Austadiums Forum

Boba Fett wrote:But the minute you exclude data from a data set you skew the result. Which is the opposite of what gyfox said. Using that logic, you can twist data analysis to essentially become meaningless.

For example, I'm sure Eddie McGuire would love to exclude that Sunday night game Collingwood had a couple of weeks ago when listing the average crowd figure for 2014.

In the analysis you could also take the median crowd rather than the average or drop the highest and lowest crowds and look at that average

LOL @ the crowd announced yesterday.

St James wrote:LOL @ the crowd announced yesterday.

Inaccurate or laughable?

For what it's worth, their crowd average is lower than all Australian-based A-League crowds this past season, and it's heading south. Down 1,000 per year at this rate - there's only so far down you can go. Considering an AFL club costs a *lot* more to run than an A-League club, and considering there appear to be lots of freebies, they're going to need something to change.

They're winning more matches and they're *much* more competitive than the last two years, so it's hard to see what the change is.

2012: 2 wins / 22 games, 46.2%
2013: 1 win / 22 games, 51.0%
2014: 4 wins / 17 games, 73.5%

dibo wrote:

St James wrote:LOL @ the crowd announced yesterday.

Inaccurate or laughable?

For what it's worth, their crowd average is lower than all Australian-based A-League crowds this past season, and it's heading south. Down 1,000 per year at this rate - there's only so far down you can go. Considering an AFL club costs a *lot* more to run than an A-League club, and considering there appear to be lots of freebies, they're going to need something to change.

They're winning more matches and they're *much* more competitive than the last two years, so it's hard to see what the change is.

2012: 2 wins / 22 games, 46.2%
2013: 1 win / 22 games, 51.0%
2014: 4 wins / 17 games, 73.5%

Four wins out of 17 games isn't enough to draw people into supporting a brand new AFL team in Sydney, particularly with the Swans doing so well. I don't see things improving significantly until they reach the finals. Which might be next year, but much more likely in 2016.

Strangely, their 'away' crowd figures have steadily gone up each year. Perhaps the more traditional AFL crowds are becoming more interested in them as the team progresses?

Just for an indication of what has happened previously in the Sydney market Cronulla took 7 years to make the finals and got a boost in attendance of 20% approx because of it. Penrith took 17 years to make the finals and got a 30% boost. Both of those clubs built attendance very slowly over the period from start up to first finals appearance.

What I'm more concerned about with the club is it still looks and feels like a bunch of guys up from Melbourne, a tshirt, and teenagers having a f**k around.

gyfox wrote:Just for an indication of what has happened previously in the Sydney market Cronulla took 7 years to make the finals and got a boost in attendance of 20% approx because of it. Penrith took 17 years to make the finals and got a 30% boost. Both of those clubs built attendance very slowly over the period from start up to first finals appearance.

And they were operating in a traditional rugby league market. Will be much harder for the Giants.

Perhaps a more relevant analogy would be to look at the Swans average home crowds in the years leading up to their first GF appearance in decades:
1988 - 12,323
1989 - 12,317
1990 - 9,275
1991 - 11,140
1992 - 9,963
1993 - 9,423
1994 - 9,814
1995 - 15,976
1996 - 26,769

yob wrote:What I'm more concerned about with the club is it still looks and feels like a bunch of guys up from Melbourne, a tshirt, and teenagers having a f**k around.

Considering they only went down to Geelong by 7 points on the weekend, what does that say about the Cats?

A necessary ingredient in the Swans' success was winning games in the perfect window of the ARL/Super League War. People jumped on for more than just a winning team, it was the f**k Rupert Team. It was the closest on field substitute to rugby league - an earthy inclusive culture, heavy contact and speed. Right place, right time, and bloody good on them for executing. It was the sporting equivalent of getting over the death of your dog by buying a puppy.

Boba Fett wrote:

yob wrote:What I'm more concerned about with the club is it still looks and feels like a bunch of guys up from Melbourne, a tshirt, and teenagers having a f**k around.

Considering they only went down to Geelong by 7 points on the weekend, what does that say about the Cats?

They have narrowed the losses with a percentage of 73% this season. Far exceeding that against the second placed of 18 teams is a definite outlier. Inference: The Cats did not give a sh*t.

yob wrote:A necessary ingredient in the Swans' success was winning games in the perfect window of the ARL/Super League War. People jumped on for more than just a winning team, it was the f**k Rupert Team. It was the closest on field substitute to rugby league - an earthy inclusive culture, heavy contact and speed. Right place, right time, and bloody good on them for executing. It was the sporting equivalent of getting over the death of your dog by buying a puppy.

Except that the Swans had already built up their crowds the year before the single Super League season of 1997.

And I'm not sure there's too much evidence that large numbers of people jumped not only teams, but codes as well. League attendances dropped a little from 96-98, but after that it's been onwards and upwards.

Boba Fett wrote:

yob wrote:A necessary ingredient in the Swans' success was winning games in the perfect window of the ARL/Super League War. People jumped on for more than just a winning team, it was the f**k Rupert Team. It was the closest on field substitute to rugby league - an earthy inclusive culture, heavy contact and speed. Right place, right time, and bloody good on them for executing. It was the sporting equivalent of getting over the death of your dog by buying a puppy.

Except that the Swans had already built up their crowds the year before the single Super League season of 1997.

And I'm not sure there's too much evidence that large numbers of people jumped not only teams, but codes as well. League attendances dropped a little from 96-98, but after that it's been onwards and upwards.

Lived experience over stat counting, any old day of the week.

yob wrote:

Boba Fett wrote:

yob wrote:A necessary ingredient in the Swans' success was winning games in the perfect window of the ARL/Super League War. People jumped on for more than just a winning team, it was the f**k Rupert Team. It was the closest on field substitute to rugby league - an earthy inclusive culture, heavy contact and speed. Right place, right time, and bloody good on them for executing. It was the sporting equivalent of getting over the death of your dog by buying a puppy.

Except that the Swans had already built up their crowds the year before the single Super League season of 1997.

And I'm not sure there's too much evidence that large numbers of people jumped not only teams, but codes as well. League attendances dropped a little from 96-98, but after that it's been onwards and upwards.

Lived experience over stat counting, any old day of the week.

*facepalm*

dibo wrote:

St James wrote:LOL @ the crowd announced yesterday.

Inaccurate or laughable?

Both.