1 hour ago, Jaded said:

So if we end up hosting Port in a home game it’ll end up being a big disadvantage to us no matter where we choose to play. Adelaide is the shortest travel time so is a plus. But obviously we can’t play Port there without giving up a massive advantage. Which means we need to go to Brisbane and spend yet more time on planes. Just a joke. 
Why can’t we play the first two weeks at the MCG?! 

Because the AFL a hell bent in ensuring Finals are not played to empty stadiums, don't disagree with you & the integrity of finishing on top or higher placed finalist has eroded, reckon the AFL should shift all the finals to Perth inc GF as looking like no WA will make finals so no team is disadvantaged  give the bye a week leading up so quarantine etc but WA premier want allow it

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

Can we please cease and desist with the “it’s a conspiracy, the AFL is out to get us (MFC)” posts. These are very difficult times and the AFL is trying their best to work logistical miracles with the continually moving target that the virus creates. If we’re good enough, we should be able to win regardless of where we have to play.

Plus 1

Cats for several years and Dogs have been denied home finals based on not getting big enough crowds, but it’s not a conspiracy for them

1 hour ago, Pulp Fritschon said:

As professional as the AFL is the lack of integrity as a 'competition' is mindboggling. (How you can have a 22 game season for an 18 team competition). The 2021 finals series will be another example of this. 

In spite of this I still follow the game closely. I guess the enjoyment I get from seeing the Dees win trumps it.

Go Dees

Until you play each other twice will never be fair e.g. how many top 8 sides has Port beaten 2 I believe  vs Melb 7 & yet may finish higher than us. Option are either have 2 pools of 9 & play each other twice so 16 games then play the pool once so total of 24 games then a final 8 is finalised. The other option is you play each other once and then then the top 8 play each other again  & the bottom 10 plan for the following season. You still get 24 game season and at least the top 8 positions are earns fairly.

29 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

Not being selfish at all ;)  But I think the Dees tend to play Blundstone pretty well. Not sure if Port has played down in Tassie before, but in terms of fly in and fly out it works better than WA or Brisbane.

Only problem is our Premier is pretty trigger happy on cancelling AFL matches, and he's grumpy with Gil atm

Been a bit of talk about finals at UTas in Launceston, so playing at Blundstone would be just as likely.

33 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

Not being selfish at all ;)  But I think the Dees tend to play Blundstone pretty well. Not sure if Port has played down in Tassie before, but in terms of fly in and fly out it works better than WA or Brisbane.

Only problem is our Premier is pretty trigger happy on cancelling AFL matches, and he's grumpy with Gil atm

Port have played in Tassie 11 times - 10 at Launceston.

5-6 record overall.

26 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Port have played in Tassie 11 times - 10 at Launceston.

5-6 record overall.

Rather play in Perth or Brisbane

Edited August 18, 20213 yr by Demonsone

1 hour ago, Ouch! said:

Not being selfish at all ;)  But I think the Dees tend to play Blundstone pretty well. Not sure if Port has played down in Tassie before, but in terms of fly in and fly out it works better than WA or Brisbane.

Only problem is our Premier is pretty trigger happy on cancelling AFL matches, and he's grumpy with Gil atm

I’m jumping on this bandwagon probably more selfish than anything. 
But if we get a home game against Port or the Lions and def think Hobart is worth considering. 

Sample space since round 1 2020:

Port

Metricon   6-1

GABBA   3-2

BRISBANE

Metricon 4-3

Adelaide Oval 1-0

W BULLDOGS 

Metricon  6-3

Adelaide Oval 2-1

GABBA 0-2

GEELONG

Metricon    3-1

GABBA  5-2

Adelaide Oval 2-2

 

So I'm taking Port and Dogs to the GABBA and Geelong to Adelaide. Brisbane perhaps in Tassie.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Good on us for digging in. Don't pander to the Gerard Whateley's of the world who think's it's selfish to host a final in front of no crowds.

Seattle Seahawks hosted LA Rams and Washington hosted Tampa Bay Bucs in January 2021  in front of nobody, despite other teams hosting with crowds. If it's good enough for the biggest league in the world to ensure home team integrity over crowds, it's good enough for the AFL to do so.

Vic teams & Sydney being 'forced' to play at Neutral venues, yet Port & Brisbane might not be required to... I get some of the reasoning, but from an equity perspective how is that fair if we end up top of the ladder, and Port finish second, yet we are disadvantaged.... Similar for Sydney if they win and Brisbane lose.... are Brisbane getting a home final and Sydney forced to play elsewhere?  

inequities have been in the fixture for as long as I can remember, the eagles have played home finals in Vic because of contracts, Geelong are not able to host finals, with covid luck, Brisbane and Port play home games with crowds, so what? If they win the granny, they are worthy. If we win having played finals outside of vic, then we are worthy. 

3 minutes ago, cookieboc said:

inequities have been in the fixture for as long as I can remember, the eagles have played home finals in Vic because of contracts, Geelong are not able to host finals, with covid luck, Brisbane and Port play home games with crowds, so what? If they win the granny, they are worthy. If we win having played finals outside of vic, then we are worthy. 

If Port and Brisbane are granted a home final, they are not required to travel, better recovery, not to mention the SIGNIFICANT boosts from home support, umpire biases that inevitably occur. Explain how as the minor premier Melb or Geelong get ANY of that playing in front of Brisbane, West Coast, Adelaide or Tassie Crowds.... ?  

The AFL is doing this not for the spectacle, it's convenient to say that they are, but they are doing it for the cash. 

The dees haven't been minor premier or premier for 57 years! I've never seen it in my lifetime. So yeah screw TV crowds!! I would prefer our team to get any advantage it's entitled to. If that is not afforded to the minor premier, if we are lucky to claim that then none of the teams in finals should receive a home state advantage. Top 4 teams go into hubs in a neutral venue and same with the bottom 4 teams. 

13 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

If Port and Brisbane are granted a home final, they are not required to travel, better recovery, not to mention the SIGNIFICANT boosts from home support, umpire biases that inevitably occur. Explain how as the minor premier Melb or Geelong get ANY of that playing in front of Brisbane, West Coast, Adelaide or Tassie Crowds.... ?  

The AFL is doing this not for the spectacle, it's convenient to say that they are, but they are doing it for the cash. 

The dees haven't been minor premier or premier for 57 years! I've never seen it in my lifetime. So yeah screw TV crowds!! I would prefer our team to get any advantage it's entitled to. If that is not afforded to the minor premier, if we are lucky to claim that then none of the teams in finals should receive a home state advantage. Top 4 teams go into hubs in a neutral venue and same with the bottom 4 teams. 

I totally agree, the first time our team is in position to finish top and earn the right to a home final and it’s being taken away from us. I understand a lot in this world is unfair, but it’s just another kick to the groin in a difficult year. 

37 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

If Port and Brisbane are granted a home final, they are not required to travel, better recovery, not to mention the SIGNIFICANT boosts from home support, umpire biases that inevitably occur. Explain how as the minor premier Melb or Geelong get ANY of that playing in front of Brisbane, West Coast, Adelaide or Tassie Crowds.... ?  

The AFL is doing this not for the spectacle, it's convenient to say that they are, but they are doing it for the cash. 

The dees haven't been minor premier or premier for 57 years! I've never seen it in my lifetime. So yeah screw TV crowds!! I would prefer our team to get any advantage it's entitled to. If that is not afforded to the minor premier, if we are lucky to claim that then none of the teams in finals should receive a home state advantage. Top 4 teams go into hubs in a neutral venue and same with the bottom 4 teams. 

life isn't meant to be fair, so don't expect it to be. 

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. if we are good enough we will win.

I'm more anxious about the fact I won't be able to attend a once in a life time event (if it happens. counting chickens and all that)

 

Selfishly, I hope they decide to play in Queensland, but I reckon our best shout is Adelaide in terms of our record there, the climate, the travel etc. Obviously that doesn't apply if we host a game against Port, although that would be a power move to beat them at the Adelaide Oval 🤔

Adelaide Oval is a good ground for us, So I don't care if we play Port there, sometimes the crowd can work against the home team too, and we've already beaten them there this year by 5 goals. If we have to pick a neautral venue further on, this would be my preference (and I don't live in SA)

I don't have a preference for anything right now. Don't get me wrong I'm pleased to see people steadfast in wjat they want out of this but I still haven't quite accepted reality. I still wake up each day hoping like hell to see a dramatic drop in cases. I am in complete denial and I know this. 

Having any sort of preference right now to me feels like someone died and we're discussing where we'd prefer to have the funeral. Hours and years spent at the ground in Jollimont going through just about every emotion under the sun and fantasizing about the time when we had a genuine crack at it. It just wasn't meant to be this way. 

I'll get there, it's just not yet.

1 minute ago, Demon_spurs said:

Adelaide Oval is a good ground for us, So I don't care if we play Port there, sometimes the crowd can work against the home team too, and we've already beaten them there this year by 5 goals. If we have to pick a neautral venue further on, this would be my preference (and I don't live in SA)

Yeah, I do wonder how many Dees fans are around the bight… I loved seeing 5k in GWS for the Lions game. Surely we would double that??

Dont want to play Port there tho…

30 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Yeah, I do wonder how many Dees fans are around the bight… I loved seeing 5k in GWS for the Lions game. Surely we would double that??

Dont want to play Port there tho…

The Commentators would drive me crazy I admit, just watched the replay of the Port game, the most biased reporting of a game other than any game in NSW/QLD against the Storm

5 hours ago, roy11 said:

Soccer has some guidelines for sizes; but according to the rules;

Length (touchline):  minimum 90 m (100 yds) - maximum 120 m (130 yds)

Length (goal line): minimum 45 m (50 yds) - maximum 90 m (100 yds)

But for International matches

Length (touchline): minimum 100 m (110 yds) - maximum 110 m (120 yds)

Length (goal line): minimum 64 m (70 yds) - maximum 75 m (80 yds)

 

Hi Roy. Rangers have been known to bring in the touchline on either side of the pitch at Ibrox when we've played certain teams in Europe. A few years ago UEFA made Hearts play a European qualifier at the national rugby stadium Murrayfield when they decreed the pitch at Tynecastle to be smaller than the minimum required size, despite it being ok for domestic games to be played on. 

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Honestly I'd prefer we didn't make a big deal out of this. It's a distraction and I can't imagine Goodwin or the players care. We're not getting a financial benefit from it so what's the point? Unless we are angling for some kind of compensation.

For a governing body that's so hung up about playing games in front of crowds they seem to have no qualms about Gold Coast and GWS playing 11 games each a year in front of two guys and a dog. 

6 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

The idea of rent a crowd which is all that you will get interstate for the first finals round is laughable.

Saints v Bulldogs drew 10,651 last year in the first week.

I don’t understand why this isn’t being reported on properly. As pointed out above we have a very good example of what we get if we move the games away - we get 10,000 supporters. 6,000 of whom aren’t that phased about the result.

So we sacrifice the integrity, and ultimately the point, of the preceding 23 rounds so that a few thousand people can go? It’s obvious that the AFL is pushing its broadcast partners to make this seem like a good idea, but can’t some other journalist stand up and actually lay out the facts? It makes a joke of the regular season.

6 hours ago, Superunknown said:

Seems pointless to have a neutral ground and low crowd. May as well maximise broadcast and eyeballs at the G whilst ensuring integrity of finals apropos higher teams getting home ground.

That said, would we not get a decent crowd at Kardinia (never GMHBA) v say Port or Dogs? 
 

Must win this week to ensure we control our destiny.

we beat port over there though so we shouldn’t fear that.

I think there is next to zero chance of crowds being allowed at GMHBA while Melbourne is in stage 4 lockdown. All you need is one delta case attend and it would extend the lockdown by an extra couple of weeks.

Even if the health risk were minimal, the optics of playgrounds being closed while 30 mins down the road there are crowds at the footy wouldn't look good and I think would send the wrong message re the need for people to 'follow the rules'.

Edited August 18, 20213 yr by chookrat