Nine rounds into the season and the competition is separating in the usual way.
We can start to look ahead knowing the likely finalists and the path they will have to take to win the flag.
Since 2000, on average 6.4 of the final eight have been in place after Round 9, a figure that doesn’t really budge too much higher for around about the next ten weeks of the season.
After an initial surge out of the gate – on average just over five of the final eight are known after Round 1 alone, which moves to six by Round 4 and about 6.5 over the next four weeks – not much changes for the rest of the season.
It serves as another reminder to trust your eyes when you see a team you fancied stumble out of the gate. More often than not the first four weeks of the season reveal a ton about how the rest of it will unfold.
Looking at you, Melbourne.
Demons head coach Simon Goodwin (Michael Dodge/Getty Images)
Round 9, 2019, and we know with reasonable confidence the three best teams right now are Geelong, Collingwood and the GWS Giants. Sitting below them are a few teams presented here in order of my confidence in them: Richmond, West Coast, Adelaide, Brisbane, Port Adelaide, Essendon and Fremantle.
If one were a better, I would look at somehow constructing a bet that let me compose any top eight involving those ten teams. This is the group that will make up this year’s finals series.
The Bulldogs have the talent but still look a year away from putting it together sustainably. They took it right up to the Cats over the weekend, punishing mistakes through the middle of the ground and not taking a backwards step as a midfield group.
Their form inside the forward and defensive arcs is a little too patchy to put them into that finals contention tier. The Hawks will surely begin to be in the tank soon.
So then we turn to what comes after what comes next: who is the premiership favourite? If you look at the markets, it’s Geelong. Pundits seem to think it’s Collingwood. GWS has to be mentioned if only because the club’s best play has been the best football anyone has played in 2019. Before too long the annual talk around the MCG factor will emerge.
Greater Western Sydney’s Jeremy Cameron (Michael Willson/AFL Photos/Getty Images)
It has in some circles, though, centred more on Geelong’s ability to host a final in the first week of proceedings if circumstances allow it. Such is the hold of the MCG for finals that a club that looks almost certain to finish on top of the ladder – if you review the various projections systems out there – treats an ask to play at its own ground as some sort of extraordinary request.
Not that the mystical MCG Factor (capital F, it’s a thing) mattered so much last year: West Coast triumphantly raised their flag on the MCG against an MCG tenant after going undefeated at the MCG throughout the year.
It got this column thinking: does the MCG Factor matter as much as we might think? And what does that mean for this year’s non-MCG claimants to the throne?
Remarkably, nine of the past 11 seasons have seen an MCG tenant club face a non-MCG tenant club in the last game of the season. The MCG tenants were on a hot streak, winning four in a row (which included Hawthorn’s threepeat and Richmond’s win in 2017). Were it not for The Right Honourable Dom Sheed’s drop punt from the MCG pocket in the last two minutes of last year’s grand final, the MCG tenants would have won the previous five finals where a tenant and a non-tenant faced off.
West Coast’s Dom Sheed (Michael Willson/AFL Media/Getty Images)
It was such a meme that even Mark Robinson from the Herald Sun felt empowered enough to dive in. He doesn’t cop enough grief over his ‘Victorians have a stranglehold on the premiership cup’ piece from the start of last year. Maybe it’s because no-one reads his column anymore.
West Coast changed the narrative a little with its win last year, but still, there will come a day before long that the records of Geelong and GWS (and perhaps West Coast and Adelaide and Port Adelaide) at the ‘G – and the meme that interstate sides can’t play the ‘G for reasons – will be used to discount their premiership chances. The data says hold the phone.
For those who have a life and can’t recite these off by heart, the grand final match-ups in question are (MCG tenant listed first, winner in bold):
- Hawthorn vs Geelong (2008)
- Collingwood vs St Kilda (2010)
- Collingwood vs Geelong (2011)
- Hawthorn vs Sydney (2012)
- Hawthorn vs Fremantle (2013)
- Hawthorn vs Sydney (2014)
- Hawthorn vs West Coast (2015)
- Richmond vs Adelaide (2017)
- Collingwood vs West Coast (2018)
Over those 11 seasons, interstate teams that made the grand final have performed better than admirably on the MCG in their runs. Those teams are a combined 27-11-1 in both home and away and finals series at the MCG with a winning percentage of 68 per cent. If we take grand finals (winning and losing) out of the equation, that percentage rises to 77 per cent.
There is a lot going on there. Survivorship bias is one – we’re looking at teams who are successful teams generally, so it should follow that they are good at the MCG too. Some of those teams played one or two games at the ‘G in the lead up to their grand final: Sydney (2012), Fremantle (2013) and West Coast (2015) were victims of that.
Some teams played against weak opponents through the home-and-away season, potentially suggesting the ground wasn’t a factor as much as the quality of the opponent.
However, there is a very limited relationship between full-season performance at the MCG and grand final performance. A great team might make a great MCG team and a great team probably makes a great grand final team, but a great MCG team doesn’t necessarily make a great grand final team.
No matter, the numbers do what the numbers always do: paint an interesting picture of history versus sentiment. An interstate team might be good enough that the venue impact doesn’t matter, and it can win anywhere.
That was certainly the case for Geelong in 2011, when it won all nine of its MCG games, including three finals (two of which were against tenant clubs).
And so it is for Geelong thus far in 2019. The Cats have played three of their five scheduled games at the MCG, winning all three games (including an early candidate for game of the year against presumptive second in charge Collingwood). Geelong has two more home-and-away season games to come at the MCG, against Richmond in Round 12 and Hawthorn in Round 18. They are good enough and healthy enough to win both.
The other presumptive premiership favourite has had a more torrid time at the MCG of late. GWS were beaten by an otherwise hapless Hawthorn a fortnight ago and play two more games at the grand final venue before the end of the year (Melbourne this weekend and Hawthorn in Round 17).
Geelong’s Patrick Dangerfield (Michael Willson/AFL Media/Getty Images)
The Giants are well placed to handle the Dees, even if there is some sort of mystical power holding them back at the MCG. The club’s injury list is remarkably pristine, particularly if you consider Jonathon Patton has about as much a chance of breaking into the Giants team in 2019 as I do.
Their launching pad for a premiership assault is as solid as it has been since their surprise surge into ninth in 2015 on the back of a powerful second half of the season.
A positive ledger at the grand final venue isn’t the be-all and end-all. But history does suggest the best teams can win regardless of the ground they are playing at. Being able to ‘play the ‘G’ matters, but perhaps not in the way that you think.
Parer Ben
Roar Rookie
I’m suggesting playing at home, for that many consecutive games, gives you a 12-20% increase of achieving form. That’s statistically significant leading into the finals. I’m not having a go either - the draw is what it is, unbalanced every year - just pointing out it’s a nice anomaly for the Tigers to have and potentially see them more of a flag fancy than I thought.
reuster75
Roar Rookie
I dunno Paul D, I just dunno
reuster75
Roar Rookie
When talking about the history of the AFL it has to start in 1990 as that was when the name changed to the AFL. What we need to do on top of that is stop saying 'such and such a club has won X flags in VFL/AFL history' as that is demeaning to the SANFL and WAFL. By all means respect the history of the VFL but treat that as a separate competition to the AFL (I am Victorian for the record). After all the stats for Victorian clubs that started life in the VFA before the VFL was created aren't included in official AFL history.
reuster75
Roar Rookie
not to mention how dumb it is that Geelong and Collingwood played in rd 1 and may not meet again this season depending on how the finals pan out.
Mick Jeffrey
Roar Rookie
I'm wary about this game, yes the G-Men should win and win handsomely but these are the types of games they've lost in recent years, against weak opposition in Melbourne (city not club). The Dees in theory are a stronger lineup than the likes of Carlton 2017 and St.Kilda last year whom they dropped points to (admittedly both under the roof) and also Hawthorn a few weeks ago. Biggest key is if Maxi gives Melbourne a 60/30/10 share of the ball from clearances (the 10 accounting for repeat stoppages) and puts the Giant back 6 under pressure enough times it's then up to how they convert.
RT
Roar Rookie
I've had similar problems with missing comments but then viewed comments in my profile, found them there and clicked on the links to find them on the article as expected....
Peppsy
Roar Guru
Geelong fans might complain, but at least they aren't GWS, imagine playing a home game against Hawthorn at the MCG in round 17
michael RVC
Roar Pro
Disagree, that is twisted logic to suit an argument that is designed to disguise what is in plain sight. The substantial privilege and advantage afforded Melb clubs in this comp. suggest you look at your local media with a little less convenience.
RT
Roar Rookie
I was never really whinging about it, nor did I say it was more of an advantage than the Vic stuff you listed. Everything is subjective. However there is no doubt it helped Sydney as did the retention allowance for Brisbane. Regardless COLA was a bogus excuse to give Sydney a higher cap. If cost of living should be considered then you'd give a lower cap for Adelaide clubs.
XI
Roar Guru
Yeah round 2 sounds right. I was hoping it was a sign of maturity and 'any team, anywhere" coming through. Not quite...
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Thats right XI. Id actually forgotten. It was very early from memory. Maybe round 2?
Cat
Roar Guru
"... when they have a decent team they perform well there." You can say that about any side. When they are good enough ...
Julian
Roar Rookie
While I agree with the bulk of your sentiment Ryan, I think Geelong skews the numbers. Geelong plays more than a handful of games every year at the G and reside around the corner. And more often than not, when they have a decent team they perform well there. In my opinion travel and opportunity play a much larger factor in the 'hoodoo'. What people really mean with the MCG Factor, is that non-Victorian teams can't win at the G. They rarely play there and have to travel when they do, more often than not against it well supported (Melbourne excluded) and in recent history, strong opponents. Sure some non-Victorian teams have had better luck at Docklands, but that's saying more about the opposition they face there.
michael RVC
Roar Pro
I wrote a reply earlier but it didn't seem to make it. Two years after cola was discontinued you still feel you have to complain about it as a reason that the Swans were successful. Cola has never won Sydney a game. Even if it had, I think that it is plain that no sane club would see any comparative balance between cola in one hand and all the stuff I listed in the other. Their is a distinct weight of advantage to Melb clubs. Cola was a reasonable tool to offset "Go Home" gaming by Vic clubs. It should still be in place.
michael RVC
Roar Pro
All true Fattie (am I allowed to say that?) but doesn't mean is cannot be resolved by a fair margin in favour of a less skewed competition. It certainly can be. If there was an appetite for addressing that amongst the footy community and it's admin, you would find a lot of the smaller winges would be overcome. I
Fat Toad
Roar Rookie
It should be clear to you, you wrote it. But, it is not entirely unambiguous to me. However, .... there will always be issues of getting 18 teams to fit into 22 rounds, travel, and finals. The AFL takes into account the drawing power of clubs, (Overhead costs are important! Would it be it equitable for a home club to subsidise an interstate club with limited Melbourne supporters at the G? Or best to use a smaller cheaper venue?), there is a need to schedule teams through the G, long v short breaks between games, blockbuster or theme rounds etc. Similarly, just baking enough pies to feed 100k is not easily done in a week, nor is getting staff on short notice if venues move on short notice based on results of any game. When ever this comes up its always more of a winge than any attempt to address the realities of what the AFL has to run.
Fat Toad
Roar Rookie
I can see your concerns, and have wondered about them previously. What I have never really been able to work out is how to do thinks very differently. Even the topic of the location of the GF comes up again! But I am still to see a system that brings together all of the problems around fairness, logistics, finances, etc that will work. Its never perfect because there are so many compromises and things playing off against one another.
Fat Toad
Roar Rookie
COLA was Cost Of Living Allowance. When the cost of living in Sydney and Melbourne became close the rationale for the COLA was removed. Sydney was always able to make other arguments for assistance. People forget that part of the reason for COLA being in the cross hairs were several Sydney officials openly boasting that they were not using the COLA to distribute evenly across the salary cap but cacheing it to have the salary cap space to attract marque players from other clubs.
XI
Roar Guru
We did manage to beat you there last year. Albeit in the H&A season and not when it would have been useful
michael RVC
Roar Pro
And yet you still feel you have to whinge about it? I think it is plain that my proposition that cola was (abolished 2 years ago) a miniscule tool in favour of the Swans compared to those I have listed is perfectly valid. I think it is also plain that the Swans 22 players lined up against the same number of opposition when cola was around and it did not impact the outcome of any of those games. But the advantages to Melb clubs do impact games. Yes, it may have helped with player retention, which might have been a good enough offset against (e) above. But no, the whingers in Melb coundn't cope with Swans being successful, so had to make a big hoo ha about it. Of course, Gilligan was going to be sympathetic.