5 hours ago, mauriesy said:

The AFL rules only say that a ground must be at least 135m long and 110m wide. GMHBA is 171m x 115m.

My cynicism suggests the rules were written to allow Geelong's ground to be legal.  Or at least not updated since 1880 to conform to what would be reasonable for a modern professional sport.

Edited August 2, 20222 yr by sue

25 minutes ago, Chook said:

Absolutely hideous.

have a look on google at the adjoining ground. it is actually even more odd if that's possible

must be sea air

On 7/31/2022 at 7:20 PM, John Crow Batty said:

4 games this season against WC and North helps.

Disgrace! How does a top 4 team get the bottom club of the past 3 years twice in a season?

6 hours ago, mauriesy said:

The AFL rules only say that a ground must be at least 135m long and 110m wide. GMHBA is 171m x 115m.

There are no maximum limits on ground dimensions?

The AFL is so amateurish at times

Here's an equalisation strategy for the AFL. 

Simply force the better teams (based on last year's performance with maybe a mid-year review) to play at Geelong (applies to C'wood etc too).  That way Geelong are more likely to be beaten at home and the top teams are more likely to lose playing there.  A win-win for equalisation. 😃  

On reflection, a better title for this thread would have been "How Geelong Manages To Regenerate Their List".

Despite it odd shape and being the longest AFL ground, Kardinia Park is also the smallest current AFL ground in area at 15,355 square metres. By comparison the MCG is 17,719 square metres, Docklands 16,211 square metres, SCG 16,556 square metres  and Optus is 16,847 square metres. The largest ever was Waverley which was around 20,000 square metres. Surprising really as this fact is never on the radar. Most people believe the SCG is the smallest ground.

Edited August 2, 20222 yr by John Crow Batty

46 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

The largest ever was Waverley which was around 20,000 square metres

Waverley would be an ideal size for modern footy

Great vision by the VFL way back when

Not so these days ... they are better money makers & money managers.  But the footy public want to see great footy (with the stronger passion being their teams & tribalism)

In my view the VFL didn't want to move away from 18 per side so they built a bigger ground (Waverley) in anticipation of what might happen in the future

The stadium was viewed poorly for quite some time until we grew accustomed to the large playing surface.  In the end, the footy played there was easy on the eye

Of course, the configuration of Docklands was virtually set when the AFL came in late as a stadium partner ... but the ground is too small for 36 players.  As is the SCG & Cat Park.  Too much congestion, too many stoppages & too many boundary throw-ins

Optus (WA) seems bigger to the eye and of course, we won the flag there! 

Edited August 2, 20222 yr by Macca

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

Waverley would be an ideal size for modern footy

Interesting

At the time the experts always said to avoid the wings as it simply took too long to go that way

Would it now be a different game... who knows.

Stadium wars are back in the news in NSW with the State Government saying they will no longer invest in the suburban NRL grounds

13 minutes ago, Macca said:

Waverley would be an ideal size for modern footy

Great vision by the VFL way back when

Not so these days ... they are better money makers & money managers.  But the footy public want to see good footy (with the stronger passion being their teams & tribalism)

In my view the VFL didn't want to move away from 18 per side so they built a bigger ground (Waverley) in anticipation of what might happen in the future

The stadium was viewed poorly for quite some time until we grew accustomed to the large playing surface.  In the end, the footy played there was easy on the eye

Of course, the configuration of Docklands was virtually set when the AFL came in late as a stadium partner ... but the ground is too small for 36 players.  As is the SCG & Cat Park.  Too much congestion

Optus (WA) seems bigger to the eye and of course, we won the flag there! 

Due the large size it was hard to see the action at the other end sitting anywhere behind the goals and if sitting at ground level, the action disappeared below knee level on the other side. Made for fast open play but lacking in atmosphere amongst other problems like location, parking and poor public transport as well as rotten weather especially during night games. Football Park in Adelaide which was almost a carbon copy of AFL Park had a similar terminal fate. I don’t miss it.

Edited August 2, 20222 yr by John Crow Batty

4 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Interesting

At the time the experts always said to avoid the wings as it simply took too long to go that way

Would it now be a different game... who knows.

Stadium wars are back in the news in NSW with the State Government saying they will no longer invest in the suburban NRL grounds

Maybe they had purpose-built bigger wings at Waverley to promote corridor footy? 

These days, with the ball moving at such a rapid rate, the ground size would be ideal with the wings being utilised

3 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

Due the large size it was hard to see the action at other end sitting behind the goals and if sitting on the wing at ground level, the action disappeared below knee level on the other side. Made for fast open play but lacking in atmosphere amongst other problems like location, parking and poor public transport as well as rotten weather especially during night games. Football Park in Adelaide which was lost carbon copy of AFL Park had a similar terminal fate. 

Always managed to find good viewing spots back then ... mind you, the AFL members reserve was situated well

Went to a number of big games with big crowds and the atmosphere was great

Was in the outer in that infamous Prelim Final in 1987.  The crowd was at fever-pitch throughout

The MCG can lack atmosphere with crowds below 35k ... not always of course

Both grounds need (needed in Waverley's case) big crowds to create a good atmosphere

Waverley was earmarked to carry a capacity of 140,000.  Imagine the carpark!

And that red arrow on Wellington Rd that only allowed 5 cars to get into the huge car park at a time!  And the train to Clayton and then the bus was often a real eye-opener

Those were the days

Edited August 2, 20222 yr by Macca

2 hours ago, sue said:

Here's an equalisation strategy for the AFL. 

Simply force the better teams (based on last year's performance with maybe a mid-year review) to play at Geelong (applies to C'wood etc too).  That way Geelong are more likely to be beaten at home and the top teams are more likely to lose playing there.  A win-win for equalisation. 😃  

Unfortunately the afl have no interest in a fair competition, only one that generates the most dosh 

5 hours ago, monoccular said:

 

 

Maybe since Sydney get extra cost of living allowances, then Geelong should have a lower salary cap in line with their lower cost of living?  I would love to see Chris Scott's response 😲

That would be brilliant 

The Kangaroos should re locate to Geelong next year , bound to 8 extra game win via easy kills and think about the massive percentage gained .

14 minutes ago, COOLX said:

The Kangaroos should re locate to Geelong next year , bound to 8 extra game win via easy kills and think about the massive percentage gained .

Both the Kangaroos and Dogs have looked at playing games at Geelong previously but the AFL wouldn't let them. Kangas also wanted to sell a home game to the Eagles (like we did to Brisbane in the early 2000s) and AFL said no.

5 hours ago, DubDee said:

There are no maximum limits on ground dimensions?

The AFL is so amateurish at times

From memory there is a maximum width but not length - comes from the formative years of the sport when they used to play games in the paddock outside the MCG (often with giant trees in the middle of the field).

19 hours ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

Disgrace! How does a top 4 team get the bottom club of the past 3 years twice in a season?

Well, Melbourne got the 17th team from last year twice and we were Premiers! I think it's done purely on ladder position from the previous year. We got the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 11th & 17th teams. Geelong got the 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 10th & 18th. So an easier draw but you would expect that since they finished 4th and we won.

As it's turned out Geelong have had a particularly soft draw because the teams they play twice are currently 8th, 10th , 12th, 17th & 18th, with the bottom 2 sides being totally uncompetitive which has gifted them points and boosted ther percentage. As it's turned out I'd say Geelong have had the easiest draw of any side in the comp. For Melbourne it's been a different story with the teams we play twice currently 3rd. 5th, 6th, 10th & 12th. i.e. no easy games.

The other part of the story though is travel, home games, 6-day breaks etc. Geelong have had it easy compared to Melbourne (and that was predictable in advance). Geelong 16 of 22 in Melbourne and only travelling to Perth & Adelaide once. Melbourne 15 of 22 in Melbourne and travelling to Perth & Adelaide twice, plus Alice Springs.    
   

18 hours ago, sue said:

Here's an equalisation strategy for the AFL. 

Simply force the better teams (based on last year's performance with maybe a mid-year review) to play at Geelong (applies to C'wood etc too).  That way Geelong are more likely to be beaten at home and the top teams are more likely to lose playing there.  A win-win for equalisation. 😃  

This is actually the opposite of equalisation. Geelong want to play the top teams in Geelong. They're going to beat the bottom teams wherever they play them. Playing the top teams at home is there GMHBA is a big plus for Geelong. This year they've ended up with an incredibly easy draw which is largely luck (see above) but the fact that they only played Melbourne & Brisbane once and both games were at Geelong is totally unfair IMV. They've played 6 games against Teams 1, 2, 3 & 5 from last year and 4 of them have been at GMHBA. Also, unlike Melbourne they got to play Port at home whereas we had to give that advantage up and play in Alice Springs.

On 8/1/2022 at 9:30 AM, CYB said:

I know right? How does that even happen for a team that finished top 4. It is absolute BS.

I know some of this has to do with luck, but we have played 3 of our double games against top 8 while the Cats have played 2 teams in the top 8. The other top 4 teams have a similarly easier draw.

Bottom line is we won the premiership so we are destined to have the toughest draw. But it was a bit of luck that made it harder. 

As someone else mentioned in another post, this bias (and the inherent advantage they have with their home ground and who they play / don’t play there) tends to make them home and away champions more often than not over the years than they perhaps deserved.

Looking (perhaps clutching) for an upside to all this I would like to think that if we finish second in the home and away taking into consideration that ‘we were going to be hunted all year’ what a great result!

I also then would like Geeedlong to actually think that they are the legitimate favourites heading into the finals. Bring it on and GO DEES!

Edited August 3, 20222 yr by Wodjathefirst

29 minutes ago, Wodjathefirst said:

As someone else mentioned in another post, this bias (and the inherent advantage they have with their home ground and who they play / don’t play there) tends to make them home and away champions more often than not over the years than they perhaps deserved.

Looking (perhaps clutching) for an upside to all this I would like to think that if we finish second in the home and away taking into consideration that ‘we were going to be hunted all year’ what a great result!

I also then would like Geeedlong to actually think that they are the legitimate favourites heading into the finals. Bring it on and GO DEES!

stats will also tell you that it is incredibly rare for the team that finished top of the ladder to be the premiers. So all in all,  i'd be happy with finishing 2nd. 

1 hour ago, CYB said:

stats will also tell you that it is incredibly rare for the team that finished top of the ladder to be the premiers. So all in all,  i'd be happy with finishing 2nd. 

Um er wiki says other wise...

"As of 2021, 65 minor premiers have won the VFL/AFL premiership, 43 have finished as runners-up, and 17 have finished third, failing to qualify for the grand final. The success rate of minor premiers winning the major premiership has reduced greatly since 1994, when the finals series was expanded to eight clubs and the benefits enjoyed by the minor premier in bye weeks and double-chances during the finals were reduced and diluted; since 1994, only nine minor premiers have gone on to win the premiership."

65 out of 125 is over 50% so it isnt rare.

In recent times it has got harder but you can probably blame Port Adelaide for that.

36 minutes ago, Jontee said:

Um er wiki says other wise...

"As of 2021, 65 minor premiers have won the VFL/AFL premiership, 43 have finished as runners-up, and 17 have finished third, failing to qualify for the grand final. The success rate of minor premiers winning the major premiership has reduced greatly since 1994, when the finals series was expanded to eight clubs and the benefits enjoyed by the minor premier in bye weeks and double-chances during the finals were reduced and diluted; since 1994, only nine minor premiers have gone on to win the premiership."

65 out of 125 is over 50% so it isnt rare.

In recent times it has got harder but you can probably blame Port Adelaide for that.

Anything beyond 20 years is irrelevant given a number of factors. But my point was largely based on the last 20 years of footy. If you look back at the recent Lions, Hawks and Tiger dynasties, only the Hawks finished top of the ladder once in a premiership year. aside from those specific teams, the top position team has only won it ~20% of the time (in the last 20 years).  That is more relevant to me than what happened in the 1920s. 

So statistically speaking - and i think this matters considering who is on top right now - the best H&A team is unlikely to be the best finals team (unless of course you are the 2021 premiers)

Edited August 3, 20222 yr by CYB

23 minutes ago, CYB said:

Anything beyond 20 years is irrelevant given a number of factors. But my point was largely based on the last 20 years of footy. If you look back at the recent Lions, Hawks and Tiger dynasties, only the Hawks finished top of the ladder once in a premiership year. aside from those specific teams, the top position team has only won it ~20% of the time (in the last 20 years).  That is more relevant to me than what happened in the 1920s. 

So statistically speaking - and i think this matters considering who is on top right now - the best H&A team is unlikely to be the best finals team (unless of course you are the 2021 premiers)

Not sure where your numbers are coming from but since the AFL Final 8 System was introduced in 2000 the minor premiers have won 7 of 22 (32%) the 2nd team has won 7, and the 3rd team also has won 7. The Bulldogs were the exception winning from 7th but they were a way above-average 7th in 2016 with a 15-7 H&A  record. I do agree that looking at records prior to 2000 given the different finals systems in place is a bit meaningless.

Until last year the previous minor premier was Hawthorn in 2013. I previously posted on this and, without boring you with all my reasoning, I have the view that it's probably preferable to finish 2nd rather than 1st. 2nd & 3rd are equal chances if there's no home ground advantage.

22 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Interesting

At the time the experts always said to avoid the wings as it simply took too long to go that way

Would it now be a different game... who knows.

Stadium wars are back in the news in NSW with the State Government saying they will no longer invest in the suburban NRL grounds

and why should they when no-one attends games there anyway

Geelong stay competitive for a few reasons. 

1. an elite core of champion players, Joel Selwood and co

2. a consistent and simple game plan that the champion core is able to execute consistently and stands up strongly in home and away

3. a HUGE competitive advantage with their home ground which essentially gives them 6-8 wins per season

4. Geographical appeal, the ability to play for a consistently competitive vic club, while also staying out of the Melbourne bubble to some extent is absolutely massive. 

I think these reasons show why the Cats are always so competitive in home and away, but they haven't done the work in terms of the draft and aquiring young talent in their prime to really beat the best of the best in big finals, and i'd also argue their game plan is a difficult one to sustain under intense pressure. 

1 hour ago, CYB said:

Anything beyond 20 years is irrelevant given a number of factors. But my point was largely based on the last 20 years of footy. If you look back at the recent Lions, Hawks and Tiger dynasties, only the Hawks finished top of the ladder once in a premiership year. aside from those specific teams, the top position team has only won it ~20% of the time (in the last 20 years).  That is more relevant to me than what happened in the 1920s. 

So statistically speaking - and i think this matters considering who is on top right now - the best H&A team is unlikely to be the best finals team (unless of course you are the 2021 premiers)

To be honest what caught my original attention was use of the words 'incredibly rare' at winning the GF.  IMO 30% chance is not incredibly rare.  

What the stats also show is finishing on top gives you a very good chance of making the GF