So, the starting field of eighteen has been whittled to eight: five teams from Victoria and three from the other (mainland) states. Bearing in mind that Victoria provides the majority shareholding, that feels as close as possible to proportional representation.
The mathematicians among you, however, will be quick to point out that it’s not. On a Victoria versus The Rest basis, a 50-50 breakdown of finalists actually goes closer to representing the ratio of the two categories of team.
No complaint about that, though, as what we have is a result achieved on merit. Last year, five of the non-Victorian clubs made the finals, giving the minority cohort a 62.5 per cent representation!
As we know, that wasn’t enough to prevent ‘Old Big-Ears’ – the AFL premiership cup – staying in the state from where the game is administered. And it started some murmurings of disquiet from outside Victoria’s borders.
Richmond’s win over Adelaide marked the fifth straight year in which a Victorian team had beaten an interstate opponent in the Grand Final.
The case is now being mounted in some quarters that the AFL’s long-term contractual deal with the Melbourne Cricket Club, to play the season decider at the MCG, provides an unfair advantage to the Victorian teams.
Of course, it’s rubbish.
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
The fact is that, since the expansion of the competition in the late-1980s, the flag has – without obvious exception – been won by the most deserving team.
The best single exhibit against that sweeping statement is not a non-Victorian team, but Geelong in 2008. The Cats won 23 of 24 games that year before losing on the big day.
But our season’s champion is decided on a one-off, winner-take-all basis, and Hawthorn found a way. That they did it in 30-degree heat, having lost two men before half-time, rules out luck as the reason. The Hawks won – and won well – when it counted.
Anyway, have a look through the outcomes of the last five years and tell me which one (or more) was an injustice.
Was Hawthorn not the best team in its three-year premiership reign? Two of the Grand Final wins were absolute floggings, to the extent that there could be no argument about the result. This was one of history’s great teams.
Eagles fans might bemoan that their team beat the Hawks in Perth earlier in the 2015 finals. But Collingwood beat Brisbane in a Qualifying Final in 2003. Sometimes these things happen.
And remember Hawthorn had to go to Perth twice in the 2015 finals series and, with its guard up on the second trip, proved too good for Fremantle in a Preliminary Final.
Then there’s the Western Bulldogs’ 2016 win over Sydney. Almost from the moment the Dogs won that flag, questions were raised about their legitimacy.
Yet this flies in the face of the facts, for no club ever produced a grittier, more impressive finals campaign.
Week one in Perth, they trounced the Eagles. Week two, and three-time champion, Hawthorn, was given a start, reeled in, and overwhelmed. Week three at Spotless Stadium saw the Dogs pitted against GWS: the so-called orange Ferrari. And the Giants, too, were bettered after an epic struggle.
In the Grand Final, the more experienced Swans – who had known the MCG Grand Final experience twice in the preceding four years – were the opponent. They’d lost to GWS two weeks earlier but now had the benefit of the double-chance.
But… again the Dogs won. Don’t give me that one about the Swans being hard-done-by.
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
And don’t try it on me, either, in relation to Adelaide last year. Look at the subsequent paths taken by the 2017 Grand Finalists.
Quite simply, by September last year the Tigers had advanced far more than anyone realised. They’d become a superior team to the Crows.
The cracks exposed in the Adelaide ranks on the big day have become gaping holes. Richmond has revealed itself to be a champion team.
There was no injustice last year. And neither was there in any of the other years in which Victorian teams have met non-Victorian Grand Final rivals.
Does anyone want to argue Port Adelaide would’ve reversed Geelong’s 119-point margin in 2007? You could have played that one anywhere this side of the moon and got the same result.
North Melbourne were too good for a developing Sydney in 1996. And Hawthorn beat West Coast away – as well as at home – during the 1991 finals series.
Outstanding teams have travelled to Melbourne and beaten Victorian teams in seven Grand Finals. Victorian teams have prevailed eight times against visitors. The full history must be examined, not just a selective, recent sample.
Come Grand Final day, with everything to play for and a sense of occasion that lifts both teams, the MCG is everyone’s home ground.
Jai Thomas
Roar Rookie
I really think you need to pivot the thinking here from "most deserving winner" (something you've manufactured) to simply "most deserving host". Using the Hawks of 1991 as an example.....doesn't even make sense given the game wasn't even at the MCG. There are so many flaws in this article that its really just propaganda.
Roger Gambitt
Roar Rookie
This is more than just talking results. It is about families unable to afford to watch their team who finished top to play in a GF.
Roger Gambitt
Roar Rookie
OMG - you do realise that three of those games were played by only interstate teams. It would be a bit hard for a Vic team to win the GF when they are not even playing....rofl!!!!
Roger Gambitt
Roar Rookie
AFL just has to ackoledge the unfairness of the system and get on with it. Everyone just wants people to acknowledge the truth and that at least takes a bit of the distaste away.
Roger Gambitt
Roar Rookie
Put an asterix against every Vic win where they play their away GF in comfortable old Melbourne.
Roger Gambitt
Roar Rookie
If this game was played in Adelaide - as they certainly deserved the right - then Richmod would have fallen in a heap....just like they had for every interstate game for the last 15 months (excpet their last against a deflated GC).
Roger Gambitt
Roar Rookie
And the fact Adelaide thumped Richmond in both games either side of this game (both in Adelaide) shows nothing.....one day you may admit to yourself there is a thing called home ground advantage. The coaches know it....some of them even send their ruckman interstate one day earlier to the rest of the team because the tra vel apparently affects them more....nuff said.
Roger Gambitt
Roar Rookie
Geelong had to play their home game at MCG - if it was played at Kardia Park the cats would have pummelled them.
Roger Gambitt
Roar Rookie
Cough cough...the only team they have beaten interstate for last 15 months is Gold Coast. Keep dreaming.
Roger Gambitt
Roar Rookie
You do know that Victorian players play for interstate teams....they will want to play in Victoria but I doubt many of the non-Vic players do (excpet those playing for the Vic sides).
Gary
Roar Rookie
Trump won the collegiate vote, which secures the presidency, but did NOT win the popular vote... he fell ~2 million votes short. Gerrymandering and social media manipulation played a part in securing the collegiate vote.
Bangkokpussey
Roar Rookie
Of course the MCG teams have a home advantage. It hasn't been as glaring obvious and to some degree could be overlooked in the past, until all the MCG based teams improved to the point of a flag challenge as is the case this year. As an ex Victorian (if there is such a thing), I believe the fairest system would be in the home town of the minor premier if they make the Grand final. This will not happen in the short term so the only alternative is no home MCG teams. All teams play an equal (or close to) number of games at the MCG. All teams travel interstate and play each other twice home and away. Unfortunately teams would need to be culled and the most logical place for that is Victoria (2 teams) and the traditional Rugby states (1 team each). Leaving two teams in WA and SA and 1 in Sydney and 1 in Brisbane and a maximum of eight in Victoria, although that wont happen any time soon.
Fat Toad
Roar Rookie
Tottenham Hotspur at Wembley, so what now?
Jonboy
Roar Rookie
It appears the only one's that agree with the author are Richmond supporters. Who does he support ?
Fat Toad
Roar Rookie
Where ever the finals are played, there will be home ground advantages. Even if the ground was on a desert island and used only once a year, one team would likely be disadvantaged by travel, climate etc. One of the key reasons for a final in Melbourne is simply economic, more people will buy tickets. From the perspective of the AFL and how it allocates funding etc this predictability is important. For example, the AFL is only in the position to support the women's game because of its financial position. Even the new stadium in Perth seats only 60K, the G provides seating for a paying crowd 50% larger, money does count. Additionally, the logistical requirements to just feed and water people are enormous, some people reading may remember the news articles about the efforts on short notice to have the draw between Collingwood and St Kilda replayed. Where ever the finals are played it is not possible logistically to allocate them on a week to week basis according to who is playing in the GF. (Perhaps for the lead up games.) Melbourne crowds will turn out for any final, but there is no evidence that there would be reasonable crowds in the other states for two out of state teams. In fact the evidence is counter to that. If states wanted to have the GF interstate, would they indemnify the AFL against loss of revenue in a Melbourne GF? Unlikely, but worth considering. While the G is not a perfect situation, it is equitable, economically viable, and predictable in the way it plays. But in the discussion about home ground advantage, perfect is the enemy of good.
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
A truly neutral venue for the Grand Final would not nvolve any team's Home Ground! Perhaps all tenants need to be removed from the MCG. Make Etihad the Home Ground for Richmond etc. The AFL can still schedule Games at the MCG throughout the season, but on a 2 or 3 year rolling average every club (including the "interstate" clubs) get to play the same number of games there each year. Essendon v Collingwood (etc) can still be one of those MCG games. The Grand Final would then be played at a "neutral" venue (notwithstanding travel issues which can not be overcome).
Luc
Guest
Spoken like a true Victorian whos bias is so indoctrinated he cant see the wood from the trees... Name me ONE sporting code around the world where the team that finishes on top of the ladder then has to travel to the homeground of the team that finished below them then play infront of the lower teams homegrounds fans..its a floored system.. In fairness to both sides The big dance must be at a nuetral venue..fullstop.
Fairsuckofthesav
Roar Rookie
A cheap shot. The only way the MCG could afford to maintain and upgrade is via the guarantee of the GF. It is simply a question of money. Your comment couldn't be further away from reality or is that 'backward' thinking?
Fairsuckofthesav
Roar Rookie
Cheap shot. Sounds like the one that needs to get out is your goodself
Fairsuckofthesav
Roar Rookie
This is a projected arrogance that the Crows 'thought they had it won'. According to who? And on what evidence? If anything the Crows were overawed which again points to a lack of familiarity with the ground.