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

[Nickoo]

Didn't Port win without any support?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nickoo]

Yep, in 2016 the Bulldogs played the same number of times at the G as the Swans did.
And the Swans also had the benefit of their home ground being wide with similar dimensions to the G.

Not sure I've ever come across a more factually incorrect OP.

The swans had played in two recent GF's when they fronted up last year and yet still lost to a team who hadn't been to the G on the big day since the 60's. I think its hogwash. Its more important the mindset and west coast were primed in '92 and not the two previous years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nickoo]

That is garbage, it is a cricket ground. In fact of all the grounds it is probably the least close to the right dimensions of a footy oval. Being the MCG though and that is where the GF is then it's dimensions are used as some sort of template.

Cricket grounds are the correct dimensions as that was what they played on in the early days once they got past the mile!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Dice Man]

That is damning.

West Coast and Adelaide both had solid legs up in the 90s. Brisbane were hocked up when they dominated.

Sydney had COLA in 2012 which aided in player retention.

No one has done it. No one.

The interstate sides are still relatively young in the expanded VFL competition.
But there's already mountains of evidence that home ground determines everything.

Geelong almost never loses at KP, and sides look completely different when they play there. If you go to the ground and watch a game from high up, you see just how dramatically different the dimensions are from other grounds. It's not an oval.

You're watching a different brand of footy every week depending on which ground you're at, because teams have to figure out how to work within different dimensions while their opposition already has that down. The turnaround in margin from home to away is regularly 10 or 15 goals.

Barely anyone wins in Geelong. Barely anyone wins in Adelaide. And not a single interstate team has won on the MCG on grand final day without list or salary cap concessions.

We're five years in a row now of non-vic teams "mysteriously" putting in absolute stinkers on grand final day. It is not a coincidence.

For the game to become truly national and actually fair, the grand final MUST move. We don't need a 100,000 stadium. Bigger events all over the world regularly seat 50 or 60k. It's absolute nonsense that our other stadiums couldn't put on a phenomenal grand final.

It was so ******* disappointing spending all that money to go to a grand final, to see my team struggle with wider wings while the other team has learned by playing on it way more at the elite level. My team can never bridge that disadvantage.

I think this is going to be the single biggest conversation in the game the next several years, because it is becoming more structurally obvious with every season. Having a game where every ground is a completely different size and shape, and then having the grand final ALWAYS at one ground that half the competition plays at way more than the rest is absolutely insane.

Discuss.

I love how much the Tigers winning the flag hurts.

 

[Kwality]

Nope, the discussion was about the whole season including weeks 1 to 3 finals. We travelled interstate 11 times, the same number as the Eagles. 4 tassie, 3 subi, 2 sydney, 2 adelaide. And we played a home game on someone elses home ground.

Big admirer of the way the Hawks have executed their Tas sponsorship. I agree with your calculations & travel doesnt matter when your side is up to it - you win on the road when you are good enough, & most teams seem to win at home more often than away. Did you not play the GF at home?

 

[Kwality]

The swans had played in two recent GF's when they fronted up last year and yet still lost to a team who hadn't been to the G on the big day since the 60's. I think its hogwash. Its more important the mindset and west coast were primed in '92 and not the two previous years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You'd have to admit 1990 demonstrated the need to address playing all the finals in Vic.

 

[Kwality]

Yeah you're right the eagles and freo had no say into the building process. If you asked for specific dimensions they would accommodate their biggest tennants but its easier to just complain.

Have a look at the cats bloke on the last page for a prime example.

Yep the clubs were consulted - the design had different masters, with the multi purpose venue winning through. That footy will pay the most in rent is no different to the MCG.

 

[dean33]

But we didn't act like entitled little bitches, who pissed and moaned everytime we didn't get our own way.

We didn't miss finals for years on end, like Richmond who missed between 1982-1995, again in 1996-2001, and then again 2002-2012.

We didn't have our games record holder piss off for fifteen years and swear not to come back, because he got sacked for being one of the worst coaches in history, only to come back and then wax lyrical about the team on the radio all the time (KB the ultimate bandwagon jumper).

We haven't been belted by over 60+ plus points many, many times over the years like Richmond has. In fact, we inflicted a few on Richmond.

We don't have supporters in their thousands crawl out of the woodwork and cheer when the team are doing well, but a search party needs to be send out for them when the team is doing bad.

We continually had one of our greatest players have some of his best days out against Richmond. Efforts of 10, 12 and 14 goals were some of the Tiger feasts that Gary Ablett snr had against you.

We haven't had our supporters brag so loudly when they had proven so little during our draught, like Richmond have.

We drafted better over the years, made more finals, more Grand Finals and weren't a basketcase.

We haven't won a wooden spoon since 1944. Richmond have won a few since then.

Richmond almost quadrupled the amount of coaches they had during their draught that Geelong did during theirs.

Keep going, you could soon be our favourite cat fan on bf. Harolad still a nose in front however you can catch him with more gold like this

 

[The Dice Man]

All you dripping pussies have to accept, Tigers freakin killed all comers in 2017. I understand you are not used to it, and to be honest we aren't either, but it is a return to normal programming and we are pretty much gonna dominate all of you for years to come... ALL OF YOU!

The sooner you get used to it the sooner it won't feel so bad to lose to The RFC, yet again.

The Jungle has it's rightful King.


(ps, FU Helen!)

 

[Freshwater]

Don’t worry Tiger fans, we got all this crap last year. We beat the Swans three years in a row in the h&a including twice at the SCG. Won TWO interstate finals! And the other two were on the MCG that if we are lucky we get two games a year on. Everyone said it was the bye, it was luck, the AFL wanted a fairy tale. Well if the bloody AFL supportered us so much we’d have these fair draws every year??? Guess what? We were the better team FULL STOP. So were the Tigers. People who can’t fathom Richmond or Footscray winning premierships better get used to it very quickly or be in for some pain in the years to come.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Let’s be honest here...both Adelaide and Sydney have been warm favourites the last 2 years and bottled it on the day to lesser sides. That’s happened plenty of times in history though, so it’s nothing new.

Hawthorn over Sydney in 2014 was also an upset but considering they were reigning premiers, hardly stunning (the margin perhaps).

2007, 2013 and 2015 all losing sides were outsiders and the results were not surprising.

So basically, it’s become ‘a thing’ in the last 2 years...

You make some good points BJ.

We’ve hit maximum equalization the last two years. If we could go any further on that dimension then it would be a Brisbane v Gold Coast grand final in 2018. Hard to base any deep insights or describe broader trends when the last two years have been so different.

The premise of the thread is that it’s harder to win away from your home ground. Sure it is. But it’s not as though interstate teams start the season expecting to play a grand final at home and the ‘pow’ on grand final eve they find out they need to fly to Melbourne.

They know at the start of the season, they’ve known for ever that the grand final is at the G.

If the players and coach don’t get it together to perform on the day then how do you blame the location?

But when you look at the years 2007, 2014, 2015 and 2017 - these were absolute sparkings. Massive wins. You can’t tell me that the 45 minute plane ride from Adelaide makes you a 119 or 65 point worse side on the most important day of the year.

 

[Cudi_420]

I've said it once and I'll say it again: there is no home ground advantage at the MCG. There is a reason why players don't mention or specifically talk about the struggles of playing at the MCG in the same way they do Adelaide or Perth. If you'r talking about the best way to play the ground, you simply haven't been there many times before. Not a single team has a specific style that is perfect for the ground. Any team can beat any other team on the MCG on any given day. It's width stretches a team's depth and rotations. It's ocean-length guts makes transition a lengthy yet rewarding process.

It is the PERFECT AFL ground. It is what makes our game great. It is the only true neutral stadium in the world because its design and dimension makes it so hard to establish a definitive gameplan for it.

Do you know why interstate clubs struggle there on GF day? Because they're worried and are thinking about stupid notions of home ground advantage.

"How can we beat Hawthorn on the MCG?"
"How can we beat Collingwood on the MCG?"
"How can we beat Richmond on the mcg?"

It's not the same as saying, "how we beat Geelong/Adelaide/West Coast in Geelong/Adelaide/Perth", because there are more variables that actually give those teams a LEGIT home ground advantage.

1. Their play style is specifically designed and molded around the dimensions of the ground.
2. The crowd is almost always 99% in their favour
3. They train on the ground.

Compare this with the MCG.

1. There is no any one way to play the MCG. The only "advantage" to playing at the MCG is that it demands you play a more accountable and adaptaple play style. I'm sorry that Adelaide and West Cost didn't have the foresight to develop their game styles.

2. The crowd ratio is rarely if ever as one sided as at the aforementioned home stadiums. Especially on GF. Adelaide still had 25k-30k there on GF. Even with 70k Richmond supporters, that's a sizeable minority compared to a little support group behind the goals. Enough to get loud and help swing the momentum. The MCG is a cauldron. Even 16k can make noise if the team gets the fans going.

3. No one. NO ONE. Trains on the MCG. Ever.

Have any of you flogs ever considered that maybe, the reason Melbourne teams perform better on GF is because they actually PREPARE better for the day? That even though you want Perth or Adelaide to be considered in the discussion for a "home away from home", for the sport, that the only way to truly earn respect is to come to Melbourne and beat the beast (the city itself).

This is the big smoke. We can have the GF in Perth or in Adelaide. It'll make no difference to the result. The only difference is that you'll be taking a match that doesn't have home ground advantage, and putting it on a ground that does. All the while removing one of the country's most exciting weekends away from the only city that truly knows how to celebrate it.

Git gud.

 

[Colonial]

I've said it once and I'll say it again: there is no home ground advantage at the MCG. There is a reason why players don't mention or specifically talk about the struggles of playing at the MCG in the same way they do Adelaide or Perth. If you'r talking about the best way to play the ground, you simply haven't been there many times before. Not a single team has a specific style that is perfect for the ground. Any team can beat any other team on the MCG on any given day. It's width stretches a team's depth and rotations. It's ocean-length guts makes transition a lengthy yet rewarding process.

It is the PERFECT AFL ground. It is what makes our game great. It is the only true neutral stadium in the world because its design and dimension makes it so hard to establish a definitive gameplan for it.

Do you know why interstate clubs struggle there on GF day? Because they're worried and are thinking about stupid notions of home ground advantage.

"How can we beat Hawthorn on the MCG?"
"How can we beat Collingwood on the MCG?"
"How can we beat Richmond on the mcg?"

It's not the same as saying, "how we beat Geelong/Adelaide/West Coast in Geelong/Adelaide/Perth", because there are more variables that actually give those teams a LEGIT home ground advantage.

1. Their play style is specifically designed and molded around the dimensions of the ground.
2. The crowd is almost always 99% in their favour
3. They train on the ground.

Compare this with the MCG.

1. There is no any one way to play the MCG. The only "advantage" to playing at the MCG is that it demands you play a more accountable and adaptaple play style. I'm sorry that Adelaide and West Cost didn't have the foresight to develop their game styles.

2. The crowd ratio is rarely if ever as one sided as at the aforementioned home stadiums. Especially on GF. Adelaide still had 25k-30k there on GF. Even with 70k Richmond supporters, that's a sizeable minority compared to a little support group behind the goals. Enough to get loud and help swing the momentum. The MCG is a cauldron. Even 16k can make noise if the team gets the fans going.

3. No one. NO ONE. Trains on the MCG. Ever.

Have any of you flogs ever considered that maybe, the reason Melbourne teams perform better on GF is because they actually PREPARE better for the day? That even though you want Perth or Adelaide to be considered in the discussion for a "home away from home", for the sport, that the only way to truly earn respect is to come to Melbourne and beat the beast (the city itself).

This is the big smoke. We can have the GF in Perth or in Adelaide. It'll make no difference to the result. The only difference is that you'll be taking a match that doesn't have home ground advantage, and putting it on a ground that does. All the while removing one of the country's most exciting weekends away from the only city that truly knows how to celebrate it.

Git gud.

Nice attempt but bullshit.

Saying that clubs from interstate are on equal footing at the MCG as Victorian clubs is crazy talk.
Would be like me saying academies offer no benefit at all. Bias garbage really.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[threesixpio]

That is damning.

West Coast and Adelaide both had solid legs up in the 90s. Brisbane were hocked up when they dominated.

Sydney had COLA in 2012 which aided in player retention.

No one has done it. No one.

The interstate sides are still relatively young in the expanded VFL competition.
But there's already mountains of evidence that home ground determines everything.

Geelong almost never loses at KP, and sides look completely different when they play there. If you go to the ground and watch a game from high up, you see just how dramatically different the dimensions are from other grounds. It's not an oval.

You're watching a different brand of footy every week depending on which ground you're at, because teams have to figure out how to work within different dimensions while their opposition already has that down. The turnaround in margin from home to away is regularly 10 or 15 goals.

Barely anyone wins in Geelong. Barely anyone wins in Adelaide. And not a single interstate team has won on the MCG on grand final day without list or salary cap concessions.

We're five years in a row now of non-vic teams "mysteriously" putting in absolute stinkers on grand final day. It is not a coincidence.

For the game to become truly national and actually fair, the grand final MUST move. We don't need a 100,000 stadium. Bigger events all over the world regularly seat 50 or 60k. It's absolute nonsense that our other stadiums couldn't put on a phenomenal grand final.

It was so ******* disappointing spending all that money to go to a grand final, to see my team struggle with wider wings while the other team has learned by playing on it way more at the elite level. My team can never bridge that disadvantage.

I think this is going to be the single biggest conversation in the game the next several years, because it is becoming more structurally obvious with every season. Having a game where every ground is a completely different size and shape, and then having the grand final ALWAYS at one ground that half the competition plays at way more than the rest is absolutely insane.

Discuss.

Whilst I am sick of those whingey non-Vic threads I do think this is a more interesting angle. But didn’t WC in 2006 win it without?

 

[threesixpio]

Easy fix.
MCG is the standard for the GF
Build all stadiums to the same dimensions.

How awesome would it be to have 4 or 5 MCGs around Australia? Would travel way more I reckon

 

[threesixpio]

Let’s be honest here...both Adelaide and Sydney have been warm favourites the last 2 years and bottled it on the day to lesser sides. That’s happened plenty of times in history though, so it’s nothing new.

Hawthorn over Sydney in 2014 was also an upset but considering they were reigning premiers, hardly stunning (the margin perhaps).

2007, 2013 and 2015 all losing sides were outsiders and the results were not surprising.

So basically, it’s become ‘a thing’ in the last 2 years...

Sydney have lost to Hawthorn heaps on their home ground recently - in fact recently we have faired better at the SCG!

2015 WC lost to Hawthorn at Domain...

There’s plenty of woulda coulda shoulda in this thread from the non-Vics

 

[Gavin Excell]

You make some good points BJ.

We’ve hit maximum equalization the last two years. If we could go any further on that dimension then it would be a Brisbane v Gold Coast grand final in 2018. Hard to base any deep insights or describe broader trends when the last two years have been so different.

The premise of the thread is that it’s harder to win away from your home ground. Sure it is. But it’s not as though interstate teams start the season expecting to play a grand final at home and the ‘pow’ on grand final eve they find out they need to fly to Melbourne.

They know at the start of the season, they’ve known for ever that the grand final is at the G.

If the players and coach don’t get it together to perform on the day then how do you blame the location?

But when you look at the years 2007, 2014, 2015 and 2017 - these were absolute sparkings. Massive wins. You can’t tell me that the 45 minute plane ride from Adelaide makes you a 119 or 65 point worse side on the most important day of the year.

This applies equally to Victorian teams travelling and getting flogged.

Why is this? Are players mentally weak? Its a bit of an indictment you can get such huge swings in outcomes depending where the game is played.

Has it always been so or is this a new phenomenon?

Is a reason its occuring because the competition is so even now that things such as travel take on a great significance?

 

[demondavey]

And the relevance to this thread is?

Well if you think about it a bit more, it's not just the MCG where the 'favourite' can lose. It happens all the time, all over the country, not to mention the GF where a Non Victorian team has beaten a Victorian team at the G in the GF.

 

[B4Bear]

Nice attempt but bullshit.

Saying that clubs from interstate are on equal footing at the MCG as Victorian clubs is crazy talk.
Would be like me saying academies offer know benefit at all. Bias garbage really.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

So what advantage did North have when we won our 3 finals there in 14-15?

Beat Richmond, Essendon and Geelong at the MCG.

Richmond's home ground.

Geelong could almost call it a second home ground considering the amount of games they have played there in the previous 5 years.

Was pretty neutral for the Essendon game.

So where is this Victorian advantage we are supposed to have? There is none for us, Dogs, Saints, Dons & Carlton. Trying to say otherwise is just ignorant.

 

[Colonial]

So what advantage did North have when we won our 3 finals there in 14-15?

Beat Richmond, Essendon and Geelong at the MCG.

Richmond's home ground.

Geelong could almost call it a second home ground considering the amount of games they have played there in the previous 5 years.

Was pretty neutral for the Essendon game.

So where is this Victorian advantage we are supposed to have? There is none for us, Dogs, Saints, Dons & Carlton. Trying to say otherwise is just ignorant.

Of course there is when playing interstate sides.
Not having to fly in the week of the game.
Your fans not having to pay accomodation or flights so there is more hometown fans at the game.
Ignorant? Nah just pointing out that some individual's cant accept that its a benefit.




Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[parmy2balmey]

How awesome would it be to have 4 or 5 MCGs around Australia? Would travel way more I reckon

there should be an mcg on every street corner in every town in Australia. no child should go without access to an mcg

 

[Bunk Moreland]

That is damning.

West Coast and Adelaide both had solid legs up in the 90s. Brisbane were hocked up when they dominated.

Sydney had COLA in 2012 which aided in player retention.

No one has done it. No one.

The interstate sides are still relatively young in the expanded VFL competition.
But there's already mountains of evidence that home ground determines everything.

Geelong almost never loses at KP, and sides look completely different when they play there. If you go to the ground and watch a game from high up, you see just how dramatically different the dimensions are from other grounds. It's not an oval.

You're watching a different brand of footy every week depending on which ground you're at, because teams have to figure out how to work within different dimensions while their opposition already has that down. The turnaround in margin from home to away is regularly 10 or 15 goals.

Barely anyone wins in Geelong. Barely anyone wins in Adelaide. And not a single interstate team has won on the MCG on grand final day without list or salary cap concessions.

We're five years in a row now of non-vic teams "mysteriously" putting in absolute stinkers on grand final day. It is not a coincidence.

For the game to become truly national and actually fair, the grand final MUST move. We don't need a 100,000 stadium. Bigger events all over the world regularly seat 50 or 60k. It's absolute nonsense that our other stadiums couldn't put on a phenomenal grand final.

It was so ******* disappointing spending all that money to go to a grand final, to see my team struggle with wider wings while the other team has learned by playing on it way more at the elite level. My team can never bridge that disadvantage.

I think this is going to be the single biggest conversation in the game the next several years, because it is becoming more structurally obvious with every season. Having a game where every ground is a completely different size and shape, and then having the grand final ALWAYS at one ground that half the competition plays at way more than the rest is absolutely insane.

Discuss.

Ignoring for a moment the selectiveness of the argument (“teams that had leg ups”)

These teams you speak of

Adelaide 2017: played 2 games at the G before the GF. 2 - 0

Sydney 2016: 2 - 1

West Coast 2015: 1 - 0

Sydney 2014: 2 - 1

Freo 2013: 0 - 1

Port 2007: 3 - 0

Sydney 1996: 1 – 1

So overall, that’s 11 wins and 4 losses.

In grand finals, it’s 0 wins, 7 losses.

If there was something inherent about that MCG like you suggest, you’d think it’d show up as such.

The reality is the opposite.

These teams performed very well on the G overall. They didn’t handle GF day for whatever reason.

No finals system is fair, really. The only truly fair system is a 34 round season with no finals. But that’s not what we have.

 

[bh90210fan]

Ignoring for a moment the selectiveness of the argument (“teams that had leg ups”)

These teams you speak of

Adelaide 2017: played 2 games at the G before the GF. 2 - 0

Sydney 2016: 2 - 1

West Coast 2015: 1 - 0

Sydney 2014: 2 - 1

Freo 2013: 0 - 1

Port 2007: 3 - 0

Sydney 1996: 1 – 1

So overall, that’s 11 wins and 4 losses.

In grand finals, it’s 0 wins, 7 losses.

If there was something inherent about that MCG like you suggest, you’d think it’d show up as such.

The reality is the opposite.

These teams performed very well on the G overall. They didn’t handle GF day for whatever reason.

No finals system is fair, really. The only truly fair system is a 34 round season with no finals. But that’s not what we have.

They don’t handle the mcg on grand final day because they’re playing against much better opposition. Top of the ladder teams make use of their home ground advantage and basket case clubs less so. Look at the top teams from this year - all win way more at home. Go down the ladder at the bottom and clubs struggle at home and away

 

[Bunk Moreland]

They don’t handle the mcg on grand final day because they’re playing against much better opposition. Top of the ladder teams make use of their home ground advantage and basket case clubs less so. Look at the top teams from this year - all win way more at home. Go down the ladder at the bottom and clubs struggle at home and away

And go up the ladder and clubs win at home and away. Including on GF day

 

[bh90210fan]

And go up the ladder and clubs win at home and away. Including on GF day

But a lot more at home than away