Vic bias and the AFL fixture: Does it exist?

Aside from comparing AFL footballers to members of the 1998 Chicago Bulls, no topic used up more ink in the 12-week season break than the issue of Victorian bias.

The issue came to prominence in April after the WA and SA state governments relaxed COVID-19 restrictions and increased the limit on outdoor gatherings to ten people, seemingly paving the way for their local teams to train in larger groups.

In response, AFL football operations manager, Steve Hocking, who had been approached from Victorian clubs concerned about interstate clubs gaining an unfair advantage, moved quickly to ensure that all clubs understood that competitive equalisation measures remained in place, and all players would only be able to train with one other player.

The debate about Vic bias has raged on ever since, with the announcement of the rolling fixture seeing some question the AFL’s impartiality when considering how the fixture impacts interstate clubs. This article examines the issue of Vic bias by considering how the 2020 AFL fixture (as originally scheduled) favours or burdens different teams, states, and stadium tenants.

Interstate vs intrastate games
Those who complain about Vic bias will generally start by pointing out how few interstate games Victorian clubs play. The below charts examine how many games each team plays interstate.

The results here are unsurprising. With ten out of the 18 AFL clubs based in the state, Victorian clubs play considerably more games within their own state as compared to non-Victorian clubs.

For the Victorian clubs, MCG tenant clubs play slightly more interstate games than Marvel Stadium tenant clubs. NSW clubs average the most amount of games outside of their state, predominantly due to GWS playing four games a year in Canberra. Queensland’s figures are also inflated by Gold Coast playing a home game in Darwin.

Home-state advantage? Taking on the locals or blow-ins?
When accusations of Vic bias are levelled, a common rebuttal is that non-Victorian clubs are fortunate to play more of their home games against interstate teams. Inherent in this argument is an assumption that there is an advantage to play home games against interstate teams.

If we take this assumption to be true, the below charts consider which teams, clubs and tenants benefit most.

To consider home-state advantage, it has been assumed that any home fixtures which are not located in that team’s home state (e.g. GWS in Canberra, Hawthorn and North Melbourne in Tasmania, Melbourne and Gold Coast in the Northern Territory) are still home games against interstate teams. The Round 17 fixture in Launceston between North Melbourne and Hawthorn has been classified as a Hawthorn home game against an interstate rival.

Non-Victorian clubs play ten of their home games against interstate teams. By comparison, Victorian clubs average just under six home games per year against interstaters. Marvel tenants average slightly more home games against interstate teams than MCG tenants.

If we assume that (1) it is an advantage to play an interstate team at home, and (2) there is no advantage when playing intrastate teams at home, the figures suggest that non-Victorian clubs are significantly advantaged by home fixturing.

Those who rally against Vic bias will often extend this argument further and contend Victorian clubs are at a greater disadvantage when playing interstate as they are less familiar with interstate venues (due to having fewer opportunities to play there).

The ‘familiarity advantage’ argument is based on the fact that generally (although not always) non-Victorian clubs will have multiple opportunities to play at the MCG and Marvel Stadium each year.

On the other hand, it is conceivable that some Victorian clubs might go a year (or longer) without playing at venues in WA, SA, NSW, or Queensland. The ‘familiarity advantage’ is not considered by this article, however some would argue that it is further evidence that non-Victorian teams enjoy a greater advantage when playing at home.

Away-state disadvantage? In familiar territory or crossing borders?
The below chart considers the other side of the coin – do Victorian clubs play more away games against their intrastate rivals?

The above charts demonstrate Victorian clubs are less likely to play away games against interstate teams.

If we assume that (1) it is a disadvantage to play an away game interstate, and (2) there is no disadvantage when playing an away game within your home state, then non-Victorian clubs are more likely to be disadvantaged when playing away.

Non-Victorian clubs are at a disadvantage for ten games each year, playing only one away game within their home state. Victorian clubs average 5.3 games a year where they play an away game against an interstate team (i.e. 5.3 games where they are disadvantaged). The difference between MCG tenants and Marvel Stadium tenants is negligible.

If the two preceding sections are considered together, they suggest that non-Victorian clubs face more extremes in the fixture – a greater advantage when playing at home, but also a greater disadvantage when playing away.

What constitutes an advantage?
Some might assert the above analysis to be too simplistic and argue that instead of focussing on the state where the game is played, we should consider the venue which hosts the game. To put this into practice, the below assumptions are adopted:

• Advantage – a team has an advantage where (1) they are playing at their home ground and (2) the game is against a team who does not share that home ground.
• Neutral – a team does not have an advantage or disadvantage where (1) they are playing at their home ground, and (2) the opposing team shares that home ground.
• Disadvantage – a team has a disadvantage where (1) they are not playing at their home ground, and (2) the venue is the home ground for the opposing team.

Due to the number of Victorian teams and the AFL’s desire to maximise crowd sizes and revenue, there are occasions (such as where Geelong ‘hosts’ Hawthorn at the MCG in Round 4) where a ‘home’ team can be disadvantaged.

For the purposes of the below analysis, it is also assumed home fixtures which are not located at a team’s primary home ground (e.g. GWS games in Canberra, Hawthorn and North Melbourne games in Tasmania, Melbourne and Gold Coast games in NT, and Western Bulldogs games in Ballarat) are still played at the team’s ‘home ground’.

Home-ground advantage? Fighting off invaders or playing your roommates?

For non-Victorian clubs, the situations remain much the same. As WA and SA clubs share a home ground, they continue to be ‘advantaged’ in ten home games each year. NSW and Queensland teams receive a slight bump under the new rules (11 home games with an advantage), with all four teams having separate home grounds from their intrastate rivals.

Notably, under the new assumptions, Victorian clubs average 7.7 games with a home-ground advantage. This is higher than the number of games (5.5) where Victorian clubs enjoy a home-state advantage. MCG tenants (8.25 games) are more likely to enjoy a home-ground advantage than Marvel tenants (7 games) and are also less likely to face a home-ground disadvantage than Marvel tenants (0.75 to 1 game).

Perhaps the most unique Victorian team is Geelong, who enjoy nine home games with an advantage due to playing at GMHBA Stadium. Some of the other Victorian teams (Hawthorn, Richmond and St Kilda) were also slated to enjoy nine home games with an advantage in 2020, however (and without the research to confirm this) it may be that Geelong’s advantage is more likely to be repeated in future years due to having their own stadium.

Away-ground disadvantage? Storming the fort or on familiar ground?

When adopting the same assumptions for away games, the figures demonstrate non-Victorian clubs are more likely to be disadvantaged when playing away games as compared with Victorian clubs. Victorian clubs are still disadvantaged for most of their away games (just under eight games), however they are also occasionally afforded an advantage for an away game.

There are marginal differences between MCG and Marvel Stadium tenants; MCG tenants more likely to be advantaged and disadvantaged when playing away.

Ground advantage or disadvantage: Net winners and losers
If we combine the figures for home-and-away games, and consider a game with a ground advantage to be worth +1 and a game with a ground disadvantage to be worth -1, the below results are produced:

Under these new assumptions, Richmond (+4), St Kilda (+3) and Melbourne (+3) are the clubs who were set to be most favoured by the original 2020 fixture, while Essendon (-4), Carlton (-3) and Geelong (-3) were handed the greatest disadvantage. Notably, MCG tenants also have a better run at it, having an average ground advantage of +1.5, while Marvel tenants’ average ground disadvantage is -0.6.

Games at the MCG
Another regular bone of contention among AFL fans is how many times each team gets to play at the MCG. Supporters from non-Victorian clubs regularly claim that their teams are disadvantaged by playing so few games at the grand final venue.

As expected, Victorian clubs (especially MCG tenant clubs) get significantly more games at the ground than non-Victorian teams. Surprisingly, Marvel tenant clubs average just one more game a year at the MCG when compared with NSW clubs.

Travel: Globetrotters or just the occasional holiday?
The below charts show how far and wide each team travels each year. The figures for “kilometres travelled” includes flight distance only (and does not include any distance travelled by road). The figures also assume that direct flights are available (and used) between each Australian city (which may not be the case, particularly for WA clubs).

WA clubs clearly cover the greatest distance, while Queenslanders are a clear second. Somewhat surprisingly, the average distance covered by SA and NSW clubs is not substantially different to the average distance covered by Victorian clubs. Perhaps even more surprisingly, Melbourne were scheduled to travel a greater distance than any of the SA and NSW clubs (primarily due to making two trips to Perth).

Combining the data

If we combine some of these figures and plot the teams against each other, we get a collection of results which includes the following:

So, what does the Roar community think; did Vic bias exist in the original AFL fixture?