-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Is Telstra Dome killing footy?
- Thread starter tigerjoe
- Start date
waitingfortonight said:
Richmond at the Telstra Dome:
Played 42 matches.
Won 16, Lost 26.
I don't know what the average losing margin is but yeah it would be a lot. Worse thing about losing so many more games at the dome than winning is that most of those games are vs interstate teams. This just shows how much of a homeground factor Richmond loses by playing at the Dome.
I hate the Dome because of our loss of any home ground advantage.
Adelaide play at the Dome nearly as often as we do. So it's their "2nd" home ground.
I want the AFL to give the 4 permanent MCG clubs 11 home games at the G. And the 4 permanent Dome Clubs to play all their home games at the Dome. But I know it won't happen (block busters etc) because the AFL is more concerned with Gate Revenue than equity.
Look at the way the game has been heading. 2005-6 the top teams were Adelaide/WCE/Sydney. 2001/2/3/4 the top teams were Lions/Port. There are 3 main reasons why this is so. Salary cap concessions (Brisbane), membership revenue and 11 home games with a genuine home ground advantage apply to all these teams.
For Victorian clubs to compete we must be on equal terms with the interstate clubs. But we are unable to compete financially; leaving only the home ground advantage as the method of making things more equitable. And guess what? If RFC was given 11 home games at the G we would (1) win more games, (2) attract more members, (3) have no need for the AFL to assist us financially. The same applies to all Victorian Clubs.
Presently, it's only Collingwood who get the home ground advantage and why is it so? Because the AFL truly does understand the home ground issue I'm preaching but unfortunately only applies it to the scum.
Adelaide play at the Dome nearly as often as we do. So it's their "2nd" home ground.
I want the AFL to give the 4 permanent MCG clubs 11 home games at the G. And the 4 permanent Dome Clubs to play all their home games at the Dome. But I know it won't happen (block busters etc) because the AFL is more concerned with Gate Revenue than equity.
Look at the way the game has been heading. 2005-6 the top teams were Adelaide/WCE/Sydney. 2001/2/3/4 the top teams were Lions/Port. There are 3 main reasons why this is so. Salary cap concessions (Brisbane), membership revenue and 11 home games with a genuine home ground advantage apply to all these teams.
For Victorian clubs to compete we must be on equal terms with the interstate clubs. But we are unable to compete financially; leaving only the home ground advantage as the method of making things more equitable. And guess what? If RFC was given 11 home games at the G we would (1) win more games, (2) attract more members, (3) have no need for the AFL to assist us financially. The same applies to all Victorian Clubs.
Presently, it's only Collingwood who get the home ground advantage and why is it so? Because the AFL truly does understand the home ground issue I'm preaching but unfortunately only applies it to the scum.
To answer your question I see two reasons why to agree with you -
1) The style of footy in the Dome is different to the style played in all of the winter's elements - and it has been proven that stylish football teams who play well in the Dome tend to struggle on inclemment windy days at outside grounds. Admittedly those same teams do perform well on outside grounds when it is a clear low breeze day.
2) Our competition is measured on the basis of 4 points for a win firstly and then for and against scores percentage secondly - therefore a good team is at a distinct advantage of getting a higher percentage if it plays more games in the pre-determined weather conditions of the Dome than a good team that plays most of its games on outside weather ruled grounds. The AFL National Competition is not a level playing field in many areas the Telstra Dome is but one - others are - due to the number of teams (16) and the shortness of the season (only 22 games) hence each team cannot play all other teams twice. Further some teams have another distinct advantage with playing all their home games on their home ground.
The AFL must be accutely aware of this - but seems to allow the almighty dollar to run the game than fairness in the competition. Victorian teams are therefore at a disadvantage in the home ground situation but at a percentage advantage for those good Victorian teams that play regularly at the Dome!
That was a long winded answer that says yes it is *smile* the traditional game....IMO
1) The style of footy in the Dome is different to the style played in all of the winter's elements - and it has been proven that stylish football teams who play well in the Dome tend to struggle on inclemment windy days at outside grounds. Admittedly those same teams do perform well on outside grounds when it is a clear low breeze day.
2) Our competition is measured on the basis of 4 points for a win firstly and then for and against scores percentage secondly - therefore a good team is at a distinct advantage of getting a higher percentage if it plays more games in the pre-determined weather conditions of the Dome than a good team that plays most of its games on outside weather ruled grounds. The AFL National Competition is not a level playing field in many areas the Telstra Dome is but one - others are - due to the number of teams (16) and the shortness of the season (only 22 games) hence each team cannot play all other teams twice. Further some teams have another distinct advantage with playing all their home games on their home ground.
The AFL must be accutely aware of this - but seems to allow the almighty dollar to run the game than fairness in the competition. Victorian teams are therefore at a disadvantage in the home ground situation but at a percentage advantage for those good Victorian teams that play regularly at the Dome!
That was a long winded answer that says yes it is *smile* the traditional game....IMO
RemoteTiger said:
I agree but not on the percentage issue. 80 points vs 60 points at the G has the same percentage as 200 points vs 150 points at the Dome.
poppa x said:
Simple maths proves it is not the same percentage -
eg. Richmond's current For Score is 566 and Against Score is 832 giving a percentage of 68.03%
Now to your example above
Add 80 points to our For Score of 566 = 646 then add 60 points to our Against Score of 832 = 892. The percentage calculation becomes 646/892 x 100 = 72.42%
Now add 200 to our For Score of 566 = 766 then add 150 to our Against Score of 832 = 982. The percentage calculation becomes 766/982 X 100 = 78.00%
That is a 5.48% difference and quite possibly the difference between playing in the finals finishing in 8th place or missing out and finishing in 9th place due to a poorer percentage. OR finishing 5th on a poorer percentage to the 4th placed team and thus missing a double chance in the finals.
Therefore a large scoring winning team that plays more games in the Dome will get a better percentage than a similar team that is restricted by poorer weather conditions on outside grounds.
Lets be totally honest here too - on any Saturday in Australia it could be raining in Melbourne and Adelaide but bright and sunny in Perth, Brisbane and Sydney - hence compariable percentages can be affected accordingly.
Years ago before the introduction of Interstate Teams and the Dome great coaches would slow their training down during the wetter months (Mid-Season) of the Melbourne Winter as the grounds became heavy and harder on the players - hence teams would get off to flying start winning their first 5 or 6 games then drop a game or two in the heavier conditions to a bottom running side because the coach had eased off on the training. The coach would then bring his players to a peak around the end of August ready for a charge at the finals in September.
Nowadays with all the hard and fast grounds around Australia (Perth, Brisbane, Sydney and the Telstra Dome) coaches have to manage their players differently during the middle of the season. This in itself has made for a different more athletic type of player who can run all year as compared to players of yesteryear.
Our traditional game has long gone out the window...........
I never go to the dome...its expensive and we never win there...and we usually come up against teams like the Saints who are Dome specialists...( dont like the saints either... )
what irks me however is that as a member with a reserved seat at the G'.. I dont get a reserved seat at the dome, yet I ( in theory ) pay for one as part of my membership package....Anyone know why that is ?
re why we dont play well there, I dont know but :
The same question gets asked of Tennis players as to why some play better on different surfaces and some don't. For example; Nadal who is unbeatable on Clay vs Federer who is almost unbeatable any where else except on clay...Federer would wipe the court with Nadal on grass, but on clay Nadal would be in front. It gets down to technique, and the way/style the game is played.
It is also interesting to note that WC in recent times have had a poor record at the G'...why would that be ? Maybe something to do with the perfect conditions they get when they play at home ? So we are no the only club with issues at certain venues in terms of Win/losss record. I would suggest that for a "contender" team that they need to get that right....maybe not, I like seeing them lose finals...
what irks me however is that as a member with a reserved seat at the G'.. I dont get a reserved seat at the dome, yet I ( in theory ) pay for one as part of my membership package....Anyone know why that is ?
re why we dont play well there, I dont know but :
The same question gets asked of Tennis players as to why some play better on different surfaces and some don't. For example; Nadal who is unbeatable on Clay vs Federer who is almost unbeatable any where else except on clay...Federer would wipe the court with Nadal on grass, but on clay Nadal would be in front. It gets down to technique, and the way/style the game is played.
It is also interesting to note that WC in recent times have had a poor record at the G'...why would that be ? Maybe something to do with the perfect conditions they get when they play at home ? So we are no the only club with issues at certain venues in terms of Win/losss record. I would suggest that for a "contender" team that they need to get that right....maybe not, I like seeing them lose finals...
As long as the 'success' of the AFL (or more accurately the people in charge of the AFL) is measured in financial terms, the competition will be unfair.
How can a non-random fixture be fair?
How can giving some teams a home ground advantage, whilst denying others a home ground advantage, be fair?
I've long wondered whether the AFL has some enforcable legal obligation to run a 'fair' competition.
How can a non-random fixture be fair?
How can giving some teams a home ground advantage, whilst denying others a home ground advantage, be fair?
I've long wondered whether the AFL has some enforcable legal obligation to run a 'fair' competition.
RemoteTiger said:
It's a champagne moment when some-one upstages me with superior maths! But Remote T - you appear to have me stumped - probably bowled me the doosra eh?
Fair call on the % but would it not also apply in reverse - Losses at the Dome hurt your % more than losses at the G?
poppa x said:
Yep and our Mighty Tigers are living proof - where have our two huge losses been this year and why have we got the worst percentage in the Competition?
A highly skilled team that uses the ball well will score big scores at the Dome - so even if they lose they generally only get beaten in a shoot out which is usually only a couple of goals different - which does not affect the percentage too badly!
Lots of generalisations in there - and I have not checked the results over the years at the Dome - but my gut feeling is these statements above would be pretty close to the mark.
Because I am a Tiger country member when we play there - I hate the joint and plan my trips to Melbourne when we are at the G - however I went to an Essendon v Kangaroos night match there last year and thoroughly enjoyed the night. (Probably because I watched Tigers beat the Swans by a point that afternoon at the G - Attending two AFL games in one day - didn't that cost some browny points with the Misses?)
Yes we beat Adelaide and no I don't care how we did it, despite everyone bagging us again for playing ugly footy.
If the match was played at the G or if Waverly still existed would TW have adopted the same tactics?
I'd say not, you get found out playing an ugly possesion type game when you play on big "outdoor" grounds.
Is Terry teaching our kids how to play crap football?
Or is the Telstra Dome the only place you can get away with this?
If the match was played at the G or if Waverly still existed would TW have adopted the same tactics?
I'd say not, you get found out playing an ugly possesion type game when you play on big "outdoor" grounds.
Is Terry teaching our kids how to play crap football?
Or is the Telstra Dome the only place you can get away with this?
a little off topic but in a similar vein is the rookie system. sydney get nine picks in the rookie draft and can afford to use them all. what it does is allow them to trade for players and still find good kids thru sheer numbers. sydney has 9 players on their list who have come thru the rookie draft i would guess substantially more than most clubs.
I think this is the case - and I think Tigers staff were delighted to have Adelaide at the Dome rather than at the 'G, where there is always space.tigerjoe said:
I think the Dome is now a ground where anything can happen in terms of upsets, because lower quality teams are able to flood and cramp up oppositions. That said, opposition teams need to work out how to counteract this style of play. It happened to Melbourne in round one, when Carlton just cramped the Dome up and ensured no one could find space to run. They couldn't have done that at the 'G