Victoria Bias in Fixturing and Commentary Continues

[Frigate]

Is anyone else noticing the subtle (or not so subtle) bias in fixturing and media commentary? The recent article by Michael Rogers, titled "Snakes and Ladders: The Games That Will Define the 2024 Season," is a classic example.

Throughout the piece, there’s a clear undercurrent pushing the Victorian teams, particularly Geelong, to succeed. While there’s nothing wrong with supporting local teams, the fixation on Victorian clubs like Geelong and their supposed "healthy home-ground advantage" is just another chapter in the ongoing narrative that the AFL and its media partners love to push.

Sure, Geelong has a good mix of youth and experience, but why does the commentary so often frame their success as almost inevitable? It feels like non-Victorian teams are always treated as the challengers, no matter how strong they are. Sydney, despite leading the ladder for most of the season, is discussed as if they’re on the verge of being toppled, with the focus shifting back to Victorian clubs who just need to "keep winning every week."

The article highlights key matches involving Essendon, Collingwood, Melbourne, and other Victorian teams, with a clear desire to see them squeeze into the top eight, while non-Victorian clubs are merely obstacles to overcome. The Geelong vs. Fremantle game in Round 22, for example, is positioned as a must-win for Geelong to secure their top-four spot, rather than acknowledging Fremantle’s potential to knock them out.

It’s frustrating to see this narrative play out every year, especially when there’s so much great footy happening outside of Victoria. Let’s hope the final rounds of the season can break the cycle, but I’m not holding my breath.

 

[RUNVS]

Anyone who sees that 15 of the last 17 premiers have all been Victorian and does not see a problem there is clearly biased and does not want to admit it.

It is like saying there is no sexism in the fact there have been 31 Prime Ministers and only 1 of them was a woman.

 

[Underarm]

Is anyone else noticing the subtle (or not so subtle) bias in fixturing and media commentary? The recent article by Michael Rogers, titled "Snakes and Ladders: The Games That Will Define the 2024 Season," is a classic example.

Throughout the piece, there’s a clear undercurrent pushing the Victorian teams, particularly Geelong, to succeed. While there’s nothing wrong with supporting local teams, the fixation on Victorian clubs like Geelong and their supposed "healthy home-ground advantage" is just another chapter in the ongoing narrative that the AFL and its media partners love to push.

Sure, Geelong has a good mix of youth and experience, but why does the commentary so often frame their success as almost inevitable? It feels like non-Victorian teams are always treated as the challengers, no matter how strong they are. Sydney, despite leading the ladder for most of the season, is discussed as if they’re on the verge of being toppled, with the focus shifting back to Victorian clubs who just need to "keep winning every week."

The article highlights key matches involving Essendon, Collingwood, Melbourne, and other Victorian teams, with a clear desire to see them squeeze into the top eight, while non-Victorian clubs are merely obstacles to overcome. The Geelong vs. Fremantle game in Round 22, for example, is positioned as a must-win for Geelong to secure their top-four spot, rather than acknowledging Fremantle’s potential to knock them out.

It’s frustrating to see this narrative play out every year, especially when there’s so much great footy happening outside of Victoria. Let’s hope the final rounds of the season can break the cycle, but I’m not holding my breath.

Not sure how an article is evidence of bias in fixturing?

 

[theiaofseed]

Maybe you can remind the AFL Hawthorn are Victorian, I don't want hear shit about how fixturing is bias for Victorian clubs.

 

[banzai]

I think you are looking into it way too much. Ive just found the article. You mention the Vic teams being talked about round 22, but then round 23 the 3 teams are all non Vic.

Edit: doesnt he actually highlight all the top 12 once, just each in a different round. For example, yes he talks Geelong in the Cats Freo game, but also all about Freo in the Freo Port game.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

The recent premiers whinge has been rebutted already.

Since 2006 interstate sides have a 2-5 record against MCG tenants, and 4 of those 5 losses can hardly be attributed to vicbias given they were all more than 45 point defeats. Inferior sides getting blown away. All other vic team GF losses are neutral matches.

 

[FootyLad0]

Is anyone else noticing the subtle (or not so subtle) bias in fixturing and media commentary? The recent article by Michael Rogers, titled "Snakes and Ladders: The Games That Will Define the 2024 Season," is a classic example.

Throughout the piece, there’s a clear undercurrent pushing the Victorian teams, particularly Geelong, to succeed. While there’s nothing wrong with supporting local teams, the fixation on Victorian clubs like Geelong and their supposed "healthy home-ground advantage" is just another chapter in the ongoing narrative that the AFL and its media partners love to push.

Sure, Geelong has a good mix of youth and experience, but why does the commentary so often frame their success as almost inevitable? It feels like non-Victorian teams are always treated as the challengers, no matter how strong they are. Sydney, despite leading the ladder for most of the season, is discussed as if they’re on the verge of being toppled, with the focus shifting back to Victorian clubs who just need to "keep winning every week."

The article highlights key matches involving Essendon, Collingwood, Melbourne, and other Victorian teams, with a clear desire to see them squeeze into the top eight, while non-Victorian clubs are merely obstacles to overcome. The Geelong vs. Fremantle game in Round 22, for example, is positioned as a must-win for Geelong to secure their top-four spot, rather than acknowledging Fremantle’s potential to knock them out.

It’s frustrating to see this narrative play out every year, especially when there’s so much great footy happening outside of Victoria. Let’s hope the final rounds of the season can break the cycle, but I’m not holding my breath.

How does any of this apply to unfair fixturing? Lol

 

[Erakor]

Anyone who sees that 15 of the last 17 premiers have all been Victorian and does not see a problem there is clearly biased and does not want to admit it.

It is like saying there is no sexism in the fact there have been 31 Prime Ministers and only 1 of them was a woman.

And the 6 premierships before that were all non Victorian teams.

Non Victorian teams have won 12 out of the last 34 ( since 1990).

 

[Erakor]

Sure, Geelong has a good mix of youth and experience, but why does the commentary so often frame their success as almost inevitable?

I mean, the last 15 odd years have shown their success to at least make finals does make it seem inevitable.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say Manchester City will have a pretty good season in the upcoming EPL. Am I biased ?

 

[north_lad]

Anyone who sees that 15 of the last 17 premiers have all been Victorian and does not see a problem there is clearly biased and does not want to admit it.

It is like saying there is no sexism in the fact there have been 31 Prime Ministers and only 1 of them was a woman.

I'm cool with Sydney not winning ever again

 

[north_lad]

I'm cool with Sydney not winning ever again

And judging by how they usually go in the granny.... So are they

 

[Erakor]

The only real bias that is artificial against interstate teams in the grand final being played at the G.

The travelling would also be, but if you join a national competition and you are based in Perth, you will travel more. It’s just geography, not bias.

The bias for some of the non Victorian teams is the academy programs.

 

[SnusCG]

Maybe you can remind the AFL Hawthorn are Victorian, I don't want hear shit about how fixturing is bias for Victorian clubs.

13 games in victoria, 3 in Tasmania, just the 6 interstate trips for the year and you get to play Tigers, Kangaroos, Crows and Collingwood twice, none of whom are in the top 8

What seems to be the problem

 

[theiaofseed]

13 games in victoria, 3 in Tasmania, just the 6 interstate trips for the year and you get to play Tigers, Kangaroos, Crows and Collingwood twice, none of whom are in the top 8

What seems to be the problem

1. Collingwood won the flag last year and Adelaide were pick to be in the run for top 4.
2. Hawthorn had the 5th hardest fixture on rating at the start of the year, despite finishing 16th.
3. It's 10 interstate trips not 6.
4. 5 years since we played on Friday.

 

[SnusCG]

1. Collingwood won the flag last year and Adelaide were pick to be in the run for top 4.
2. Hawthorn had the 5th hardest fixture on rating at the start of the year, despite finishing 16th.
3. It's 10 interstate trips not 6.
4. 5 years since we played on Friday.

1. sure, but they haven't backed it up so it's now an easier fixture. 'were pick to be in the run for top 4' means nothing, they were a non finalist last year and are a non-finalist this year.

2. It has not played out to be a tough schedule for you though. a hard fixture in theory vs in reality are very different things. In theory, getting to play Hawthorn twice was supposed to be an easy two games, in reality you guys are not easy to beat anymore.

3. on a technicality it's 10, but 4 are in Tasmania, where you play as the home team (unless you're versing north but even still) and a ground you play notoriously well on. That was your own clubs choice to play there, nothing to do with the fixturing. it's like Gold Coast complaining about being fixtured games in Darwin.

4. That's a side effect of being in a rebuild period. West Coast, Gold Coast, St Kilda and North are also getting no, or very few, Friday games. You'll have plenty next year onward.

 

[FreoGirl]

The only real bias that is artificial against interstate teams in the grand final being played at the G.

The travelling would also be, but if you join a national competition and you are based in Perth, you will travel more. It’s just geography, not bias.

The bias for some of the non Victorian teams is the academy programs.

yes, but why should Freo be flown to a Tasmanian location that doesn't even have a direct flight, when other teams are not subjected to it.

This weekend will be one of Freo's rare games at the MCG.

 

[theiaofseed]

1. sure, but they haven't backed it up so it's now an easier fixture. 'were pick to be in the run for top 4' means nothing, they were a non finalist last year and are a non-finalist this year.

2. It has not played out to be a tough schedule for you though. a hard fixture in theory vs in reality are very different things. In theory, getting to play Hawthorn twice was supposed to be an easy two games, in reality you guys are not easy to beat anymore.

3. on a technicality it's 10, but 4 are in Tasmania, where you play as the home team (unless you're versing north but even still) and a ground you play notoriously well on. That was your own clubs choice to play there, nothing to do with the fixturing. it's like Gold Coast complaining about being fixtured games in Darwin.

4. That's a side effect of being in a rebuild period. West Coast, Gold Coast, St Kilda and North are also getting no, or very few, Friday games. You'll have plenty next year onward.

The point of the tread is about unfair Victorian bias when doing the fixturing, the AFL gave Hawthorn an unreasonably hard fixture on predicted outcomes, opposed to the reach around fixturing the Gold Coast were given. Do you still want to argue about Victorian bias?

 

[peetoo]

yes, but why should Freo be flown to a Tasmanian location that doesn't even have a direct flight, when other teams are not subjected to it.

This weekend will be one of Freo's rare games at the MCG.

Tasmanian club will mean every team goes there at least once every Two years
If travel is addressed as some suggest, you’ll get even less mcg games

Why isn’t this thread mentioning gather round, which too is extra travel?

 

[Captivating]

If someone looks hard enough for bias, they will find it to confirm their own bias.

 

[RUNVS]

If someone looks hard enough for bias, they will find it to confirm their own bias.

15 of 17 premierships is hard to refute.

 

[TheFourPillars]

15 of 17 premierships is hard to refute.

3 teams have dominated the majority of those premierships. It's more to do with how those teams are run. You could point to it if there were a lot of Vic teams winning it

 

[Colonial]

 

[Hearts to hearts]

yes, but why should Freo be flown to a Tasmanian location that doesn't even have a direct flight, when other teams are not subjected to it.

This weekend will be one of Freo's rare games at the MCG.

They probably play there more often than North Melbourne. The fixture bias isn’t towards Victorian clubs, it’s towards a few clubs and based on the AFL’s priority of maximising revenue above anything else.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

yes, but why should Freo be flown to a Tasmanian location that doesn't even have a direct flight, when other teams are not subjected to it.

This weekend will be one of Freo's rare games at the MCG.

Because financially it’s more beneficial to Hawthorn to play large drawing clubs at the MCG than it is to play interstate sides, particularly those with poor attendance records in Melbourne?

Who are you to dictate who Hawthorn should play their home games in Melbourne v Tasmania when the opportunity cost associated with revenue lost isn’t borne by your team. It’s their home game.

 

[Colonial]

3 teams have dominated the majority of those premierships. It's more to do with how those teams are run. You could point to it if there were a lot of Vic teams winning it

There literally was an inquisition when Vic clubs struggled for a couple of years.
We can point to it.