One final point from me about travel. When I say of course it bloody makes a difference, consider this: Two teams make the GF. One is a Melbourne-based team; the other is an interstate team that needs to fly out on a Thursday. But, for some reason - weather, airport strike, anything - the interstate team had troubles so that they needed to fly to Singapore, then Dubai, then from Dubai direct to Melbourne. The interstate team finally arrive in Melbourne an hour before the GF starts. It's a hypothetical, for sure, but answer this question based on the hypothetical: which team is the prohibitive favourite?
Beware of any footy commentator who states that travel doesn't make a difference to performance, and that if you lose, it's because you weren't good enough, not because of travel circumstances. In getting to the GF in 2013 I knew of people who had to fly Perth-Singapore-Melbourne and were essentially 'wrecked' by the time they got to the game. Last year, when the Weagles made the GF, I heard of fans who flew from Perth to Melbourne, except they went Perth-Sydney-Auckland-Melbourne. The key to any travel is fairness in the amount of travel that any team does, which is why Melbourne-based teams will fight like hell to keep the status quo. The AFL: it's not a national game; it never was, it never will be, so long as 10 of the 18 clubs are based in one city. BTW, want to start an argument? Just say that the MCC contract should be broken and the GF should be rotated to all stadiums immediately. The argument from the MCC (and probably the AFL) is that they would lose revenue. Rubbish. Say the GF was played at Subi oval with the Weagles vs Freo. What Weagles or Freo fan wouldn't part with serious money to attend that game. I paid $300+ for my GF ticket at the MCG in 2013. I'd happily pay $1000+ for a ticket to a Freo/Weagles GF at Subi Oval. Lose money? BS. Melbourne-based teams would howl like stuck pigs is more like it.
