Agree.
Helps provide some context to the WA whinging, as the Eagles position is that playing a Derby before finals is unfair because it is too taxing on their players.
Everything is unfair for the poor WA clubs.
Opinion VICBias - Genuine Discussion
- Thread starter Hank Heavenly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Helps provide some context to the WA whinging, as the Eagles position is that playing a Derby before finals is unfair because it is too taxing on their players.
Everything is unfair for the poor WA clubs.
It's not just a chip on their shoulder... It's a whole damn bag of spuds!
People keep saying this.
Do you realise the VFL kept the WAFL clubs alive with money they payed for players.
Show some gratitude.
So then why not campaign for it?
WC, Freo, Adelaide and Sydney can push to the AFL that they believe Richmond, Melbourne etc. should never play home games anywhere but at the G.
Make it happen WC, use the power of the non-vics to right a wrong that was pushed onto Melbourne based clubs by the AFL.
Elixuh
See you on the 9th green at 9
The competition should fund a 747 for Freo and WCE to use. Properly fitted out etc.
Funny that, almost as if the AFL themselves have contracts to play certain games at different stadium and the clubs just fall into line.
Funny how the clubs who get all 11 home games at the 1 preferred ground and are gauranteed home finals are the ones complaing that they cop the rough end of the pineapple in comparison to clubs who the AFL refuses to give all home games at hime, and also wont fixture finals at their home ground.
Funny that, how it's almost always the interstate sides that seem to cop it, when they barely get games at the MCG to begin with.
Someone translate this for me please?
Black Diamond
Sleight of Hand
A major disadvantage WC and Fremantle frequently encounter is having to play the early Saturday or Sunday game when travelling. That is like playing at 11 am. Easily avoidable.
Again it is contract based.
Collingwood every year plays 1 "home" game at Marvel against a Marvel tenant, and 1 "home" game against a non-vic team who is often more familiar with Marvel than we are.
The interstate side doesn't "cop" anything, apart from a reduced disadvantage.
It is the home team who loses a home ground advantage by having a game FIXtured by the AFL at an alternate ground.
Really shouldn't be that hard to follow.
Thanks
, and we should be grateful to Bunnings that they ran everyone else out of business.. Bow at the feet of Coles and Woolies, they only have our best interests at heart.
So is this post also directed at the poster I quoted, or is it just a Vic hatred post?
This discussion is always so ridiculous. Essendon may not leave interstate from round 16-23, but in the first 8 games, Essendon played 4 games interstate (X2 Adelaide vs Adelaide and Port, Sydney in Sydney and West Coast in Perth) without a single game with home ground advantage. Two games at the MCG vs MCG tenants Collingwood and Hawthorn and two Marvel games against Marvel tenants St Kilda and Bulldogs.
The game against GWS in round 9 was the first time Essendon enjoyed home ground advantage. We won't have home ground advantage again until West Coast in round 15. As proven across multiple sports including AFL, home ground advantage is really important to a team's success. If you're going to complain that Essendon travel 6 times in a year, then you'd need to recognise that Essendon along with Carlton have the least games with home ground advantage competition-wide. In fact, even in Melbourne games we play MCG tenants at the MCG and Marvel tenants at Marvel.
Cool.
Fixture those games against teams other than WCE and Brisbane then, because other than Port(once, you have to go back to 2016 to find a time where Collingwood has played a team other than Lions/WCE at Marvel(Suns).
Things are a lot easier to follow when you use punctuation and appropriate spelling. What you wrote made zero sense.
Also, Collingwood don't lose any advantage playing at Marvel instead of the MCG, because they don't have to travel, so there's no affect on recovery.
sr36
TheBrownDog
I've just run the Maths on it going back to 1987 when WCE and Brisbane joined and it became the AFL
If premierships were distributed proportionally to a state by mathematical likelihood of winning if the premiership was based on chance - here's what you would get:
3.95 flags going to WA. 4 have.
3.5 flags going to SA. 3 have.
2.88 flags going to QLD. 3 have
2.85 flags going to NSW. 2 have.
If premierships were distributed proportionally to a state by mathematical likelihood of winning if the premiership was based on chance - here's what you would get:
3.95 flags going to WA. 4 have.
3.5 flags going to SA. 3 have.
2.88 flags going to QLD. 3 have
2.85 flags going to NSW. 2 have.
Ask any player/coach what they'd prefer.
Traveling 50k+ kms a year, or barely traveling and playing on a shared ground.
Based on what factors exactly?
This is getting sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo tiresome, you are on the other side of F%^&$ Australia, you knew this before you entered the league, culling Vic clubs will not stop your travel.
Are you stupid or just love arguing?
At everyone.
That's how faux outrage works, doesn't it?So? We're talking about fixture advantage/disadvantage. Also since when do teams like West Coast and Port struggle to keep players? JHF just left a VIC club to go SA. Essendon have lost probably 8 players to Port over the last 15 years with Duursma the only one from memory coming to Essendon.
SA and WA have a lot of talent and WA have a strong go-home factor shared between two teams compared to Vic's 10 teams.
- Apr 29, 2016
- 11,927
- 10,299
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
The competition is never fair, and will never be fair. Almost to the point where it's not worth celebrating flags.
Whether it be:
Whether it be:
- the fixturing where teams get to play poor teams twice
- father/son picks that clubs have won flags off
- academy picks (not just clubs getting them, but changing the rules after clubs like the dogs already benefited).
- Then you have rule changes that suit some clubs and not others. The game has got softer each year.
- Clubs having differing amounts of money and facilities.
- Clubs losing their young guns due to not wanting to be at a poor club whereas these young players don't leave the good clubs (generally).
Not sure if you're aware but West coast aren't a WAFL team...
sr36
TheBrownDog
Number of teams in state divided by number of teams in comp.
Eg WA had a 1 in 14 chance until Adelaide joined. Then a 1 in 15 chance until Freo joined, when it became 2 in 16, etc.. It's currently 2 in 18.
Lol, this piss poor argument
Go post this tripe on Twitter.
Also, nobody's saying less travel, we're fully understanding of the distance from Perth to the East coast.
What we're saying is, maybe don't schedule a team(Essendon) coming off a 10-day break play a WA team coming off a 6-day break, which is really 5 due to the distance traveled.
Then, maybe don't back that up with having last year's spooner go on a trip to Melbourne vs the reigning premier, who is coming off a longer break without travel, then back it up again by having them play another finalist off a 6 day break, wen that club just had a 9 day break.
Clear enough for you now? Maybe don't have that same club continuously make trips to play Brisbane every year for 6 years in a row(covid notwithstanding), play in Tasmania, etc.
There's plenty of things the AFL could do to lessen the travel burden on the WA teams every year.
It's about recovery and short fixturing. A couple of years ago, WCE had more 6 day breaks than any other side, despite traveling the most.
This is just ****ing dumb form the AFL.
Not really. it's pretty rare for big name players to return to WA/SA, meanwhile it happens nearly every year that players return to Vic.
Similar threads
- Poll
