AFL FINALS VENUES

Its a National Competition
There4 should the AFL Grand Finals be played in the highest seeded teams state ?

West Coast 2015
Finished above Hawthorn in the Minor Round
Deserved to play the first home final in Perth and defeated Hawthorn
Won the Prelim Final against North Melbourne
Then played Hawthorn in Melbourne
With all that should they have 'morally' played the 2015 Grand Final in Perth ?

Yes there are contracts for the GF at the MCG for the next umpteen years
Yes the MCG draws higher crowds than other venues , which = more revenue for the AFL
I can understand the rationality of having GFs at the G

How about the players point of view
They are the show case
They put in the pre seasons , create the entertainment , and are playing for the ultimate in Premierships
In the case of West Coast
The players hardly did anything nothing wrong all season
Then on Grand Final day had to play Hawthorn in Melbourne
Seems illogical ?

Disagree.

West Coast 92/94/06, Adelaide 97/98, Brisbane 01/02/03, Port 04, Sydney 05/12.

West Coast beating Sydney in 06, Sydney beating West Coast in 05 and Port beating Brisbane in 04 means 3 of the last 11 GF's have been 2 non-Victorian sides.

West Coast have lost two to Hawthorn, Fremantle and Sydney one to the Hawks and North, Port lost to Geelong.

11 premierships and 6 runner ups from 5 non-Victorian clubs in 23 years.

If you're good enough, you're good enough.

GF should always be at the MCG.

There is another fault/anomaly though in the final 8 system. Fremantle who did nothing wrong all year (except lose to Hawthorn in the Prelim at home) and finished top had to play the 3rd ranked side in the Preliminary Final. I'm not sure how this can be changed as 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3 in the first week and if results go as they should, you don't want the same matches again a fortnight later. But Freo by finishing top really should have/deserved to play North Melbourne (8th) in the Prelim weekend.

I think all of the rhetoric around grounds is missing the mark.

What people should be asking is how the Hawks have been able to exploit the new free agency rules to build their dynasty.

Going off topic here, but I can see us heading for premier league situation where there are 4 clubs winning the flags and rest just make up the numbers.

Hell, since 2005 only 5 clubs have shared the flags. How is that good for the competition? Saturday's GF was as boring as batshit.

I voiced exactly that on AA the other night after Caro Wilson spoke of "equalization".

I think it's a complete myth. Never before has it been easier to stay at the top, once you get there. That's the kicker, getting there. Once you establish yourself in the top 4 you become a desirable destination and players want to come to you.

Hawthorn can and will continue to exploit this.

Booney wrote:I voiced exactly that on AA the other night after Caro Wilson spoke of "equalization".

I think it's a complete myth. Never before has it been easier to stay at the top, once you get there. That's the kicker, getting there. Once you establish yourself in the top 4 you become a desirable destination and players want to come to you.

Hawthorn can and will continue to exploit this.

Of course they will and while the rule says they can, why wouldn't they?

Geelong now entering that arena also, that are set to be extremely proactive over this trade period and if it works and they find themselves back in or close to the top 4, expect another bunch of players to nominate them next year.

5 teams have won flags in 11 years. 7 in 15.

There has been a lot of talk about which side has been the best of the modern area. Brisbane built a dynasty off of the back of their merger and subsequent list concessions. Hawthorn built theirs off the compromised competition and free agency. Geelong are perhaps the only side I would consider to have truly earned their 3 IMO in that time.

Western Bulldogs v Adelaide 2015
Game meant to be at Ethiad Stadium as WB was the higher seeded team
However the game was switched to the MCG
Why ?
The press said it was that the MCG would hold a BIGger crowd
Western Bulldogs were perhaps disadvantaged by the move

So if the reason was for more bums on seats
What would have happened if this game was scheduled for Adelaide Oval?
Adelaide Oval holds about the same capacity as Ethiad ?
Would the AFL have transferred this match to the MCG ?
No they would not
Western Bulldogs should feel a bit hard done by ?

Scrappy,
            seeing this says ''AFL VENUES'' i presume you mean the entire finals series & not just the grand final, it is obvious that the home team (mainly non Victorian based teams) have a huge advantage playing at home but you play during the season to earn that right, everyone knows this & indeed it is a huge advantage all we have to do is see the turnaround of the last two matches West Coast & Hawthorn had, we can even look locally & this year Port played West Adelaide in the last home & away match at Alberton & Port won easily, go forward a week & at a more Neutral ground (even though the Port players had at least trained there on a regular basis) & West won comfortably, so yes a home ground is a big advantage especially in the AFL when teams are travelling & sleeping in beds etc they aren't used too......................................W Bulldogs privately would be a little upset but it is a business first & foremost & that is why this occurred as do other decisions they make

Bayman
Your last paragraph sums it up

At times is the AFL more intent on $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ than the players ambitions ?

Scrappy wrote:Bayman
Your last paragraph sums it up

At times is the AFL more intent on $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ than the players ambitions ?

While that may or may not be the case, can you give me a Grand Final in recent history where the team who has won it was not regarded as the best team of that given year?

Booney
Im all about what is fair , not results

I once read a quote :

Don't f*** your life waiting for fair. Get on with it.

Home finals venues are an advantage
AFL Grand Finals has proven otherwise
But in general if we use the example of Victorian teams against interstate teams in finals since the AFL was formed in 1990 , it will show that the home state team has won a far greater proportion of games

In general in any sport a home ground, home state or home country often equates to a home team advantage performance wise

Technically all finals venues are supposed to be neutral anyway. I'm with Booney on this one - the 'home' ground advantage should be treated as a bonus, not a right.

All teams should aspire to win anywhere, anytime, in any conditions. If they can't do that, then their not good enough, plain and simple.

Gingernuts wrote:Technically all finals venues are supposed to be neutral anyway. I'm with Booney on this one - the 'home' ground advantage should be treated as a bonus, not a right.

All teams should aspire to win anywhere, anytime, in any conditions. If they can't do that, then their not good enough, plain and simple.

perhaps your wording is not what you meant but the word ''supposed'' (to be neutral) yes it is but teams still have to travel etc, it is a ''right'' because you EARN that RIGHT by winning enough games to qualify for a ''home final'' & off course it is an advantage, any home team has some sort of advantage, it will not win you the game but familiar surroundings should have a comfortable & settled team more quickly than an opponent


lets look at this hypothetical scenario if the Crows & Port in the one year did both earned the right of hosting a preliminary final each (like the Perth based franchises this year) & the AFL decided that there has to be one preliminary final game played in Melbourne because of a catch up situation they have, would you guys be happy for your team to be playing a preliminary final in Melbourne even though they earned the right to have a home based preliminary final ?


Mr Booney, to answer your other question earlier i know i'm a bad judge on AFL footy because i don't watch much of it but the last upset i thought was when Geelong beat Port, i thought Port were morals & it cost me $100.00

Geelong won 18 of their last 19 going into that Grand Final

Having said that, their loss was to Port down at the Cattery late in the season.

2007 GRAND FINAL

GE...5-7...11-13...18-17...24-19 [163]
PA...2-2....4-3.......5-5......6-8 [44]

Booney and his Power mates were caught jumping the fence at half time in that final
Security caught them , and told them to jump back over and watch the rest of the game

And who said that home venues are an advantage in football !
Port beat Geelong at Cat park in the 2nd last round and won by 5 points
But on the more neutral MCG, just over a month later , were beaten by 119 points

bayman wrote: lets look at this hypothetical scenario if the Crows & Port in the one year did both earned the right of hosting a preliminary final each (like the Perth based franchises this year) & the AFL decided that there has to be one preliminary final game played in Melbourne because of a catch up situation they have, would you guys be happy for your team to be playing a preliminary final in Melbourne even though they earned the right to have a home based preliminary final ?

Well this scenario has actually happened over the course of Adelaide's history and yes, it did annoy me. Home ground advantage can help you win - but at the same time I don't think it's an excuse for losing.

If you're good enough you're good enough, full stop.

2007 ELIMINATION FINALS
This is how these 4 clubs ended up on the Premiership ladder
5 Hawthorn
6 Collingwood
7 Sydney
8 Adelaide

Please correct if I am wrong, as this is what I recall happened
The HW V AC game was to be played at the MCG which is where HW had played home games that season
Finishing 5th , they deserved that advantage over AC

However the AFL switched this match to the Docklands
And the reason why they shifted the venue ?
They wanted CO to play SS at the MCG , because of the potential of a BIGger crowd
HW prob lost some advantage not playing on their home deck
CO prob gained a further advantage playing at the MCG  a ground they seemingly got to play at so often back then

Once again the AFL cashed in on the mighty $ and played swapsys with football teams



HW 15-15
AC 15-12

CO 18-17
SS 13-9

So is the rule that you get to play a home final if you've earned it, unless it buggers up;
a) potential gate revenue
b) existing contractual obligations with the MCG
c) any other situation the AFL deems beneficial to its coffers / image / "good of the game"

Scrappy wrote:2007 ELIMINATION FINALS
This is how these 4 clubs ended up on the Premiership ladder
5 Hawthorn
6 Collingwood
7 Sydney
8 Adelaide

Please correct if I am wrong, as this is what I recall happened
The HW V AC game was to be played at the MCG which is where HW had played home games that season
Finishing 5th , they deserved that advantage over AC

However the AFL switched this match to the Docklands
And the reason why they shifted the venue ?
They wanted CO to play SS at the MCG , because of the potential of a BIGger crowd
HW prob lost some advantage not playing on their home deck
CO prob gained a further advantage playing at the MCG  a ground they seemingly got to play at so often back then

Once again the AFL cashed in on the mighty $ and played swapsys with football teams



HW 15-15
AC 15-12

CO 18-17
SS 13-9

So the two higher ranked sides, the better sides, won both the matches?

I doubt many would dispute the proposition that familiarity with an arena or a playing course adds some advantage to a competitor
In the AFL season just finished, 2 Melbourne based clubs Richmond and Collingwood played on the MCG on 14 occasions each
Not far behind was the Melbourne football club with 13
Again not far behind them was the Hawthorn football club with 9
There were 4 clubs, all interstate clubs. which only had the opportunity of playing on the MCG on 1 occasion during the year[West Coast, Adelaide, Port , Brisbane]
I do believe that the AFL should address this imbalance for next years draw

This is a response in the press

More response in the press

UNEVEN SCHEDULE
The AFL schedule is out for 2016 and it would appear that the AFL have learned nothing
Collingwood and Richmond will play each other 14 times on the MCG and, if either of these sides get to the Grand Final it will be essentially a home game for these sides

The Adelaide Crows have triple the number of times they see the MCG next year [up to 3] and Port Adelaide will see the stretch of grass twice
West Coast will see this arena 3 times and Sydney, Bulldogs, Brisbane and Gold Coast will see it twice
North Melbourne and Fremantle, who quite possibly will be in the finals mix, will each get the opportunity of seeing the MCG on one occasion each during the year

There are many features, which have been introduced to make this competition a level playing field, such as the salary cap, but I think the AFL have to seriously look at the draw for 2017

if the non Victorian franchises wanted more games at the MCG (obviously they would), perhaps the AFL could accommodate them at a price with that price being that they would have to play a home game at the MCG...................would you be happy if that happened to your team ?

AFL GRAND FINAL REPLAYS

If AFL Grand Finals end up a draw there will not be a replay
There will be extra time
2 x 5 minute quarters of extra time
If no result after extra time , it goes to golden score , goal or point

GOLDEN SCORE
I think this COULD be a mistake for the Grand Final participants
Imagine this :
You do a pre-season
Play a home and away season
Play finals
Play in a grand final
The grand final played over about 2 hours
And then it goes to golden score

Golden score ?
What if there is a strong breeze favoring one end of the ground ?
You play a whole season only to end up giving one team an advantage

The winner should be the best team , or the best team on the day
Not a team that MIGHT end up with a wind advantage and win