Preview The Home Ground Factor in Finals is hugely overrated

[doppleganger]

How can you dismiss the impact of travel for Adelaide traveling to Melbourne, then use travel as a point of argument when North travel to Tasmania? It’s a double standard. You don’t know if you’re coming or going.

? You being daft and not being able to follow multiple conversations isn’t a double standard.

I laugh at the Adelaide and Sydney fans who try to argue they face a significant travel disadvantage, IMO the only teams who do are the WA teams. You WA sooks should be arking up at how easy the SA and NSW teams have it compared to you...but instead you egg each other on at the imaginary Vic bogeyman!

If your position is that Adelaide faces a travel disadvantage, regardless of how big you feel the impost is, (mine is the travel impost is smaller than what SA fans make out), than it also must hold that a Melbourne team selling a home game and traveling is equally as disadvantaged.

There is no double standard, an SA supporter thinks travelling is a large factor in an away disadvantage, I think it is a minor component...so will happily argue the point.

But it is pretty clear that wherever you rank travel in terms of impost, it is the same whether you designated as the ‘home’ or ‘away’ team.

If you want a double standard and a big laugh, have a read of your own dribble trying to claim Melbourne teams are actually better off when selling home games...

 

[bh90210fan]

? You being daft and not being able to follow multiple conversations isn’t a double standard.

I laugh at the Adelaide and Sydney fans who try to argue they face a significant travel disadvantage, IMO the only teams who do are the WA teams. You WA sooks should be arking up at how easy the SA and NSW teams have it compared to you...but instead you egg each other on at the imaginary Vic bogeyman!

If your position is that Adelaide faces a travel disadvantage, regardless of how big you feel the impost is, (mine is the travel impost is smaller than what SA fans make out), than it also must hold that a Melbourne team selling a home game and traveling is equally as disadvantaged.

There is no double standard, an SA supporter thinks travelling is a large factor in an away disadvantage, I think it is a minor component...so will happily argue the point.

But it is pretty clear that wherever you rank travel in terms of impost, it is the same whether you designated as the ‘home’ or ‘away’ team.

If you want a double standard and a big laugh, have a read of your own dribble trying to claim Melbourne teams are actually better off when selling home games...

Why the fk would i ark up about Adelaide not traveling as far as us. They are from Adelaide. They are situated much closer to Melbourne. There’s not much you can do about that.

It’s only you specifying certain travel times and distances in regards to the impact on performance. Not me.

You’re the one claiming it’s no big deal flying from Adelaide to Melbourne. Then saying the dees are hugely disadvantaged flying to Darwin. How does that work?

You’re all over the place.

They’re also not the ones laying out an epic fairytale about how the cheating non Melbourne teams are rising to the top of the ladder because the afl hate poor Melbourne teams like Collingwood.

 

[doppleganger]

Aren’t you sooking that non Melbourne teams are robbing Melbourne teams of their rightful spot on the top of the ladder?

No, I am highlighting that Melbourne clubs have actually were progressively bent over by the AFL, and that the introduction of Etihad and the abysmal stadium deal really impacted Melbourne clubs.

Sick of reading I’ll informed crap from daft feckers like you who know nothing about the history of the league, don’t get what Melbourne ground rationalisation even was, and obviously by your recent posting also don’t understand what a ‘home ground’ actually is...you are just another ‘vic bias’ shrill.

The fact is that Melbourne ground rationalisation put commercial interests of the AFL head office ahead of football interests of the Melbourne clubs.

Melbourne ground rationalisation slowly took away home ground advantage enjoyed by the Melbourne teams, and the absolutely abysmal contractual arrangement at Etihad meant the majority of Melbourne clubs then actually started ‘selling’ home games.

This made it easier for non-Melbourne clubs to win more games during the H&A than if the Melbourne clubs actually retained their home grounds.

To argue your ‘vic bias’ POV you actually state that a Melbourne team playing a home game in Alice Springs is a bigger home ground advantage than them playing on their home deck, proving you have absolutely no idea.

 

[bh90210fan]

No, I am highlighting that Melbourne clubs have actually were progressively bent over by the AFL, and that the introduction of Etihad and the abysmal stadium deal really impacted Melbourne clubs.

Sick of reading I’ll informed crap from daft feckers like you who know nothing about the history of the league, don’t get what Melbourne ground rationalisation even was, and obviously by your recent posting also don’t understand what a ‘home ground’ actually is...you are just another ‘vic bias’ shrill.

The fact is that Melbourne ground rationalisation put commercial interests of the AFL head office ahead of football interests of the Melbourne clubs.

Melbourne ground rationalisation slowly took away home ground advantage enjoyed by the Melbourne teams, and the absolutely abysmal contractual arrangement at Etihad meant the majority of Melbourne clubs then actually started ‘selling’ home games.

This made it easier for non-Melbourne clubs to win more games during the H&A than if the Melbourne clubs actually retained their home grounds.

To argue your ‘vic bias’ POV you actually state that a Melbourne team playing a home game in Alice Springs is a bigger home ground advantage than them playing on their home deck, proving you have absolutely no idea.

Wow. After all of this you still can’t grasp the fact that when we stopped playing Carlton at Princes park for example, you did to.

It’s easier for you to play them now as well. Much easier.

 

[doppleganger]

You’re the one claiming it’s no big deal flying from Adelaide to Melbourne. Then saying the dees are hugely disadvantaged flying to Darwin. How does that work?

It doesn’t work, as I never said that.

Try actually reading what someone writes, without adding in your own made up adjectives.

I am saying that traveling for a game is the same whether you are the designated home or away team.

And in what is logical to basically everyone except you, a key component of a ‘home ground advantage’ is actually playing on your home ground.

Clearly you are in disagreement, and are running with the line that Melbourne clubs enjoy a bigger ‘home ground advantage’ away from their ‘home grounds’...yep it still freaking hilarious.

 

[bh90210fan]

It doesn’t work, as I never said that.

Try actually reading what someone writes, without adding in your own made up adjectives.

Really?

Melbourne players live in Melbourne, they sleep in their beds and have their regular home game routines, going to Alice they no longer get this advantage.

Melbourne at the G is also at the travel advantage, supposedly a big thing according to people like yourself, so by actually travelling to the Alice they lose the travel advantage.

This was literally on the last page!

 

[doppleganger]

Wow. After all of this you still can’t grasp the fact that when we stopped playing Carlton at Princes park for example, you did to.

It’s easier for you to play them now as well. Much easier.

Work it through in an example you may not be emotionally invested in.

There are what 6 London premier league teams at the moment, each with their own unique ground.

The direction comes that they all now have to play from Wembley, can get bigger crowds and more $$ doing that.

But then the smaller London clubs like Palace and Fulham start losing $$ when they can’t get the 70K break even crowd required at Wembley to make a profit, so they start selling home games to other grounds in England.

The London teams all see away away disadvantage reduce, no longer play Chelsea at Stamford bridge etc, but the trade off being they lose home advantage to London clubs and with the smaller clubs selling games they also give up home advantage against some non-London clubs.

The non-London teams also see a reduced away disadvantage, but no change to their home advantage.

Has London ground rationalisation made it easier for the London or non-London teams?

 

[doppleganger]

Really?

This was literally on the last page!

You keep making stuff up that simply isn’t being written.

Where were my adjectives of hugely disadvantaged v. no big deal?

I am not adding fluff around how big an
advantage I feel that is, as that is another topic altogether.

Consistent in the fact they by selling a home game they lose travel advantage, that is fact. How big I rate travel compared to you isn’t relevant, the important bit is grasping the fact that you shouldn’t have any travel for a ‘home’ game.

Are you tired of being wrong all the time?

 

[bh90210fan]

Work it through in an example you may not be emotionally invested in.

There are what 6 London premier league teams at the moment, each with their own unique ground.

The direction comes that they all now have to play from Wembley, can get bigger crowds and more $$ doing that.

But then the smaller London clubs like Palace and Fulham start losing $$ when they can’t get the 70K break even crowd required at Wembley to make a profit, so they start selling home games to other grounds in England.

The London teams all see away away disadvantage reduce, no longer play Chelsea at Stamford bridge etc, but the trade off being they lose home advantage to London clubs and with the smaller clubs selling games they also give up home advantage against some non-London clubs.

The non-London teams also see a reduced away disadvantage, but no change to their home advantage.

Has London ground rationalisation made it easier for the London or non-London teams?

London clubs didn’t have their away disadvantage reduced playing against other London clubs. It’s now gone completely.

Smaller London clubs selling a few home games against non London clubs keep their advantage if they play teams once every two or three seasons on there.

 

[doppleganger]

London clubs didn’t have their away disadvantage reduced playing against other London clubs. It’s now gone completely.

Smaller London clubs selling a few home games against non London clubs keep their advantage if they play teams once every two or three seasons on there.

Answer the question, which group of clubs does it favour?

 

[LoungeLizard]

Collingwood is a Melbourne club isn’t it?

You specifically said Collingwood, are you really that dense?

 

[kirky]

Why the feck would an Adelaide fan get satisfaction out of the Eagles winning the flag?

What a load of dribble, who is the ‘we’ baring what cross?

Yeah I don’t like how the AFL continually makes all decisions with $$ as the first priority and integrity of the game a distant second.

You can put on your anti-Vic hat, but since Adelaide entered the competition...would love for you point out some decisions made by the AFL that have actually tilted the ledger further away from the competition Adelaide joined.

For starters, how much money has been poured into some Vic clubs via extra distributions to ensure they remain in the comp? The integrity of the comp has been compromised by ensuring 10 Vic sides remain.

Secondly, West Coast and Adelaide are like brothers, both big in their respective states. If it is was Sydney, no way.

You need non-Vic sides for tv rights for a national competition, you don’t need 10 Vic sides.

 

[LoungeLizard]

For starters, how much money has been poured into some Vic clubs via extra distributions to ensure they remain in the comp? The integrity of the comp has been compromised by ensuring 10 Vic sides remain.

Secondly, West Coast and Adelaide are like brothers, both big in their respective states. If it is was Sydney, no way.

You need non-Vic sides for tv rights for a national competition, you don’t need 10 Vic sides.

Adelaide have been in comp long enough now to have enough history, so.

How would cope if the AFL decided that 1 club per state was enough, the rest are feeder clubs and because of the history of Port, they are the club chosen?

 

[kirky]

Adelaide have been in comp long enough now to have enough history, so.

How would cope if the AFL decided that 1 club per state was enough, the rest are feeder clubs and because of the history of Port, they are the club chosen?

Is that your best? Port are less financial, less fans and in comp since 1997.

Totally non-sensical - one way to disengage 70% of footy fans in SA.

All I would do is go back to follow my previous VFL team prior to 1991 and so would many others.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Adelaide have been in comp long enough now to have enough history, so.

How would cope if the AFL decided that 1 club per state was enough, the rest are feeder clubs and because of the history of Port, they are the club chosen?

What would you do if the AFL decided to fold Collingwood to give the smaller Melbourne clubs space to grow?

It makes as much sense and with the long term likelyhood that Melbourne will require rationalisation probably more likely.

 

[LoungeLizard]

What would you do if the AFL decided to fold Collingwood to give the smaller Melbourne clubs space to grow?

It makes as much sense and with the long term likelyhood that Melbourne will require rationalisation probably more likely.

If Collingwood folded, i would not follow the AFL, simple

 

[LoungeLizard]

Is that your best? Port are less financial, less fans and in comp since 1997.

Totally non-sensical - one way to disengage 70% of footy fans in SA.

All I would do is go back to follow my previous VFL team prior to 1991 and so would many others.

That's kinda the point mate, if you started folding up any Melbourne clubs, those supporters are lost to football, and let me tell you something you might not know, there are way more supporters in Melbourne than Adelaide.

Just because YOU want something, does not make it right.

 

[kirky]

That's kinda the point mate, if you started folding up any Melbourne clubs, those supporters are lost to football, and let me tell you something you might not know, there are way more supporters in Melbourne than Adelaide.

Just because YOU want something, does not make it right.

Seriously, haven’t thought of relocation?

Did it with Sydney and amalgamated Fitzroy with Brisbane, so it is possible to reduce clubs in Vic and not weaken the competition.

PS : of course there would be more supporters you have 3.5 - 4 times the population (then again let’s not count the pissy 3 game membership but only the 11 game memberships or alternatively for every 11 game membership equals 3 of the 3 game memberships).

 

[bh90210fan]

Answer the question, which group of clubs does it favour?

It’s a wash. Non London clubs don’t become any more familiar with Wembley. They still play on unfamiliar grounds all over England.

Big London clubs play a majority of their matches on one ground. It’s an advantage for them.

 

[bh90210fan]

You specifically said Collingwood, are you really that dense?

He specifically said Melbourne clubs, can’t you comprehend anything?

 

[LoungeLizard]

Seriously, haven’t thought of relocation?

Did it with Sydney and amalgamated Fitzroy with Brisbane, so it is possible to reduce clubs in Vic and not weaken the competition.

PS : of course there would be more supporters you have 3.5 - 4 times the population (then again let’s not count the pissy 3 game membership but only the 11 game memberships or alternatively for every 11 game membership equals 3 of the 3 game memberships).

Don't forget the pets mate.

So every post you seem to argue about something different.

You remind me of a person who every time they go out for a meal, yours is always the one that is over/under cooked or is smaller than every other meal, or is cold.

 

[LoungeLizard]

He specifically said Melbourne clubs, can’t you comprehend anything?

And you specifically said Collingwood.

I think going on the last few pages you may be the one that can't comprehend.

 

[bh90210fan]

And you specifically said Collingwood.

I think going on the last few pages you may be the one that can't comprehend.

Ridiculous isn’t it? He’s actually put Collingwood - the least disadvantaged club in the competition - in the same basket as other Melbourne clubs such as the dees, dogs and saints. Who still have to travel to places like Geelong and Tasmania

 

[LoungeLizard]

He specifically said Melbourne clubs, can’t you comprehend anything?

I'm feeling a little sorry for you now.

Let's see if i can get this through to you.

Go find a post where he said ALL Melbourne clubs are disadvantaged, if you can't, then you need to understand that saying Melbourne clubs does not actually mean ALL, but you specifically saying Collingwood, actually means Collingwood.

 

[bh90210fan]

I'm feeling a little sorry for you now.

Let's see if i can get this through to you.

Go find a post where he said ALL Melbourne clubs are disadvantaged, if you can't, then you need to understand that saying Melbourne clubs does not actually mean ALL, but you specifically saying Collingwood, actually means Collingwood.

He’s been claiming Melbourne clubs have been hurt by ground rationalisation this whole thread.

That’s his whole argument. That Non Melbourne clubs are reaching the top of the ladder as they are unfairly advantaged now.

Comprehension and Lounge Lizard don’t mix too well do they