Finals

[Blood Fever]

But we all know that nothing is going to change. There's a long term GF contract with the MCG and lots of other things which favour Victorian clubs. Some Swans' fans on here have become so frustrated they say they're are giving up football. I suppose that's an option. Otherwise, what else can we do, except live with the reality of the situation?

You're right about the contract and I love watching the Swans play and the great culture of the club so I will continue to watch and support the team. Some things are more difficult to ignore than others, especially if it happens again next year, maybe to us.

[KTigers]

KT it comes down to the $$$$. I don't disagree that GF's should be played at different venues. It is how it is for a number of years. Barry says it is not to do with TV rights but I can't see how it doesn't have a big influence on the venue. The AFL wants as many bums on seats at a GF. Imagine if the GF was in Adelaide and only a % quota was given to Adelaide members. They would pull the stand down. The corporates are always going to get a slice of the action regardless of the venue.

Yeah I know the money they get from the MCG GF's is very important to them now. I just think it's kinda short sighted. How long
is the AFL expecting that the wider footy community (ie outside of Victoria) are going to put up with the inequities.
Do they really expect much of a buy in to the code in the expansion territories when it comes across so much as add-on to a suburban
Melbourne comp? Then again, maybe it's just people that write into forums like this that care about this stuff.

[Ludwig]

Understand your rationalising about what is a successful season Ludwig but premierships are the ultimate reward and they are extremely fifficult to win all things being equal. But all things are not equal re home ground and ladder position. Does anyone seriously think that last Saturday's game would have been the same at Adelaide Oval?

But we all know that nothing is going to change. There's a long term GF contract with the MCG and lots of other things which favour Victorian clubs. Some Swans' fans on here have become so frustrated they say they're are giving up football. I suppose that's an option. Otherwise, what else can we do, except live with the reality of the situation?

[Blood Fever]

Swans' supporters putting premierships as the be and end all for measuring how our season went are setting themselves up for disappointment. Just accept the landscape as it is and deal with it. Of course Victorian clubs have a big advantage in the GF. I take this into account and set the bar lower for what I consider a successful season. Finishing top 4 or playing in a Prelim Final is a very good season in my book. Making the GF for us is the equivalent of winning a GF for a Victorian club. For an interstate team to win, they almost have to get lucky enough to play another interstate team.

We all wish it were different. I even posted a solution to these inequities (by reducing the competition to 12 clubs). But I can't see anything changing in the foreseeable future, so it just has to be my mindset that changes if I don't want to habitually upset about the pro-Victorian position of the league.

Understand your rationalising about what is a successful season Ludwig but premierships are the ultimate reward and they are extremely fifficult to win all things being equal. But all things are not equal re home ground and ladder position. Does anyone seriously think that last Saturday's game would have been the same at Adelaide Oval?

[Ludwig]

Swans' supporters putting premierships as the be and end all for measuring how our season went are setting themselves up for disappointment. Just accept the landscape as it is and deal with it. Of course Victorian clubs have a big advantage in the GF. I take this into account and set the bar lower for what I consider a successful season. Finishing top 4 or playing in a Prelim Final is a very good season in my book. Making the GF for us is the equivalent of winning a GF for a Victorian club. For an interstate team to win, they almost have to get lucky enough to play another interstate team.

We all wish it were different. I even posted a solution to these inequities (by reducing the competition to 12 clubs). But I can't see anything changing in the foreseeable future, so it just has to be my mindset that changes if I don't want to habitually upset about the pro-Victorian position of the league.

[Nico]

But they weren't very good away from home, only winning a slightly over half their games. If the venue is neutral then by definition
the home ground advantage factor is taken out of it. The other weird aspect of the finals is that for the first three weeks teams are rewarded
with a home ground advantage by their earlier results, but come the GF, it doesn't matter anymore.

KT it comes down to the $$$$. I don't disagree that GF's should be played at different venues. It is how it is for a number of years. Barry says it is not to do with TV rights but I can't see how it doesn't have a big influence on the venue. The AFL wants as many bums on seats at a GF. Imagine if the GF was in Adelaide and only a % quota was given to Adelaide members. They would pull the stand down. The corporates are always going to get a slice of the action regardless of the venue.

[KTigers]

I don't think this discussion should get personal. We're all meant to be on the same team here. I just bring this stuff up because
I think the comp should be fair. And playing the most important game of the season at one team's home ground, when it is very
obvious how important the home ground advantage is in determining the winner of games, just so an extra 15,000 people who are
only there because they have a few more spare dollars than the average punter can see the game is sort of bull@@@@.

[Nico]

Wow! You're barracking for the wrong team then.....maybe the Bulldogs are more suited to you if integrity isn't an issue.

- - - Updated - - -



You're argument is pathetic.....seems you're not actually a 'neutral' Victorian......I am.

Just stating facts mate. Nothing to do with my integrity. They have just upped the salary cap by 20%. They don't do that using fresh air.

[KTigers]

But that's because they were the better teams. The teams at the bottom likely had the opposite. Regardless you have to have a good team to finish top 4.

But they weren't very good away from home, only winning a slightly over half their games. If the venue is neutral then by definition
the home ground advantage factor is taken out of it. The other weird aspect of the finals is that for the first three weeks teams are rewarded
with a home ground advantage by their earlier results, but come the GF, it doesn't matter anymore.

[stevoswan]

Yep.

Wow! You're barracking for the wrong team then.....maybe the Bulldogs are more suited to you if integrity isn't an issue.

- - - Updated - - -

But that's because they were the better teams. The teams at the bottom likely had the opposite. Regardless you have to have a good team to finish top 4.

You're argument is pathetic.....seems you're not actually a 'neutral' Victorian......I am.

[Nico]

Looking at the stats for this year, the top 4 teams (Richmond, Adelaide, Geelong & GWS) were collectively 39-1-7 at home,
and 27-3-23 away from home. A 85% winning record at home, and a 55% winning record away from home. That is a substantial
difference, and I would think there would be more to it than just proximity to their own beds as Roos once said.
Home ground advantage is the biggest single identifiable indicator of the result of a game. And everyone knows this.
So what do the AFL do? They play the game at one team's home ground. And not even at the home ground of the team that
finished first. The team that finished third. Just brilliant.

But that's because they were the better teams. The teams at the bottom likely had the opposite. Regardless you have to have a good team to finish top 4.

[stevoswan]

Melbourne doesn't. My post was in response to bodgie's suggestion.

Take issue with with bodgie, not me

I agree with you then and my apologies....

[Nico]

....and your a Victorian who seems to be confused about where your allegiance lies. Not all Victorians are so parochial, me being one. The MCG is the excuse for maintaining Victorian advantage. Can't believe that you can't see this. Your claim that "the ground it is played (at) is not a major factor" is pure fantasy as this very point is what makes umpires see things that no one else sees and if you truly believe last years GF backs up your point that "any disadvantage of home town support (even from influenced umpires) can be overcome if you are good enough and play your best footy" then you are truly deluded.

- - - Updated - - -



So, by your reckoning, money is all that matters, not the integrity of the result.....sheese!!!

Yep.

[KTigers]

Looking at the stats for this year, the top 4 teams (Richmond, Adelaide, Geelong & GWS) were collectively 39-1-7 at home,
and 27-3-23 away from home. A 85% winning record at home, and a 55% winning record away from home. That is a substantial
difference, and I would think there would be more to it than just proximity to their own beds as Roos once said.
Home ground advantage is the biggest single identifiable indicator of the result of a game. And everyone knows this.
So what do the AFL do? They play the game at one team's home ground. And not even at the home ground of the team that
finished first. The team that finished third. Just brilliant.

[Meg]

Paul Roos (when he was the Swans coach) once said that he thought the only real home team advantage that the travelling team couldn?t do anything about was the fact that home team players get to sleep in their own beds the night before the match and go through their normal routines in preparation.

The umpiring in the 2016 GF was poor umpiring. I too am inclined to think crowd affirmation can influence umpires - but it shouldn?t for the best umpires. Despite our past issues with Ray Chamberlain I don?t think he is swayed by the crowd noise.

And if we do believe crowd support can influence the result, then in principle that should be an argument for GFs to be held at neutral venues, not at the ground of the team that finished higher in the H&A. (If?s not going to happen, too many logistical problems with organising a GF with one week?s notice.)