implement a bit of fairness.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Man, people go overboard with this. Compared to the real world, the AFL is scrupulously fair. It's two teams with the same number of players on the same field with the same rules. There are salary & spending caps, drafts, and equalization funding to stop clubs accumulating advantages over time.

The very fact that people kick up a massive stink over things like who gets 2 double-up games against Gold Coast is proof that on the whole, the comp is very fair. It's not magical fairy-land fair, but it's close enough.

I don't disagree with your post except for the "compared to the real world" bit. It's a sporting competition. It's about escapism and setting up a mini world within the real world, with its own strictly-defined rules.

All sport by definition is a contrast, an escape, even a refuge from the real world. The only alternatives are, on the one hand, complete anarchy, or on the other, real world "rules," with rule by force or money.

 

[Balls In]

When the league announced its secret deal locking in the MCG for two further generations it quickly emerged there was no negotiation with any party other than the Vic state government. Presumably the emergence in the West of one of the worlds greatest sporting stadiums spooked the inner sanctum deep in Victoria and the deal proved the league wanted the best deal for footy... but only if it locked in Victorian advantage in perpetuality.

 

[Balls In]

The AFL deliberately makes all the off field stuff unfair, in favour of the less advantaged teams, to try and create an equitable competition where everyone has some chance of winning.

Yes and no. Yes the AFL makes sure that he process of selecting players puts all clubs on an equal footing. It also takes money of profitable clubs and gives it to Victorian teams (mainly) and a couple of failed expansion teams (thanks Dimwitrio) and makes sure clubs cant have more staff and facilities than others. That makes for a tight home and away season and decent TV ratings. Yay! Then after all that equalisation it then goes ahead and delivers by far the biggest leg up in footy (homeground advantage) to Victorian teams playing in the GF.

 

[Carringbush2010]

But I'm saying it'd be a good thing if they did start to make an effort to implement a bit of fairness.

And how would they do that exactly? Without effecting their precious revenue?

 

[Rich01]

When the league announced its secret deal locking in the MCG for two further generations it quickly emerged there was no negotiation with any party other than the Vic state government. Presumably the emergence in the West of one of the worlds greatest sporting stadiums spooked the inner sanctum deep in Victoria and the deal proved the league wanted the best deal for footy... but only if it locked in Victorian advantage in perpetuality.

Agree.

The WA govt at the time had just dropped $1.6 billion on their new stadium and the SA govt $650m on Adelaide Oval. Other states finally had world class facilities, and action was required.

For the Vic state govt to get this deal done shows incredible initiative while at the same time showing other states governments asleep at the wheel.

While we should be asking why the AFL was only dealing with the Vic govt, we must also be asking why the other state govts didn’t try to engage the AFL on this contract when they were spending significantly more money in redeveloping their facilities.

McGowan at the time was using the media to state the GF should be played at Perth. But behind the scenes, a deal was being made. He was talking to the wrong people.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Just on the thread title and this may have been answered already, I don't remember WC of 2018 having list or salary cap concessions.

Care to answer that one amer ?