Some home truths about football finalsBy Jake Niall
The Age
17 June 2018 Geelong is ‘‘hosting’’ Richmond at the MCG this weekend. If this is not quite like ‘‘hosting’’ Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros, there’s no question that the odds would flip if the game was played at Geelong’s fortress, where the Cats would be solid favourites.
The MCG was once thought of as a virtually neutral stadium. Richmond has changed that perception, by dint of its 15-game winning streak and clearly weaker results on the road, the Crows, Port and West Coast having conquered the visiting Tigers this year.
Geelong beat the Tigers at the Cattery in round 21 last year. A few weeks later, Richmond smashed the Cats at the MCG, in a game that underscored one of the AFL’s pressing problems: home ground advantages to the ‘‘away’’ teams, particularly in finals.
The AFL’s deal with the Victorian government means that the grand final will be played at the ’G for another 40 seasons. Whatever the merits of this arrangement, it was made at a time when a debate had kicked off (after the Tigers won two finals against higher placed opponents) about whether there should be ‘‘home’’ grand finals, best of three grand finals or if it could be played anywhere besides the home of footy.
These were legitimate questions to raise. I wonder what would have happened had the AFL approached the NSW government with a proposal to ‘‘split’ the grand final between Melbourne and ANZ Stadium at Olympic Park, where the capacity is 83,500 and NSW tourism could make a pretty penny with the influx of 70,000 people from over the border.
It’s quite possible that the Victorian government bought the grand final cheaply at $500 million (including all those handouts to clubs and Etihad), when one considers the economic benefits, bearing in mind that, due to the absence of MCC members, more members of the competing clubs could actually get to the grannie at (a resurrected and refurbished) Homebush.
Still, it didn’t happen, in what was a victory for traditionalists and Victorians and a dent to the concept of a grand final anywhere but the ’G, which was confirmed as the game’s answer to Wembley.
The notion that the grand final venue was unfair to non-Victorian clubs had really started to gain traction after the Hawthorn ‘‘three-peat’’, since the Hawks had qualified below both Sydney (2014) and West Coast (2015) under the finals system, and certainly enjoyed a sizeable advantage over the Eagles on the vastly different dimensions of the MCG.
The MCG advantage had been camouflaged by the reality that the Brisbane Lions and West Coast teams that won multiple grand finals in the ’90s and 2000s were markedly better than their Victorian opponents. Look at names in the Lions’ flag teams and compare them to Collingwood of 2002-03 or even the declining Essendon of 2001.
The Eagles of ’92 and ’94 were miles ahead of the Cats, who, in any case, didn’t play that often at the MCG and had much less of an advantage than say, Collingwood or Essendon, would have enjoyed. Geelong, indeed, is a different case to the other Victorian clubs, because it is ... Geelong.
Aided and abetted by the taxpayers — state and Commonwealth — the Cats have built an astonishing facility for a regional football club. They consider themselves a ‘‘non-Melbourne club’’ and that they should be given home finals when they qualify higher, even against big drawing clubs such as Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond et al.
To play a final before 35,000 that could get 90,000 might seem ridiculous to a Victorian public accustomed to having all finals at the ’G, with the occasional excursion to Docklands. Geelong, however, has a counter argument — that there isn’t another major sporting competition in the world in which the size of the crowd or financial return influences the finals venues.
It will be interesting to see whether the Cats are willing to go in boots-and-all and fight for ‘‘home rights’’ in finals. The AFL’s football boss, Steve Hocking, has said that home finals is an issue that the AFL must address this year.
Hocking, as a long-serving Geelong official, would have a greater understanding of his old club’s position, while also seeing this from a competition vantage. The most compelling argument against finals at Geelong is the sheer number of fans who would be locked out, including Cat people.
The Cats aren’t unhappy about playing a couple of home games at the MCG. Their point — as enunciated by president Colin Carter — is that this should be their choice, rather than the AFL’s. Increasingly, their view is at odds with Melbourne clubs and more aligned to their brethren north and west of the border.
It isn’t contentious at all for the AFL to give Geelong a home final, particularly in the first or second week, against the non-Vic clubs, albeit the Cats might be wise to request Sydney at the MCG given recent results.
It would be a massive change, though, to give Geelong a home final v Richmond, Collingwood or another local behemoth. Such a change would represent a historic shift in AFL thinking, away from maximising attendances and fan participation and in favour of venue integrity and fairness.
Geelong is entitled to have this fight. Logically, the Cats are in a similar boat to the Giants and Suns if these minnows happen to play an in-state final against the Swans and Lions, since it’s conceivable that the AFL could schedule that game at the bigger stadium.
Yet, the Cats, who’ve won many home and away games in the past six years and not many finals, should be mindful of this immutable fact: that the grand final will never be played at Geelong.
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/some-home-truths-about-football-finals-20180616-p4zlx4.html
