I'm not talking about a night at Sizzlers. That's stepping up with a plate. Nor is it showing Stepped up to the plate. Yep. The Dees had a good win yesterday but one word sums it up. St Kilda. up with a plate. That's what the little lady does at a Lions Club barby. With the cocktail onions and coleslaw! And none of that bloody wog Tuh-booly grass muck either! Nope, I'm talking about what the Demons did yesterday. Got it back on track. Won one for the boys.
NB: Speaking of time-honoured mindless cliches that have yet to pass the test of time. I'm pretty damn sure that when Ashley Sampi kicks a goal off the ground, Jason Bennett's rapturous cry of "David Beckham! Eat your heart out!" won't cause Mister Posh to go green with envy and topple off his wallet.
Meanwhile, over at My Two Cents, Parker? - "Yes M'lady" - has decided to get stuck into my statement that the Western Australian teams benefit from their home ground advantage to a greater extent than their Victorian counterparts. At least we both agree there's such a thing as a home ground advantage. Where I don't agree is with his assertion that because the WA teams travel ten times a year and the Victorian teams three to six that the Vic clubs suffer no real disadvantage by comparison. He's wrong of course. And in being so, he's comprehensively missed my point. To whit, it's not his "Away Ground Disadvantage" but my "Home Ground Advantage" that's the issue. For the Victorian clubs the West's beguiling symmetry of "every second week" doesn't exist. Come to think of it, I can see how it could distort the communal perspective over there and how it may have led Gareth to jump to the wrong conclusion. The WA media are unlikely to help the situation either. The fact is though, the Victorian clubs don't travel as often but also don't get a home ground advantage every second week. The Western Australians DO travel every second week but every other week they get a bull-moose home ground advantage. West Coast gets ten home games against interstate teams and in a good year might win all or most to set up a finals place. Not a confronting task if the Coasters are travelling well. In the past they've also had the advantage of a gimme against the Dockers. This year it's fifty/fifty but if the Eagles win both that's twelve wins and finals certainty. Purely from playing at home. Toss in a couple away wins and they're a contender for top four. What then, of the Victorian teams? Well, Gareth is the one suffering booze related brain trauma if he thinks "Melbourne still playing 13 times on its own ground the MCG" constitutes a comparable home ground advantage. In fact, it's nothing of the sort. What he's conveniently overlooked is that ten of them are against other sides that want to play there and consider it as good as a home game. This year Melbourne only gets a home ground advantage against West Coast, Freo and Port. We only play the Cows in Adelaide. What about Brisbane and Sydney, I hear you ask? Well, Melbourne has been playing Brisbane up there lately (that's Melbourne's choice) but before when they played here, there were as many Fitzroy supporters as there were Melbourne ones. So there's no advantage here against Brizroy. When it comes to Sydney, the last time the Pinks played Melbourne at the MCG their fans more than doubled Melbourne's. Those old Blooders consider Sydney games in Melbourne as home games too. It also shouldn't be forgotten that the Victorian side of the equation is further weakened when you consider that oftentimes Melbourne plays the Eagles, Dockers, Port & Cows at either Optus or Telstra. Not even the Dee's nominal home grounds. As well as home games at both against the Roos, Saints and Dogs. The upshot is that when it comes to opportunities to build a season, because that's what a solid home ground advantage amounts to, West Coast has TEN and Melbourne FOUR. Three this year. All in all it's clear the home ground advantage enjoyed by the West Coast and the Dockers far outweighs that enjoyed by any of the Victorian clubs. And further illustrates my original point in the post below that the competition is hopelessly compromised (intentionally or otherwise) and in a word, unfair. And that the AFL, in making any kind of claim about the MCC in turn being unfair is seriously tainting it's own credibility.
So, you got hardly any friends to support your teams?
That's not our fault mate. Also not our fault that you play games at Optus.
Again, if your 'fans' were willing to actually get up and go to the game, well, maybe they'd HAVE to play at the MCG.
How many members have Carlton? Only 19,000 turned up in the rain at Optus today, and there looked like a good sprinkling of Crows fans, both expats, and people that travelled.
We didn't see too many Melbourne fans at AAMI the other week.
Sure, it's not easy to build up a solid base in Melbourne when there's ten clubs in the city. Perhaps some of the weaker clubs need to be culled?
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 30 June 2003 at 03:34
Who's talking about FAULT Scott? Sadly you miss the point too. My point which is that it's not someone's FAULT that inequities exist. Because they just DO! Attributing fault and/or reason would take another 100 posts. And still nothing would be resolved. And anyway, I accept the National Competition. I mightn't be over the moon about it, but I accept it and am still prepared to do so in spite of the myriad obvious compromises, deals, conflicts of interest and advantages/disadvantages that exist.
What I don't accept is a car salesmen like Fast Andy Demetriou trying to sell me a lemon based on FAIRNESS. That reason has about as much credibility as Sepp Blatter's reasons for dudding our World Cup entry requirements (the state of Soccer Aust). That's bull shit! It's all about deals/politics. Just like what goes on in the AFL. Fairness? HA!
Posted by: Tony.T | 30 June 2003 at 14:05
What Gareth means by "Home ground advantage" isn't how many fans you get at the game. It's about not having to sit for 6 hours in a cramped plane, suffering the effects of altitude and recycled air, before getting on the field to run a half marathon.
There's not much bigger advantage than being able to leisurely drive to the ground, after having a nice home-cooked meal the night before.
Posted by: Yobbo | 30 June 2003 at 17:26
Yobbo is right. Crowds have fuck all to do with it. These guys don't earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to be intimidated by toothless football supporters. I have to perform in front of a hostile one every single week. (And none was more hostile than East Freo v East Perth on Saturday... just ask Craig "two weeks for abuse" Treleven).
Why did Mainwaring, Worsfold, Turley, Lewis, McKenna, Kemp, Pyke, Heady, (and soon Jakovich and McIntosh) all retire before the age of 34? Hint: it's not because Subiaco's penetrometer figures show it is firmer than the Whitten Oval.
Posted by: Gaz | 01 July 2003 at 01:04
"Sure, it's not easy to build up a solid base in Melbourne when there's ten clubs in the city. Perhaps some of the weaker clubs need to be culled?"
Yeah, because I'm sure if you killed Footscray/North Melbourne/Melbourne/St. Kilda (delete as applicable) all their fans are just going to go "Oh well, that's that done with - let's go and support another club".
It's all very easy for people who follow clubs that have been in the league for ten minutes to snipe but there'd be no national league without the Melbourne clubs. Christ there'd be no Australian Rules Football without the Melbourne clubs.
Posted by: Adam | 01 July 2003 at 13:44
Nice work Adam. Yeah, you blokes really think I'll be off to follow another club if Melbourne goes belly up. I barracked for Melbourne as a kid then changed to Carlton because they were successful then went back to Melbourne because it didn't feel right and their winning a flag didn't burn my jets. And because Carlton fans are massive wankers. I love the Dees and fuck anyone else.
However, I'm not some blindly parochial Victorian. Like I said, I wouldn't again follow another club here. I hate Colingwood, Essendon, Carlton, and especially Richmond much more than any interstate side with the possible exception of West Coast but I still wouldn’t support them. In fact, I'd much prefer Adelaide to win the flag than St Kilda. You blokes haven't met too many Saints fans, have you? Lucky. I'd probably feel the same about Port and Freo fans if I lived there but I don't so I don't care if they're successful. I know they're gonna be anyway.
And who the hell's talking about crowds? You blokes, that's who. We agree a home ground advantage exists. Why? Who knows? We can only speculate. But it DOES. And history's shown West Coast benefit from it more than most. So my point doesn't change. The Coasters get a great advantage at Crazy John and no one here has anything like it. And Yob's home cooked advantage applies to both Vic teams playing against each other on whatever weekend. Thus NO home ground advantage. Once again, that’s my point.
The travel excuse for injury is totally anecdotal and unanalysed. And refers to AWAY games anyway, not HOME as I’ve been pointing out. In all reality, it's just an "Old Mick's Tale". What's not a myth are the quantifiable injuries that are more likely to have contributed to their career’s ends.
Mainwaring – Shoulder & Knee – 200 games
Worsfold – Knee – 200 games
Turley – Back (At Melbourne) – 130 games
McKenna – Groin – 250 games
Heady – Neck & leg – 150 games
Jakovich – Knee – 250 games
McIntosh – Knee – 200 games
Pyke – Don’t know – 130 games
Kemp – Recurrent concussion – 250 games
Lewis – Recurrent loss of plot – 200 games
Firstly what stands out most is that the Coolers got an amazing run of games from their key players. Secondly, that's a shit load of 200 game players. Pretty good careers from where I'm looking. And thirdly, that it wasn’t so much Mick’s mystery travel bug that fucked them up but legitimate diagnosable injuries. McKenna and Jakovich have also played more games than ANY Melbourne player in history has.
By the way Gaz, what did Try Eleven call you? A White blogger?
Posted by: Tony.T | 01 July 2003 at 16:31
"In fact, I'd much prefer Adelaide to win the flag than St Kilda."
Did you enjoy the 1997 Grand Final as much as I did? Best GF in years!
Posted by: Adam | 01 July 2003 at 17:46
I've still got a copy of it on tape if you want a copy.
What's the go Tony? One post in a week... And your not back on the turps. I suspect you've got a wench tucked away somewhere. If so, stop shagging and start blogging.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 02 July 2003 at 01:10
How about that Scott? I was just working on one as you commented. A pretty lame one actually. I just wanted to make a comment on Trivia from last night and it got away from me and turned into some weird thing.
I think this being off the booze is draining my ideas away.
And yeah, Adam. I watched the '97 GF in a pub in North Melbourne and I was the only one in the place that back the Cows. By 24 points too. I can't remember the exact margin but it was pretty close to that. Won the pot. About $190. Why couldn't we play someone like St Kilda in a GF? Life's not fair.
Posted by: Tony.T | 02 July 2003 at 01:48