 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
I hope it stays at the G forever, The Melbourne Cup stays at Flemington, The Cox plate stays at the Valley, The Perth Cup at Ascot, Bathurst on the Mountain, Wimbledon at the all England club and the Sydney to Hobart race between those 2 capitals.
It's a Colosseum... the game should always, forever, be played at the home of football.
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count.
Last edited by Skids on Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:46 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
 |
Presti35 
Dick Lee for Legend Status
Joined: 05 Oct 2001
Location: London, England
|
| Post subject: | |
|
This will never happen.
I wonder how many more Premierships we'd have if there were a best of 3 in the past? 66? 70? 77? 2018?? Could we had lost 90 or 2010?
It wont ever happen. But if it did, you can bet that we'd be the first team to win game one and then lose games 2 and 3.
_________________
A Goal Saved Is 2 Goals Earned! |
|
|
|
|
piedys 
Heeeeeeere's Dyso!!!
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Resident Forum Psychopath since 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Presti35 wrote: | This will never happen.
It wont ever happen. But if it did, you can bet that we'd be the first team to win game one and then lose games 2 and 3. |
But only in controversial circumstances where Stevic or Rosebury would seek redemption via ignoring the rules and give us another arse reeming....
_________________
M I L L A N E 4 2 forever |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | E wrote: | | David, i wonder if you have ever accepted that someone else's view might actually be the fairer one than yours. Do you ever wonder if you maybe aren't always thinking about everything correctly? |
Lol, that's a good one. Do you? Have you ever stopped to think "maybe this dead horse I've been flogging all these years about percentage not mattering is ridiculous and I should consider the arguments against it"? Nooooope.
You want to debate my points about fairness and the power of money (an "evil empire" is your term, not mine) when it comes to where the grand final is held? Fine. Convince me I'm wrong. The problem is, I suspect, that you can't, because your position (and that of most people's) on this topic has nothing to do with fairness – it's about tradition. You think that, as the grand final has (almost) always been held at the MCG, it should continue to be held there.
I'm not saying that's an illegitimate view to hold. Tradition is, to an extent, important (which is one reason why, for instance, many of us prefer a Saturday afternoon grand final to a Saturday night one). But it has nothing to do with fairness. It's pretty obvious, I think, that it's unfair to always give the Victorian team home-ground advantage in the grand final when they're playing an interstate team. If that's true, then what we need to work out is which we care more about: tradition or fairness. Personally, I would prefer fairness, and I don't feel that tradition is hurt too greatly by moving the grand final away from the MCG every few years (i.e. when a higher-placed interstate team makes it). But ultimately, we know that this decision wasn't about honestly weighing up these two factors and working out which one was more important: it was about money. $8 million, to be exact. |
Dude, why isn't tradition enough? As already noted, you dismiss other views as wrong when they don't accord to yours.
Or are you making your own debate (based on what? "Fairness"), not the one everyone else is having about whether the MCG is the right place to hold the grand final.
Everyone knows the game with be at the G at the start of the year, you yourself have banged on about how the game has so many corporates that the home team doesn't fill the stadium anymore (there goes home field field advantage) and if you cant win a game anywhere, anytime, you have no claim to being the best team!
West Coast built their home field to the precise dimensions of the MCG, they had more fans at the game than we did (nearly double when you factor in that most neutrals wanted to see the pies lose) and their game is perfectly suited to the G.
your fairness argument only has merit if you want to see an interstate team cash in on the financial benefits of hosting a grand final, but since you think both money AND tradition are wrong arguments to make, then this point also has no merit.
you basically have no point to your argument that is in any way credible.
You even try to mock others for the percentage is irrelevant point, without bothering to understand the point being made. Its just your style mate. Everyone is wrong, you are Mr. fairness and Mr. Right all wrapped up into one.
by the way, if you are such a great person (and the arbiter of all things fair), why do you have to spend so much time trying to prove it. I smell a rat......
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
lihei 
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: One-Eyed Hill
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Insane
_________________
VOTE NO. Cancel the Cancel Culture. |
|
|
|
|
Johnno75
Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Location: Wantirna
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If it ever eventuates, would the corporates just dominate all the games or would one or two games be like the 2010 GF Replay where it’s just member allocations.
If you are the higher team would you choose to play away first to make the opposition travel twice back to back (assuming non vic team).
You would have to hand over a Gorilla if you had to attend all 3 games.
_________________
Human behavioural studies suggest people who use a lot of swear words tend to be more honest & trustworthy. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E wrote: | | David wrote: | | E wrote: | | David, i wonder if you have ever accepted that someone else's view might actually be the fairer one than yours. Do you ever wonder if you maybe aren't always thinking about everything correctly? |
Lol, that's a good one. Do you? Have you ever stopped to think "maybe this dead horse I've been flogging all these years about percentage not mattering is ridiculous and I should consider the arguments against it"? Nooooope.
You want to debate my points about fairness and the power of money (an "evil empire" is your term, not mine) when it comes to where the grand final is held? Fine. Convince me I'm wrong. The problem is, I suspect, that you can't, because your position (and that of most people's) on this topic has nothing to do with fairness – it's about tradition. You think that, as the grand final has (almost) always been held at the MCG, it should continue to be held there.
I'm not saying that's an illegitimate view to hold. Tradition is, to an extent, important (which is one reason why, for instance, many of us prefer a Saturday afternoon grand final to a Saturday night one). But it has nothing to do with fairness. It's pretty obvious, I think, that it's unfair to always give the Victorian team home-ground advantage in the grand final when they're playing an interstate team. If that's true, then what we need to work out is which we care more about: tradition or fairness. Personally, I would prefer fairness, and I don't feel that tradition is hurt too greatly by moving the grand final away from the MCG every few years (i.e. when a higher-placed interstate team makes it). But ultimately, we know that this decision wasn't about honestly weighing up these two factors and working out which one was more important: it was about money. $8 million, to be exact. |
Dude, why isn't tradition enough? As already noted, you dismiss other views as wrong when they don't accord to yours.
Or are you making your own debate (based on what? "Fairness"), not the one everyone else is having about whether the MCG is the right place to hold the grand final.
Everyone knows the game with be at the G at the start of the year, you yourself have banged on about how the game has so many corporates that the home team doesn't fill the stadium anymore (there goes home field field advantage) and if you cant win a game anywhere, anytime, you have no claim to being the best team!
West Coast built their home field to the precise dimensions of the MCG, they had more fans at the game than we did (nearly double when you factor in that most neutrals wanted to see the pies lose) and their game is perfectly suited to the G.
your fairness argument only has merit if you want to see an interstate team cash in on the financial benefits of hosting a grand final, but since you think both money AND tradition are wrong arguments to make, then this point also has no merit.
you basically have no point to your argument that is in any way credible.
You even try to mock others for the percentage is irrelevant point, without bothering to understand the point being made. Its just your style mate. Everyone is wrong, you are Mr. fairness and Mr. Right all wrapped up into one.
by the way, if you are such a great person (and the arbiter of all things fair), why do you have to spend so much time trying to prove it. I smell a rat...... |
Obviously home-ground advantage is not limited to ground dimensions (although that's undoubtedly an issue for other teams) and home-crowd support – it's about travel, too. We all know that the Perth teams have enjoyed one of the biggest home-ground advantages of any of the interstate clubs, and I can only surmise that that's because it's such a big trip.
And of course I can turn it around and ask whether, if Optus Stadium is the same size as the MCG and if we could hypothetically be guaranteed allocated seating for fans, you would still have any problem with us playing a 'home' qualifying or preliminary final (or even just a regular home and away match) in Perth instead of at the MCG. Maybe, in this case, you can acknowledge that the home team does have at least a little bit of advantage.
I don't think any of this is rocket science, and, as I've already said several times (despite all of the nonsense in your post above about me "not understanding your points", "dismissing other people's views as wrong" or presenting myself as "mr fairness and mr right"), you're entitled to your view: you prioritise tradition over fairness (or, to put it better, competitive integrity) in the question of where the grand final should be played. That's okay; there are some areas in which I think traditions are worth being defended too (I didn't like the fact that we were forced to break tradition and wear a clash jumper for instance, and thought that the "problem" that it was solving was a minuscule if not completely invented one). But in this instance, I think that some tradition could afford to be bent a little to ensure that Victorian grand finalists aren't always given a leg-up.
Two posters with two different views, debating them on their merits: that's permitted, isn't it? Quite why you find my argument or manner of advancing it so offensive – so much so that you feel a need to make ridiculous ad hominem attacks on me as a result – is another question, however.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | ...
Obviously home-ground advantage is not limited to ground dimensions (although that's undoubtedly an issue for other teams) and home-crowd support – it's about travel, too. We all know that the Perth teams have enjoyed one of the biggest home-ground advantages of any of the interstate clubs, and I can only surmise that that's because it's such a big trip.
... |
The unequal home-ground advantage is yet another reason it's completely unclear what finishing higher on the ladder after the H&A season means.
There are claims that the home-ground advantage is largely or almost entirely due to biased umpiring resulting from the home-crowd influence. (These claims have been made for sport in general, and for AFL in particular.) This is interesting, because, if true, it suggests that the GF is the game that is least likely to offer a home-ground advantage, packed as it is with fake supporters. (How many tickets do the GF clubs get? 20,000 each?) This might also explain part of Collingwood's poor GF performance. If there are 60,000 fake supporters in the crowd, but they know enough about football to barrack against the Pies by default, then we have a hostile crowd in the ratio 80:20 and in effect we are always playing the GF as the away team.
[Okay, I'll follow this up in the "Curses" thread...] |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I started a thread on this topic back in my youth – didn’t gain much traction, I recall, but I was trying to dig into where home-ground advantage actually comes from and what the main factors are. All we really know is that it seems to exist to some extent, but don’t have much scientific data (that I’m aware of) on why it is so.
http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?t=30819
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The claim that the biggest factor in home-ground advantage is crowd-induced umpiring bias is apparently due to Moskowitz & Wertheim, in their popular book Scorecasting. Perhaps I should take a look, David, but you know what happens when I get sucked into quasi-reviewing a book in this forum...
Coventry et. al say that in the AFL HTB decisions are +15% in favour of the home team (against the interstate team), despite the home team having more possessions. For OOB and running too far, it's 60:40. (Should we be even more grateful that JS got away with clearly running too far in setting up a goal against Adelaide?
http://magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?p=1829693#1829693
Perhaps the Adelaide supporters were too stunned by what they were seeing -- a future star's breakout performance -- to make the noise that should have alerted the umpires.)
Reading sherrife's response is quite entertaining... |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ We became good friends soon after, if you can believe it! 
Thanks for the link, btw. Interesting stuff!
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
MagpieWhisperer35
Joined: 30 Sep 2018
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E wrote: | | David wrote: | | E wrote: | | David, i wonder if you have ever accepted that someone else's view might actually be the fairer one than yours. Do you ever wonder if you maybe aren't always thinking about everything correctly? |
Lol, that's a good one. Do you? Have you ever stopped to think "maybe this dead horse I've been flogging all these years about percentage not mattering is ridiculous and I should consider the arguments against it"? Nooooope.
You want to debate my points about fairness and the power of money (an "evil empire" is your term, not mine) when it comes to where the grand final is held? Fine. Convince me I'm wrong. The problem is, I suspect, that you can't, because your position (and that of most people's) on this topic has nothing to do with fairness – it's about tradition. You think that, as the grand final has (almost) always been held at the MCG, it should continue to be held there.
I'm not saying that's an illegitimate view to hold. Tradition is, to an extent, important (which is one reason why, for instance, many of us prefer a Saturday afternoon grand final to a Saturday night one). But it has nothing to do with fairness. It's pretty obvious, I think, that it's unfair to always give the Victorian team home-ground advantage in the grand final when they're playing an interstate team. If that's true, then what we need to work out is which we care more about: tradition or fairness. Personally, I would prefer fairness, and I don't feel that tradition is hurt too greatly by moving the grand final away from the MCG every few years (i.e. when a higher-placed interstate team makes it). But ultimately, we know that this decision wasn't about honestly weighing up these two factors and working out which one was more important: it was about money. $8 million, to be exact. |
Dude, why isn't tradition enough? As already noted, you dismiss other views as wrong when they don't accord to yours.
Or are you making your own debate (based on what? "Fairness"), not the one everyone else is having about whether the MCG is the right place to hold the grand final.
Everyone knows the game with be at the G at the start of the year, you yourself have banged on about how the game has so many corporates that the home team doesn't fill the stadium anymore (there goes home field field advantage) and if you cant win a game anywhere, anytime, you have no claim to being the best team!
West Coast built their home field to the precise dimensions of the MCG, they had more fans at the game than we did (nearly double when you factor in that most neutrals wanted to see the pies lose) and their game is perfectly suited to the G.
your fairness argument only has merit if you want to see an interstate team cash in on the financial benefits of hosting a grand final, but since you think both money AND tradition are wrong arguments to make, then this point also has no merit.
you basically have no point to your argument that is in any way credible.
You even try to mock others for the percentage is irrelevant point, without bothering to understand the point being made. Its just your style mate. Everyone is wrong, you are Mr. fairness and Mr. Right all wrapped up into one.
by the way, if you are such a great person (and the arbiter of all things fair), why do you have to spend so much time trying to prove it. I smell a rat...... |
E has nailed it, a rat is in the house
_________________
Go Pies |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
 Please feel free to take all further personal observations to PM, if you could be so kind.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| And please, everyone, don't quote 1000 lines of previous comments in order just to add one line, or even 10 lines, of your own comment. |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | I started a thread on this topic back in my youth – didn’t gain much traction, I recall, but I was trying to dig into where home-ground advantage actually comes from and what the main factors are. All we really know is that it seems to exist to some extent, but don’t have much scientific data (that I’m aware of) on why it is so.
http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?t=30819 |
it might exist in home and away when people aren't entirely motivated. i'd be really shocked if there is a meaningful home field advantage in finals when fans travel, players are 100% motivated and the umpires are the best of a bad lot.
If you look at Collingwood's success/failure in finals over the past 20 years, i think you will find we have been a whole lot more successful away than at home!
Obviously the home team will have won more finals since they are the better team to begin with generally.
I was at the G on Grand Final day. eagles fans outnumbered us, they were very comfortable with the dimensions of the field, they got the best of the Umpiring decisions and they won.
And even if there is a home field advantage, i would argue that the home field advantage would be MUCH stronger in Perth than in Melbourne and therefore unfair for that reason alone.
and finally, what a waste of time this thread is since the GF is at the G for the next 40 years!!!!!
Its like trying to convince me that percentage matters......
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
