Home ground advantage means more for, and to, some AFL teams than others

Where was this article while Hawthorn were winning 13 in a row in 2014-15 on the way to three premierships, all the while maintaining a "second home" at Launceston where they won 19 in a row? You're all sour because Richmond is important again and I choose to disregard your whinging.

Of course MCG tenants have an advantage. not only in ground size but the type of playing surface how the wind swirls at height and at ground level even without the home town crowd. I would like to see a more uniform ground size across the board. Every team playing each other both home and away. This would at least mitigate some advantage.

Well said. The stats say it all. Play two GFs one at the G and one at the interstate team's home ground. Whoever has the higher percentage wins.

Bit rich given the Dogs have made an artform out throwing the ball.

And Wade, Modra, Capper . . . point is that the aforementioned comment re Lynch is outrageous to say the least. Short memory or a teen, Lroy?

I have crunched the numbers and there exists a definitive home state advantage in interstate finals. Since the first interstate final in 1986 there have been 157 interstate finals played. The record is 115-41 in favour of the home side with one draw (not counting extra time). The hosts enjoy a healthy 73% win percentage in home finals over a substantial sample size going back 32 years. BUT... You're going to tell me that the MCG is a neutral ground. Let's see what the numbers tell us. There have been 64 finals between a Victorian and interstate team at the MCG over the past 32 years. The Victorian team has won 45 times, interstate team 19 times. Victorian teams enjoy a healthy 70% win percentage at the MCG against an interstate team in a final. That number is skewed a little by the farcical situation in 2004 where Brisbane were forced to play a home prelim at the MCG (on a Saturday night no less), West Coast and Adelaide playing home finals at the MCG in the 90's in which they were able to win. Those were super teams. West Coast and Adelaide were virtual state teams. If they were good enough to win a "home" final at the MCG, they were probably good enough to win a home final at Subiaco or Footy Park. If we removed those results from the calculations which would skew the results even further in favour of the Victorian teams at the MCG. Either way, the difference between 70% and 73% is of no real statistical significance. The MCG is no more neutral for Adelaide than Adelaide Oval is for Richmond.

There is an anomaly like that every few years; in the season where West Coast made the grand final, I believe they had a similar kind of statistic, if not quite that absurd. In an ideal world, home ground and travel distance wouldn't play a role in the determination of a result, but this isn't an ideal world. All my post extends to is to point out that only dismantling the advantage that MCG tenants get if they make it to the grand final - or if they come top 2/4 - is unfair if you consider the seasonal advantage drawn from a greater home ground advantage during the home and away year. The way I've always seen it is that it's easier to win a Grand Final for a victorian side, but it's harder to get there.

I was looking for a side that had a substantial history of playing games in Melbourne, at home, in front of big crowds. Collingwood seemed to be a decent choice. And seeing as that was your objection, I recognised the limits of my analysis in my post, via the paragraph towards the end.

I really don't get the 60k argument. The reality is the Afl and most of it's fans are perfectly happy to let teams based in different states play finals at home but then come grand final day all of a sudden that extra 50-40000 counts? I just don't get it, if seating is that important why let teams play finals anywhere but the G, why let GWS host a final at its home venue? besides a fair few grand finals at the g less people can attend then want to anyway so why 100000 missing out is that much worse then 50000 i don't know. Personally i think there would be much more engagement with the grandfinal if the best team actually got the home ground advantage. They earned it after all. The current situation is also at odds with the AFL's equalisation measures. All that being said i can't see the grandfinal being held in Tassie or Queensland any time soon but can't think of any good reason not to allow SA, WA and NSW to hold the grand final.

Did you forget to mention Sumich,the greatest left-footed full forward?

'Alistair Lynch was as good a full forward whose(sic) ever played the game.' Lol. Not even close to the best. Lockett, Dunstall, Hudson, McKenna, Pratt, Coleman, Evans . . . the list goes on.

Nah wouldnt'd be 12. Id guess about robert walls age.

Nope,you're wrong.Watched it three or four times.He had possession,took a fumbling step,got tackled,free(most days)

I used statistics to back up my argument, if you dont agree with that good for you. Somebody else quoted another stat that interstate sides are 8 losses and 2 wins in the last 5 years in Melbourne against sides that finished lower than them on the ladder. My stats dovetail nicely with that so I stand by what i wrote. I used to watch the Lions live from 96-99 (before they won a flag) and their average winning margin in 99 was 50 points!! IVe never seen anything like it in my life. They beat the Eagles by 150 one day, most of that side had played in the 94 premiership side and they ended up playing finals that year. They werent a bunch of teenagers like GWS and GC were when they were losing badly. Name one other time a finals side has been bested by 150 points by the eventual premiers in the home and away series. I put it to you its never happened before which confirms my synopsis that Brisbane were an outlier due to the merger and the salary cap concessions. We will never see their like again. Alistair Lynch and Chris Johnson were key pieces of that triple premiership side, if they arent in the side, the Lions don't win 3 flags. Alistair Lynch was as good as any full forward whose ever played the game. They made a huge difference.

However, if you include Brisbane in the equation (defeating Essendon in '01 and Collingwood in 02 and 03), then it becomes 6 wins from 13 for Interstate teams (about 46%). The truth is simple - if a team is good enough, they will win the GF no matter where it is played.

@Lroy IF (?) You are going to start going through history to support an argument AND the central pillar of your argument is how hard it is to beat a MCG tenant - you cannot leave out teams like the Lions who achieve it with dismissive comments that illogically serve as a rider against their result counting. You should AT LEAST go into as much depth, if not more to exclude these results. Brisbane Lions were ‘ a super team from a Fitzroy merger’ . When you wrote that ..... did that sound just a little bizarre to you ? Fitzroy hardly won any matches in their last 3 seasons, were regaularly thrashed and most of their good players left due to not being paid. A horrible situation and one that I have sympathy for faithful Roy fans out there. Brisbane could only choose 8 players from Fitzroy’s last squad and of those, only one played more than a handful of games, one player, Chris Johnson. Most of the Fitzroy players went to North Melbourne ( who won a flag in 1999) so maybe they need to be dismissed). The majority of the team was in place but young, inexperienced, gone through 3 coaches , a sacking and got a wooden spoon.(sound familiar) 4 years after the merger, 3 years after a wooden spoon they won a premiership or three. Every team going back through history had things happen, stories come out about who paid what to whom but in VFL, that is folklore. I do not mind the team being criticised or ridiculed for the 10% salary cap concession (although history shows what happened to young out of state players when the money offered was similar or even a little more - they left) or other reasons that fans may want to come up with. But if we remove their great accomplishments as an outlier because two of the most unsuccessful teams in the previous decade merged equating to a one player club transfer - now that is ridiculous. If nothing else, GWS and Suns have shown how hard it is to form a super club artificially. It takes a great coach who manages players well, a well run off field and good players playing good consistent footy to become a great team. And when they do accomplish great things, praise them for achieving what was so hard - not trying to find reasons to criticise or dismiss them. If this whole conversation is about how ‘easy’ MCG tenants have it in finals compared to interstate teams, shouldn’t the Lions achievement be all the more applauded. But that would both potentially diminish the argument and or raise the standing of the team. I think it is obvious about home stadia advantage and umpiring decisions being affected by roar of affirmation. If this discussion is pushing for more equality, I am all for it. The nirvana “a level playing field”. The reality is unless we move to a tamplate of the NFL where 1 team towns play each other once, have a completely random venue from the two teams in final - we have inherent biases. The team I support plays in Qld, you cannot get more disadvantaged than that. But the constant complaint about an expanded VFL versus a national comp is equality and non bias. The dynamics of the competition by its very nature is biased. Encouraging strategic changes like suggested earlier by Rick is appropriate and solution focussed. We have 50 years to wait for 1/ moving from MCG 3/ 10 000 extra is a great idea and should come with subsidised packages from the AFL (for the fans) 2/ I disagree with . Your reasoning is sound about Etihad and neutrality . There is just something about making the ground different. One of the best things about AFL is tradition, testing oneself at the big colosseum, on the big stage . Making the ground smaller or more neutral although fairer, makes the accomplishment lesser. I would rather the fixture attempt each team have an average of 2.5 games over 3 years. That would help a little and that is what we are talking about. The challenge is not to make the game completely fair but in the words of one of my favourite shows The West Wing it should be hard, a man (woman) works hard and it it their job to provide that(.....). I do not mind that it is hard, just if it could made a little bit easier.” For teams like West Coast this year, Adelaide last year, whoever in the years to come - just a little bit easier.

Hey Rob - the only reason the VFL allowed interstate clubs to join was because many clubs in the VFL were going broke and would have folded without the injection of cash from the interstate clubs. Several of these Vic clubs are still benefiting/being propped up by the national comp. People talk about the cost of the Northern expansion clubs but having these teams added millions to the last broadcast deal - Those extra millions are now being used to help struggling Vic clubs survive. . So while you are correct in saying the interstate teams "chose" to join the VFL, you are kidding yourself if you don't acknowledge it was a win/win for both parties. And I think 30 years down the track, you need to get over the idea that this comp is still really just an expanded VFL. If all the interstate clubs decided to break away and form their own league the VFL would last about 5 minutes.

#Mattyb Reducing the VFL clubs to a more sensible number is more a logic to apply to the NSWRL clubs in the NRL - but hey - they kinda did that post Superleague anyway. The AFL has a massive strength in the 'home' states - and the rating/attendance/participation fortresses that are Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide are much stronger home markets than either Sydney or Brisbane is for the NRL. It would be dangerous to cut away at the VFL heartland of the AFL simply because even the lesser clubs are running around 35-40,000 members and that is the envy of every other code in the country. A game like soccer is big, in Sydney and NSW and Nrthn NSW. It might be able to claim #1 on participation by some stats and interpretations - but it's Australian heartland is Sydney which is the NRL fortress and the AFL has a solid incursion. Point is - if the AFL cut back on clubs in Melbourne you then disenfranchise many thousands of fans/supporters and create a vacuum to allow the other codes in. No way is that a good idea just to appear more 'fair'. The reality is that Polly Farmer and Barry Cable and Malcolm Blight etc headed to the VFL to test themselves in the best league. Don't sweat it. I'm actually a big fan of further expansion - go 20 teams and 2 conferences - have more players playing and create more opportunities. Set up a Pacific Academy in Fiji and see the talent that can come through.

Oh well, too bad so sad. We did invent footy and create the greatest footy ground on earth. All you blokes did was worry about what we're doing and mooch off our success.

Dude, it's true.