Opinion VICBias - Genuine Discussion

[The Slitherin' Snake]

Happy to

Footy Forensics: Does home ground advantage still exist?

A spate of upsets have left many of us pondering whether or not home ground advantage is still a thing in the AFL. It's time to answer that question.

www.espn.com

The stats are a few years old but you get the idea nonetheless.

I was intrigued because the Bulldogs show 100% win at "other home". This is incorrect. We lost to Port Adelaide at Ballarat in 2017. Hopefully the rest of teh stats are accurate

 

[Senor M]

Mate I have not given it a hell of a lot of thought, The rational I guess would be thats where all the best players will be becaudse this hypothetical billionaire keeps adding zero's to any money offer a player gets from the VFL/AFL. I do know money does anything it wants to do and always has. And no Footy club world wide in any sport these days won't follow where the money is.
Anyway i don't wish to get into a huge debate over this, my point was simply money does anything and that applies to any scenario.

...This is a reason why I find some (not all, some) West Coast supporters intolerable. They hijack a conversation, throw in a completely unrelated sub-factor (in this case the 'Billionaire"), make claims that their scenario is better than the status quo, but are unable to provide rationale for any claims they make.

As I originally said in my first response to RUNVS' hypothetical (other than that this should be a separate, worthy thread) I believe that in any hypothetical scenario of a "Breakaway League" that the current TV rights money (and with it advertising money) would most likely side with the establishment.

 

[RUNVS]

I was intrigued because the Bulldogs show 100% win at "other home". This is incorrect. We lost to Port Adelaide at Ballarat in 2017. Hopefully the rest of teh stats are accurate

I think they are mostly talking about the MCG for the Bulldogs "other" home venue. Would Ballarat count?

 

[Ok Boomer]

The thread title is a lie based on the OP, it is pointless to engage with this thread other than for trolling purposes.

Happy to have a legitimate debate with anyone though.

 

[Jbudds]

Maybe a good start would be for the VFL to treat the interstate clubs (there is your first indication of bias) as part of a national competition as apposed to annoying house guests?

 

[Hank Heavenly]

The thread title is a lie based on the OP, it is pointless to engage with this thread other than for trolling purposes.

Happy to have a legitimate debate with anyone though.

The debate is, what can actually change, without hypothetical teams/comps moving around etc, with todays paramenters that would make the comp fairer...

The GF at the G is noted and accepted as one thing, but given its locked in for 50 years, that doesn't seem like it will change.

So what please engage, with other alternatives you think would work in the discussion.???

 

[greatwhiteshark]

...This is a reason why I find some (not all, some) West Coast supporters intolerable. They hijack a conversation, throw in a completely unrelated sub-factor (in this case the 'Billionaire"), make claims that their scenario is better than the status quo, but are unable to provide rationale for any claims they make.

As I originally said in my first response to RUNVS' hypothetical (other than that this should be a separate, worthy thread) I believe that in any hypothetical scenario of a "Breakaway League" that the current TV rights money (and with it advertising money) would most likely side with the establishment.

Well I guess you cannot have any breakaway hypothetical without someone with serious wealth pushing for it, it would be impossible to just breakaway for breakaway sake. Without that wealth no club would even look at it. So again it would always come back to some party or someone throwing ridiculous type money around to do it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Maybe a good start would be for the VFL to treat the interstate clubs (there is your first indication of bias) as part of a national competition as apposed to annoying house guests?

Nay, it makes it so much more satisfying when we win it like it is.

 

[Coaster2012]

Here in Victoria we love our clubs by an exponential factor more than we do any individual player. There's no way I would support any other side than the Richmond Tigers if a breakaway league formed. I can understand the interstate supporters who's teams have been around for 20-30 years just changing clubs based on a new comp but no chance that happening with the Vic clubs.

So you love your clubs more than WA sides? Vic sides have some deeper inherent value than outer state clubs?

WC is 35 years old. Almost half the state wasnt even alive when they were conceived. Before that, people followed their WAFL side and they STILL follow their WAFL side. My mother follows Freo, but she still follows East Freo. There is no disconnect there.

And I dont know 1 single person who follows a player over a club. How many WC fans became Blues fans when Judd left? Or Saints fans when Gehrig left? Or Tigers fans when Cousins joined?

What a ridiculous perspective.

This attitude is Vic bias personified. A completely arrogant entitled view of the game. Youve basically undone all the good work from your peers that say it doesnt exist

Vic Bias. Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Colonial]

Here in Victoria we love our clubs by an exponential factor more than we do any individual player. There's no way I would support any other side than the Richmond Tigers if a breakaway league formed. I can understand the interstate supporters who's teams have been around for 20-30 years just changing clubs based on a new comp but no chance that happening with the Vic clubs.

Lol what bullshit. I started following the game because of the Giants.
I won’t be following the game if they aren’t here.

Saying that loyalty is some sought of Victorian only personality trait is trite garbage.

 

[The Slitherin' Snake]

I think they are mostly talking about the MCG for the Bulldogs "other" home venue. Would Ballarat count?

Yeah it says other home is any other ground where you are the home team. In the time period, the Dogs played more home games at Cazaly stadium than at the MCG.

From the article "OTHER HOME INCLUDES ALL HOME GAMES PLAYED AT GROUNDS OTHER THAN THE TEAMS MAIN "

 

[RunningBounce]

I'm a non-Victorian who supports a Victorian team, so I'll claim some form of neutrality.

Since 1990, the premiership has been won by a Victorian club 60% of the time, leaving 40% of premierships won by non-Vic clubs.

In the same period, Victorian clubs made up 63% of the comp's participants (happy to explain my maths) and non-Vic clubs 37%.

Seems pretty balanced to me.

The reality is that bias comes in a thousand shapes. Qld and NSW teams are disadvantaged because they don't have a traditional Aussie Rules city behind them. Vic teams have to play in the rain more often. Perth teams have to play on harder surfaces. Roos / Dogs / Saints have less capacity to generate income.

The hash tag "Vic bias" seems to me to relate to an advantage in playing GFs at the MCG. If that was more significant than any other factor, we'd see it in the numbers over the long term. We don't.

 

[The wily weagle]

Just for a very small illustration for examples sake:

West Coast, most seasons, is having to make a signicant road trip from the other side of the country, to Tasmania, to play for premiership points

Collingwood (as far as I am aware) have never played in Tasmania for premiership points. Ever.

Its the culmination of many little cumulative examples such as this that naturally pisses us off

 

[Neale4brownlow]

Someone nailed it previously but the AFL isn't Vicbias. It's money bias.

AFL is run like a company now and therefore all decisions are made to maximize profits and security.

The G deal will always be a sore spot and an absolute trigger for anyone living outside of Melbourne. It was seemingly done without consultation of any of the teams or supporters. It boggles the mind why anyone would sign such a long term and short sighted deal?

Why not make it a year by year decision? States/stadiums could've bid on hosting the grand final much like countries bid on the Olympics.

If that happens to be the MCG 9 times out of 10 because that's where the money is, then so be it. But at least its a transparent and equal process (ie anyone can bid and win). Perhaps with a disclaimer of ~42k seats min being required (ie Gabba or bigger). Stadiums below that thresh-hold can still bid but they'd need to pay X amount for every seat under that number down to a minimum of say 30k seats assuming the ground is up to AFL standards.

Then set a cap on the number of years in advance the GF can be auctioned off (say 3-5years in advance similar to the Olympics).

It opens up possibilities and growth and elevates our copy/paste game into a yearly moving festival/event.

Pop-up beer gardens / restaurants etc can operate outside the main event and host even more people with big screens plastered around for atmosphere.

Beyond the G deal, I can stomach the rest. It is what it is. There are more teams in Victoria than anywhere else so naturally that''s where AFL's efforts/broadcast etc are concentrated.

 

[Balls In]

The OP is all over the shop starting with the entire premise that interstate teams joined the VFL. That isn't what happened. A whole new league was formed when the VFL ended and AFL was born. Why can't Victorians get that?

 

[Spanish_Fly]

So you love your clubs more than WA sides? Vic sides have some deeper inherent value than outer state clubs?

WC is 35 years old. Almost half the state wasnt even alive when they were conceived. Before that, people followed their WAFL side and they STILL follow their WAFL side. My mother follows Freo, but she still follows East Freo. There is no disconnect there.

And I dont know 1 single person who follows a player over a club. How many WC fans became Blues fans when Judd left? Or Saints fans when Gehrig left? Or Tigers fans when Cousins joined?

What a ridiculous perspective.

This attitude is Vic bias personified. A completely arrogant entitled view of the game. Youve basically undone all the good work from your peers that say it doesnt exist

Vic Bias. Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen.

My post you quoted was in response to a WC supporter who said that a breakaway league including no Victorian teams would be superior to the League that was left with all the Vic teams in, and that the big Vic clubs would abandon the Vic only league to join the new breakaway comp, but to do so they would have to abandon the old team/colors/name. I said there was no way this would happen. I agree I doubt it would happen for any of the interstate sides either, but likelihood is the younger your team is currently, probably the more likely it would be that supporters could switch to a different team.

E.g - When the A-League started, I was a Victory fan, then about 5 years later, Melbourne Heart came in, I felt a bit sorry for them with lack of resources, and Victory being a bigger club, so I changed teams. I was quite a strong supporter of Victory before I changed, I'd seen a GF win live, but really they were only 5 years old how invested can you be. I barrack for Richmond cause my grandad did, and took me to games, and told me about the Premierships in the 70's, he barracked for Richmond cause his grandad took him to games, thats a lot deeper connection than I could ever have with Victory, and I'm proud to pass that to my kids and future grandkids.

My point has nothing to do with geography, as emphasised with my Victory reference, but History.

I could imagaine if a breakaway League happened and Gold Coast had a powerful side that fans would be more likely to swicth to the different League than West Coast supporters. And the same would go for West Coast supporters would be more likely to change than Vic supporters. I dont think thats a ridiculous proposition, surely its obvious that teams that have been around for 120 years have a "deeper inherent value" in the eyes of their supporters than teams that have been around for 10 years.

 

[Spanish_Fly]

Lol what bullshit. I started following the game because of the Giants.
I won’t be following the game if they aren’t here.

Saying that loyalty is some sought of Victorian only personality trait is trite garbage.

Again see above but you've misread my point, its got nothing to do with Victoria or non victoria, but History.

 

[wagz]

but given its locked in for 50 years???

only 37 years, should extend it to 50 though

 

[The Warlord]

So you love your clubs more than WA sides? Vic sides have some deeper inherent value than outer state clubs?

WC is 35 years old. Almost half the state wasnt even alive when they were conceived. Before that, people followed their WAFL side and they STILL follow their WAFL side. My mother follows Freo, but she still follows East Freo. There is no disconnect there.

And I dont know 1 single person who follows a player over a club. How many WC fans became Blues fans when Judd left? Or Saints fans when Gehrig left? Or Tigers fans when Cousins joined?

What a ridiculous perspective.

This attitude is Vic bias personified. A completely arrogant entitled view of the game. Youve basically undone all the good work from your peers that say it doesnt exist

Vic Bias. Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen.

On the wider point of this, I completely get that say an East Freo fan - a proud footy club with a great history that has produced and keeps producing (Super Cam Zurhaar!) players of the quality of any club going - loved their mob as much as I love North.

I get that proud clubs like East Freo have been hurt by the national league.

But the Port Adelaide experience shows that even the biggest non-Vic traditional club is basically only the size of a small Melbourne club in the AFL.

So to have WA teams you needed West Coast or Freo.

We have to deal with historical realities. Collingwood will always be bigger than North because back in the late 19th century when these clubs were emerging, the Collingwood flat was a densely populated urban slum, and North Melbourne a more lightly populated industrial area.

Footy was invented in Victoria and the dominant league was in Victoria. So Victorian clubs will dominate in terms of numbers and the political weight of the organisation.

We can't go back and demand changes to colonial planning schemes to have more population in North Melbourne in the 1870s so in 2020 we'd have 80,000 members.

WA fans need to basically get over it lol.

We have.

 

[RUNVS]

The hash tag "Vic bias" seems to me to relate to an advantage in playing GFs at the MCG. If that was more significant than any other factor, we'd see it in the numbers over the long term. We don't.

I think we do.

Lets go back to your figure of 1990 and find every Victorian vs Non-Victorian Grand Final

1991 - Hawthorn vs West Coast
1992 - West Coast vs Geelong
1994 - West Coast vs Geelong
1996 - North Melbourne vs Sydney
1997 - Adelaide vs St Kilda
1998 - Adelaide vs North Melbourne
2001 - Essendon vs Brisbane
2002 - Brisbane vs Collingwood
2003 - Collingwood vs Brisbane
2007 - Geelong vs Port Adelaide
2012 - Hawthorn vs Sydney
2013 - Hawthorn vs Fremantle
2014 - Sydney vs Hawthorn
2015 - Hawthorn vs West Coast
2016 - Sydney vs Western Bulldogs
2017 - Adelaide vs Richmond
2018 - West Coast vs Collingwood
2019 - Richmond vs GWS

So from 1990 there have been 18 games between a Victorian and non-Victorian side with 9 apiece, which sounds pretty even right. However, the 90's and even early 2000's the AFL was not fully professional, and most of the score that the non-Victorian teams had in terms of wins happened between 1991 and 2003. Ever since 2003 the non-Victorian wins is much much worse.

Since 2003 there have been 9 games between Victorian and non-Victorian sides, and the Victorian sides have won 7 of them.

 

[RUNVS]

View attachment 878504

It is pretty obvious to most people that half of all AFL teams being in Melbourne is a mistake. If the game was being started from scatch, there is no way the people in charge would give Melbourne 9 teams. In fact Melbourne would probably only have 4 teams at most.

 

[Neale4brownlow]

I'm a non-Victorian who supports a Victorian team, so I'll claim some form of neutrality.

Since 1990, the premiership has been won by a Victorian club 60% of the time, leaving 40% of premierships won by non-Vic clubs.

In the same period, Victorian clubs made up 63% of the comp's participants (happy to explain my maths) and non-Vic clubs 37%.

Seems pretty balanced to me.

The reality is that bias comes in a thousand shapes. Qld and NSW teams are disadvantaged because they don't have a traditional Aussie Rules city behind them. Vic teams have to play in the rain more often. Perth teams have to play on harder surfaces. Roos / Dogs / Saints have less capacity to generate income.

The hash tag "Vic bias" seems to me to relate to an advantage in playing GFs at the MCG. If that was more significant than any other factor, we'd see it in the numbers over the long term. We don't.

The problem with stats if you can pluck them from anywhere to fulfill an argument.

A counter statistics is:

Since 1990 there has been 18 Grand finals between a Victorian and Non-Victoria team.

Of those, the wins are split exactly 50/50 (9 Victorian, 9 Non-Victorian). Happy days.

Look deeper and of those 9x Victorian wins only 3 actually finished higher than their non-Vic competitor during the regular season.

Perhaps the most alarming statistic is that that if you look since 2014 there has been 5x grand finals between a Victorian and Non-Vic side.
4 of those (80%) ended with the lower placed Victorian side being triumphant.

The most ridiculous of those being the Bulldogs win over Sydney in 2016. Its a hard game to watch and stomach as a non-Victorian. The bulldogs had already won it that morning if the pre-game was anything to go by.

That recent spell has led to the more recent thought that if a Vic side gets to a grand final against a non-vic side then that home-ground advantage all but ensures victory.

For what it's worth and to their credit I think the AFL has somewhat acknowledged this recent trend and now allow greater concessions to the travelling side ie training sessions at the G leading up to grand final day. (could be wrong).

 

[The Warlord]

It is pretty obvious to most people that half of all AFL teams being in Melbourne is a mistake. If the game was being started from scatch, there is no way the people in charge would give Melbourne 9 teams. In fact Melbourne would probably only have 4 teams at most.

But the game WAS started from scratch in Melbourne.

That's why there's so many teams in Melbourne mate.

This isn't difficult to comprehend.

Basically your argument is THE WORLD SUCKS MUM I HATE YOU YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT EVEN MY REAL MUM MY REAL MUM HAS THREE TEAMS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA AND FOUR IN WA AND ONE IN DARWIN SOOK SOOK SNIFF SNIFF

Get over it.

 

[RUNVS]

The problem with stats if you can pluck them from anywhere to fulfill an argument.

A counter statistics is:

Since 1990 there has been 18 Grand finals between a Victorian and Non-Victoria team.

Of those, the wins are split exactly 50/50 (9 Victorian, 9 Non-Victorian). Happy days.

Look deeper and of those 9x Victorian wins only 3 actually finished higher than their non-Vic competitor during the regular season.

Perhaps the most alarming statistic is that that if you look since 2014 there has been 5x grand finals between a Victorian and Non-Vic side.
4 of those (80%) ended with the lower placed Victorian side being triumphant.

The most ridiculous of those being the Bulldogs win over Sydney in 2016. Its a hard game to watch and stomach as a non-Victorian. The bulldogs had already won it that morning if the pre-game was anything to go by.

That recent spell has led to the more recent thought that if a Vic side gets to a grand final against a non-vic side then that home-ground advantage all but ensures victory.

For what it's worth and to their credit I think the AFL has somewhat acknowledged this recent trend and now allow greater concessions to the travelling side ie training sessions at the G leading up to grand final day. (could be wrong).

Not really to the AFL's credit as they still signed a massive Grand Final contract with the MCG seemingly without consulting anyone.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

The inequalities of the AFL, crikey take your pick...the fixture, the academies, past Cola payments, zone selections, ambassador payments to select players.

The AFL is so clearly corrupt, for years they've been manipulating the competition to get certain clubs competitive to increase their media revenue. The whole vicbias is hilarious in comparison. Then there's the AFL's manipulation of the fixture to ensure certain clubs earn more money than others.