The AFL has a responsibility, the grand final is over, and many fans are about to go into withdraw. We want more footy!
So, what is not to love about the concept of a best of three Game AFL grand final series? More footy. More dollars in the coffers of the AFL and AFL clubs. Additional local stadium revenue.
More local business through tourism. A chance for interstate teams to watch a grand final in their home city. Many major international sporting competitions have championship series such as the NFL and NBA. Why not the AFL?
For a bit of post-finals fun, what would a best of three series have looked like between the Adelaide Crows (minor premiers) and the Richmond Tigers (third)?
Game 1
Played at the home of the top ranked team grand final team. In the case of 2017, this would have been the Crows and the final would have been held at the Adelaide Oval. This gives the highest ranked team, Adelaide, a genuine advantage in the grand final Series.
Adelaide for argument sake win Game 1, 110-72. They earned the right for an advantage during the season, and the Crows take an early 1-0 in grand final series lead. They are in poll position, and the pressure is right on the Tigers.
Wait a minute, how can you say that, even for arguments sake? Why would the Crows have won this game, if they just lost the grand final to the Tigers?
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
It comes down to home ground advantage. Would the Crows have had a greater advantage playing at the Adelaide oval instead of the MCG? Yes. And there are number of reasons why.
Playing dimensions for a start. The Adelaide Oval playing dimensions are skinnier than the fat MCG playing dimensions. The skinnier dimensions were proven in the season and during the finals to suit the Crows potent attacking style of play.
The Adelaide Oval also enables the Crows to have a greater number of supporters in the crowd. There is an argument that home crowds have been known to influence the odd umpire decisions.
Further players feel comfortable in their familiar settings. They sleep in a familiar bed and play in familiar surroundings. They do not have to travel in planes, and sleep in hotel rooms in the lead up.
The reality is, as the game was never played at the Adelaide Oval, so we will never know what a Tigers v Crows grand final game would have brought. But for now, assume Crows are up 1-0.
Game 2
Played at MCG, the Tigers home ground. The Tigers win the grand final 108-60. The Tigers level the series 1-1. The series is tied and Bachar Houli ties with Dusty Martin to win the Norm Smith Medal for best on ground.
Game 3
This is when venue selection becomes tricky.
Adelaide were minor premiers, so shouldn’t the final game go back to the Adelaide Oval? Wouldn’t that disadvantage the Tigers though and effectively hand the Crows the Premiership?
Perhaps compromising is the solution? Host the final game at the MCG, but with a concession, the skinnier boundary line dimensions of the Adelaide Oval should be painted instead of the fat wide standard MCG boundary line dimensions.
This is still somewhat unfair though; the Tigers would have the Tiger army and the familiarity of Tigerland just down the road. The Crows would have to travel. Crows supporters might not be able to make it back to the MCG for a second road trip.
A neutral venue then? Interesting but where?
Where do you think a grand final series decider should be held? Please enter comments below.
Of course, there is another scenario for a grand finals Series. What if two interstate teams face off in the grand final Series?
Let’s assume Sydney Swans versus West Coast Eagles. The format fortunately becomes more straight forward.
Game 1. Played in Sydney (assuming Swans were top ranked home and away team).
Game 2. Played at MCG.
Game 3. Play in Perth.
You will notice the MCG is always game two in the series. This is deliberate. The series could be decided in Game 2 and the MCG after all is the home of Australian Rules Football.
Anthony
Roar Pro
Whoops.
Anthony
Roar Pro
Let me reframe things Matt.. I'll say who has the greatest to least advantage at the MCG and explain why; 1. MCG Tenants. Tigers/Hawks/Pies/Dees. They play home games at MCG. Whichever team of this bunch is best, they are a chance at a top 4. They don't need to be top team, just top 4, that gives minor premiership advantages. In then rolls the home MCG finals. Plus they sleep in same bed etc. 2. Geelong. Simonds Stadium is 115m wide. Most unusual ground to play on in the AFL. Skinnest in the comp. And it is LOOOONG too. Nearly 180m, v most grounds which are around 160m. Helps make their home ground a fortress. Helps them make finals. Team has to be good as well obviously. Get to sleep in owns beds in finals series. Fans have short drive compared to interstaters. 3. Brisbane Lions. Ground dimensions of Gabba nearly identical to MCG. This gives Lions an edge over Docklands team in my opinion. Lions also have connection with Melbourne through merger with Fitzroy. Will have a crowd support for that reason. Downside it the travel factor and not sleeping in normal beds. 4. Swans. They played on an MCG equivalent sized pitch (135m wide). They know how to use the space. They have a connection with Melbourne through South Melbourne Swans. Will have crowd support for that reason. 5. Docklands Teams. St Kilda, Bulldogs, North Melbourne, Carlton, Essendon. Despite being a Melbourne team, only the Saints and Bulldogs have cracked a final since 2001. Yes I 100% agree, they have crowd support, but in my opinion, the Docklands playing width works against these teams come MCG finals. In general they get only slightly more games at the MCG than interstaters. Get advantage of sleeping in own beds and being in familiar town. 6. Gold Coast Suns/GWS. Both around 133m-130m width. Closer than some to the MCG width of 140m. No historical connection with Melbourne. Have to travel interstate. 7. Crows/Power. Adelaide Oval about 122m wide. Interstate team + smaller width. No historical supporter base in MCG, but at least driving distance for committed fans. Have to sleep in hotel room though, not in their own bed. 8. West Coast/Fremantle. Longest travel distance plus Subiaco 122m wide ground. Will change soon, West Coast/Fremantle going to 130m at Perth Stadium. Still not MCG equivalent 140m in my opinion though. 130m might mean neither an advantage of disadvantage in home and away season. Should have pushed harded for an exact MCG match. When you have to travel so far, you need all the advantages you can get. Missed opportunity.
Anthony
Roar Pro
True! And irconically, Dees are the team who haven't benefited in the past decade and still looking to break the drought.
Anthony
Roar Pro
Agree with you 100%. Third game would need to go with team who finishes highest. I'll be writing a followup at some point and will say as much. For interstate clash, MCC, AFL, Victorian Government would demand MCG hosts a final if this were to have any chance at all. But again agree, WCE/Fremantle are at a disadvantage if playing at MCG in game 2 due to travel distance. Open to suggestions there. First thing that comes to mind is prelim rights. Teams which play the Friday night are team who has to clock the highest distance Grand Final week.
Matt
Guest
MCG helps Melbourne Teams.. Geelong has played plenty of games at the MCG not just skilled stadium.. They do not have to leave the comfort of their house and their beds.. They have more home town support.. The issue is the MCG home ground advantage is massive for non-melbourne teams.. Sydney overcame it once.. and the perhaps the best team ever assembled the Brisbane Lions.. 10 out of the last 11 GF's have been won by a Melbourne team.. (Bulldogs helped by the umpires so much it was not funny).. Of those 6 interstate teams have played in the finals and only 1 of those interstate teams has won.. The team was Sydney who are the closest team to the MCG... The advantage is massive and completely unfair for a game that is meant to be Australian Rules not Melbourne Rules..
Matt
Guest
I am perplexed by your logic that the third game should not advantage Adelaide who has won the minor premiership and therefore should have the right to host finals.. The best of 3 series would be a good way to include the MCG and yes if the AFL deems necessary if two non-melbourne teams are playing then a game at the MCG though I disagree with this as if WCE finished above Sydney they have to travel much further to play at the MCG than their counter parts.. That said if thats what it took to get this done then make it happen..
Matt
Guest
NFL has the superbowl not a championship series talking about Baseball yes and Hockey yes.. I admit though I do want a best of three as it will make it much better rather than a 1 game blow out..
Redb
Roar Guru
Historically it is Melbourne's home ground - some clubs have latched on when success arrived so they could fit their members in. Melbourne = MCG
Anthony
Roar Pro
There are some looooooong waits there I'll give you that. Does this justify Richmond finishing third and receiving three home finals? Just did some fact checking of my own and uncovered a biggie. In last decade, 8/10 Grand Finalists have been MCG tenants. Why? Well if an MCG tenant makes the top four, that is equivalent to winning the minor premiership. All the home ground advantages apply. And recent history shows that whoever is the best team at the MCG, they are more than likely to make or win the GF. 2002 - Collingwood GF (runners up) 2003 - Collingwood GF (runners up) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 - Hawks (Premiers) 2009 2010 - Collingwood GF (Premiers) 2011 - Collingwood GF (runners up) 2012 - Hawks (runners up) 2013 - Hawks (Premiers) 2014 - Hawks (Premiers) 2015 - Hawks (Premiers) 2016 - 2017 - Richmond (Premiers) Also in terms of MCG itself, two spiritual homeland grounds in Australia include the MCG and Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane. MCG = home of AFL Suncorp Stadium = home of State of Origin. State of Origin has been shared with our fellow Aussies from down south; MCG 4 times, and Docklands 3 times. http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/competitions/state-of-origin/venues.html Melbourne is not a heartland Rugby state either, but the All Blacks v Wallaby Bledisloe Cup has been played x3 times at the MCG, and x1 at Docklands. Richmond were scintillating in the GF, they were awesome to watch, and Hawks are my favourite Melbourne team. BUT.... recent history really highlights the bias!
bill
Guest
The homeground advantage which ALL intestate teams including Geelong enjoy, flatters their home and away record which helps give them a superior ladder position to the other victoria clubs which share Etihad and MCG as their home grounds (not to mention the deals where Victorian clubs play home games in Tasmania, Canberra and Darwin for $$ from the AFL). At the end of the day, Adelaide were only 2 points ahead of Richmond and Geelong at the end of the home and away season. Geelong sucked it up and played Richmond at the G. If anyone was hard done by, it would probably be Geelong but they sucked it up and got on with it. The intestate clubs can't have it both ways. Have their cake and eat it too.
Redb
Roar Guru
All these arguments would hold some weight if the tenants of the MCG were winning the GF each year. Let's look at the facts. Richmond - 1 flag in 37 years. Collingwood - 2 flags since 1958 Melbourne haven't won a flag since 1964. Hawthorn a recent tenant due to success has won 3 in the last 5 years because they were a dominant team. Geelong a dominant team won 3 in 5 years, but play at home stadium that bare held 22,000 previously. Nothing can beat the MCG in Australia, so bend the knee.
Redb
Roar Guru
No thanks.
Redb
Roar Guru
lol - so now the MCG is to blame for the GWS experiment. Hmmm,,,GWS would not exist without the economic power of Melbourne/MCG. chicken-egg argument.
Redb
Roar Guru
That's forgetting that most Grand Finals are lob sided Vic or interstate team, average winning margin is 35 points+
Leonard
Guest
NO, NEVER WAS, ISN'T NOW and NEVER WILL BE! No fake 'Sorry' for yelling. (We've had more than enough of them already.)
DrWildare
Guest
A break away Packeresque league is one of the most bizarre, ridiculous and improbable ideas to be raised in a long time. My labelling of the idea as either bizarre or ridiculous and improbable is supported by the following. Firstly you would need to find a party with deep enough pockets to sponsor this breakaway league. Certainly the free to air TV stations no longer have the resources to finance such a league and it is highly unlikely that Foxtel would finance it since they favourable broadcasting rights. Secondly should you find such a party you would then need to establish 10 - 12 new clubs. I doubt any of the 18 current clubs would or could break away from the AFL. You would then need to find grounds with adequate facilities for the clubs to plat from. I doubt any of the existing grounds could or would cater for teams from this new league. You would also need to find sponsors for the teams. Then you would need to create a fan base for these clubs. Finally you would have to attract players to this break away league. If you succeed in addressing the issues in the first point your it doesn’t stop there that’s only the beginning. Secondly you would need to address the Australian legal issues. I can guarantee you if you tried to setup a breakaway league the AFL would use all legal channels to prevent it from proceeding this would especially be the case if any of the existing teams intended to join the breakaway league. Finally should the AFL lose its challenge in the courts what would you call the league. You could not call it the NFL as the NFL in the USA owns that copyright. You could not call it the AFL so potentially something like the NAFL. In conclusion it is obvious a breakaway league could not occur in the short to medium term.
Anthony
Roar Pro
True, but this would be paid for through broadcast rights, sponsors, and gatetakings for the additional finals. For players association. I mentioned earlier in the thread. The AFL needs cardiologists and an investigation into the 15-20km marathon players run. If they can cap the distance players are allowed to clock during a game, then there should be no barriers from a player welfare perspective when it comes to a best of three finals series. Further I have a strong suspicion that AFLPA, particularly those from the Fremantle, West Coast, Adelaide and Sydney and Port Adelaide would support moves that gives them a fairer and more equitable opportunity to win a flag.
DrWildare
Guest
The AFL simple lay would be unable to move to a best of three Grand Final with agreement by the AFLPA. I doubt this would be agreed to in the next five years. Moving to a best of three Grand Final would also mean increased wages for players and necessitate a high salary cap.
Anthony
Roar Pro
Say channel 9 or 10 secured Broadcast rights, which team are you suggesting form the nucleus? I'm assuming you are suggesting an 10-12 team NFL along the lines of; - West Coast Eagles WA - Fremantle Dockers WA - Adelaide Crows. ADL - Port Power. ADL - Brisbane Lions BNE - Sydney Swans SYD - x3 Victorian Teams VIC And then add to this list; - Tasmania TAS - 3rd WA team WA - 3rd SA team SA
Anthony
Roar Pro
The beauty of a best of three series means the MCG would be filled to capacity in game 2. All other gate takings are just cream on top. Hosting a Grand Final should only be open really to the two teams playing in the Grand Final Series. They should be entitled to take part of that stadium revenue. I would be inclined to leave stadium sizes alone. Grand Finals in each city wouldn't occur in every year and you don't want empty stadiums. Only Docklands might be in need to a rethink. Get rid of the roof, increase the playing dimensions, and add extra crowd capacity.