There is nothing better the finals footy. The hits are bigger, the stakes are higher and any mistake could be a team or player’s last until they take on the summer’s gruelling pre-season campaign.
Everything is at stake. What you have given your whole season for all comes down to this, so surely any advantage should be grasped with both hands. But what happens when you don’t get the advantage you deserve?
An advantage is defined as ‘a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position’. The big one in footy is the home ground advantage.
Recent seasons have shown us the House of Pain (or Subiaco), the SCG, UTAS Stadium and Skilled Stadium have become fortresses in which teams are at an advantage playing in front of their home crowd. So surely a team that finishes above another should have a home ground advantage coming into the finals right?
Ask any Geelong supporter in Week 1 of the finals if they would prefer their beloved Cats to be playing at Simonds Stadium or the MCG and you will get a resounding Simonds back.
However, a team from Geelong that finishes second on the ladder now effectively gives up home ground advantage and is forced to travel 75 kilometres down the Princes Highway to the MCG to play a team that finishes below them on the ladder at their home ground with, more than likely, more fans at the game.
The current rules state that, apart from the grand final, any final will be played at a venue in the home state of the team who has earnt that right. It does not give exclusive home ground rights. So isn’t it time we changed the rules?
There are contractual obligations with the MCG about the number of finals that need to be played in any year, but isn’t it time the AFL had talks about these obligations to bring fairness and advantage for those who deserve it back into the game?
I know the MCG will triple the number of people through the gate. In Round 21 Geelong had a crowd of 33,000, whereas this game at the MCG will likely attract a crowd of up to 95,000, which means more gate money, but this should be about more than money.
(Image: Michael Dodge/Getty Images)
If GWS had finished in the top two this year, it likely would have played at ANZ Stadium, a ground the Giants haven’t played at all year. Even worse, if they managed to run into the Swans, they might have been forced to play at the SCG, which would be a major disadvantage for the higher placed team. The fact that Spotless holds only 24,000 people should be irrelevant.
This is not the first time this has happened. In 2004 the top four spots on the ladder were occupied by Port Adelaide, Brisbane, St Kilda and Geelong.
Brisbane earnt the right to a home preliminary final against Geelong, but due to the agreement then in place with the Melbourne Cricket Club for at least one game each week of the finals to be played at the MCG, they were forced to travel down to Melbourne and play the lower-placed Geelong. Port Adelaide were then offered a home preliminary final against St Kilda.
It didn’t matter at the time anyway as Brisbane won the match, but the following week in the grand final Brisbane were forced to travel again. They lost the grand final, ending a dynasty and losing the potential to win four straight flags to make them one of the greatest teams ever.
In 2012 Geelong finished sixth and Fremantle seventh, but the AFL denied Geelong its right to host a home elimination final at Simonds Stadium and forced the final to be played at the MCG, but the following year when Geelong finished second and Fremantle third the Cats were allowed to host their final at Simonds Stadium. There is no consistency and too much grey area.
A rule needs to be put in place to eliminate this grey area. Simply, a team finishing higher on the ladder at the end of the home-and-away season can allocate their final at a ground of their choice.
That would bring the advantage back to the higher-placed team, and although that could mean fewer people through the turnstiles and therefore less money for the AFL, it would mean a team gets rewarded for 23 weeks of hard work, grit, sweat, blood and tears – plus the TV ratings would be higher.
Acting AFL operations manager Andrew Dillon said this week, “the factors that we’ll look at are absolutely the fans, the broadcasters, the contractual obligations at venues, and the days breaks”. But Mr Dillon forgot to mention the words ‘advantage’ and ‘fairness’.
It does not matter whether that game is at Metricon, Domain, Spotless, Skilled or the Gabba – we should give the advantage back to the team that deserves it regardless of numbers or dollar signs.
republican
Guest
Thats the 'price' you pay for growing a code into a commercial behemoth. If you don't like it, support something more akin to an amateur league i.e. the VFL which in my opinion is a far better, dare I say 'product' & experience, anyway.......
J.T. Delacroix
Guest
Spot on Kurt. Such a long trip for the cats. What troopers they are to endure such an ordeal! They're playing a final at the no.1 stadium in the country against another Victorian club, not at a tin pot country footy ground. I can't believe this is still a debate.
Cat
Roar Guru
Maybe you should watch the carry on when Melbourne clubs have to go down to Geelong.
Cat
Roar Guru
Yes I am absolutely 100% sure the Cats lose money every single time they play at the MCG. A crowd around 80k at the G will bring in about $500k. A crowd of 30k at KP will bring in around $800k. Couple years ago we hosted the Tigers at the G. Only around 49k showed up. The club made no money at all that day. A 25k crowd at KP would have made $650k. The two games we're forced to play at home at Etihad are even worse. They basically cost the club $1.5m a year.
Cat
Roar Guru
Before my time, but I will say the unfair rules that caused that to happen were changed not long afterwards. Shame it happened, but it won't again.
Kurt
Guest
I had a chuckle at the line about Geelong being "forced to travel 75 kilometres down the Princes Highway to the MCG". Yeah, that 1 hour drive is a real killer, I hope they arrive in plenty of time to recover from this arduous journey!
Mattyb
Guest
Phillpy,firstly why don't we say the fans can fight over 20k seats each? I think the travel agent thing is just wrong. Anyway I'm thinking long term,the growth of the national game,making it national. It's far to Victorian centric. Short term pain for long term gain. If the game wants to be national we need a national approach. The games strong in the southern states,which is great,but I think the VFL centric nature will hold us back in the northern states. I think state governments of could subsidise some of the revenue short comings. I agree with your tipping point comment,but the stadiums won't get bigger unless they know they can get big games like the GF. I certainly don't think a Geelong GF should be at KP,I actually think the current situation gives Geelong the best advantage In the league,8 home games with access to MCG experience is perfect. I have no issues if Geelong played this week at KP. Credibility of the comp is important in my eyes. I'd still imagine the majority of GFs at the G due to the excessive amounts of VFL clubs. I really think if we made the game truly national it would really kick off,and that means more money in itself.
Philby
Guest
Don't know where you're from Mattyb, but I'll just put you through a hypothetical Grand Final at the Adelaide Oval - which is probably the best venue outside Victoria. Let's say it has a capacity of 50,000, or pretty much exactly half of the MCG. At the 'G, the allocation to the two competing teams supporters is around 34,000 tickets, so halve that and you would have 17,000 in total, or 8,500 tickets to each competing team. Imagine Adelaide (or Port Adelaide) fans competing for those 8,500! The remaining 33,000 tickets would go on sale via the normal channels for Grand Finals, i.e. as part of package deals sold by travel agents, corporate allocations and so on. You would expect some fans from each competing club to get their hands on some of those, but even so, fans of the two teams are likely to make up roughly half the crowd, or 25,000 of the 50,000 capacity. It would hardly be an electric crowd along the lines that one sees (and hears) in the regular season, where near 50,000 rabid supporters of one of the Adelaide teams lights up the stadium. Plus, as I say, it's likely that only 12,000 or so Adelaide supporters would get tickets anyway. Compare that to the guaranteed 17,000 for Adelaide supporters going to the MCG Grand Final, plus the several thousand more they'd get from general allocation seats. Plus the AFL take on the sale of tickets would be anywhere from $6 - $12 million less if the match was played at the Adelaide Oval I say all this without comment about the fairness of it all, as if the decision was one of pure fairness, the higher placed team would get the home game. Just pointing out some of the practicalities. I'd suggest there is a 'tipping point' at which things like fewer tickets for spectators and loss of revenue could be balanced out by fairness considerations, and I think you'd approach that tipping point at around 60,000 or so spectators at a stadium. If Adelaide could increase their capacity by 10,000 - 20,000, I think they could really start pushing hard for the GF. By contrast, Geelong's Kardinia Park capacity, at something like 32,000 even after all the new construction, is so far out of the ball park (pun intended) that it's a complete joke.
Philby
Guest
Just wondering if Geelong came out in support of Brisbane in 2004? That is, did Geelong argue that the prelim should be played in Brisbane and that it was totally unfair for Brisbane to have to travel down to the MCG for what was effectively their home game? Or did they maintain a discreet silence when the abnomaly worked in their favour?
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
Are you certain they lose money on MCG games? The point is they regularly play 'home' games at the MCG during a home and away season against Melbourne based clubs. I don't see why this is any different.
Aaron
Guest
What about the Tigers; they have to share their "home ground" with others, as do all other Victorian teams that have the G or Etihad as their "home" ground. Where is the advantage of having to share? You could argue that the Cats are spoiled and lucky to actually have an advantage during the season. I think perhaps Cats supporters are fearful of what might happen next Friday night ;)
Cat
Roar Guru
The club doesn't 'give up' games by choice. Why should Geelong lose money and home ground advantage just so the AFL can brag about attendance figures?
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
Geelong regular give up home games at Kardinia Park. They actually only play interstate clubs and Victorian Clubs with smaller fan bases in Geelong. When was the last time they played a game against Hawthorn, Pies or Essendon in Geelong? Whether you like it or not, it is about drawing the biggest crowd possible. It would be ludicrous to schedule a match in Victoria in a stadium with only 30,000 capacity when demand for tickets will fill the MCG close to capacity. The same people who whine about Geelong losing home ground advantage would probably also whine if the match was scheduled at Kardinia Park and couldn't get a ticket cause it was sold out! As a supporter of an interstate club I say "Suck it up princess".
Cat
Roar Guru
So, Geelong is better off giving up 'the voice of affirmation', which some pundits have claimed is equal to 1 goal a quarter, on the chance they may eventually play the GF at the MCG? First they have to make it there. A club that earns that 'voice of affirmation' advantage shouldn't just give it up. If Geelong doesn't know how to play at the MCG by now, one more or less game isn't going to make a bit of difference at this point in the season.
Brendan Smith
Roar Rookie
To put into perspective im not a Geelong supporter. Im actually a West Coast fan. So if Geelong or any other team on the ladder finished higher then my team its only fair that that game be played on a ground of thier choosing. And like wise if West Coast finished higher on the ladder then its only fair that the game be played on a ground of thier choosing. Grand Finals should be the only exception where it is played at the MCG regardless. Thats coming from a West Coast fan whose team cannot seem to win there. But it's tradition- it has been there every year (minus 1991 at Waverly.. in the modern era) and should continue to be there. Cat summed it up perfectly.. change one word: problem solved!
Gyfox
Guest
Surely it's better for Geelong to play at the MCG, where the GF is played? Interstate clubs would love top play more often on the MCG Also, playing Geel vs Rich at MCG allows footy lovers like me to attend the game, which would be impossible down at Kardinia Park.
Mattyb
Guest
Wayne,I've heard some shocking arguments from people regarding finals,and often arguments that are all over the shop and solely based around the club they support or state they reside. Your point is very simple and easily the best I've heard. I do wonder if all this whining centred around Geelong will play straight into the Tigers hands come next week.
Cat
Roar Guru
Just because they can, and no one is disputing that, doesn't mean its right or fair. AFL can also incorrectly suspend players and give bogus 'character reference' discounts too. Things only get fixed when clubs push back.
Wayne
Roar Guru
AFL owns the final series, not the clubs. They can play where they are told to play.
Mattyb
Guest
While Geelong should probably play the final at Kardinya Park,it's a bit rich for them to complain when we continue to have interstate clubs playing Victorian clubs in the GF on Victorian home grounds despite ladder positions. Just seems to be some real double standards on this home ground issue. A Geelong v Adelaide GF for example will be held in Victoria,despite Adelaide finishing on top and I'm sure at that point the Geelong fans will jump on the other side of the fence giving reasons why it's magically a fair and great idea. This for me will really outline the Victorian centric nature of the expanded VFL competition.