Season 1946

[Flood Gates]

I dont know exaclty how many of you know, but we won our first 9 games of the 1946 VFL season, and I have the ladders, stats and figures to prove it to you. We were a great side in 1946, I rate it as our 3rd best season ever behind 1985 and 1998. Have a look at the ladders after each round :)



ROUND ONE 1946

Collwood - 1 - 0 - 124 - 61 - 203.28% - 4
Nth Melb - 1 - 0 - 137 - 78 - 175.64% - 4
Melbourne - 1 - 0 - 137 - 91 - 150.55% - 4
Carlton - 1 - 0 - 117 - 109 - 107.34% - 4
Richmond - 1 - 0 - 87 - 83 - 104.82% - 4
Footscray - 1 - 0 - 100 - 98 - 102.04% - 4
Essendon - 0 - 1 - 98 - 100 - 98.00% - 0
Fitzroy - 0 - 1 - 83 - 87 - 95.40% - 0
Sth Melb - 0 - 1 - 109 - 117 - 93.16% - 0
Geelong - 0 - 1 - 91 - 137 - 66.42% - 0
St Kilda - 0 - 1 - 78 - 137 - 56.93% - 0
Hawthorn - 0 - 1 - 61 - 124 - 49.19% - 0

ROUND TWO 1946

Collwood - 2 - 0 - 198 - 119 - 166.39% - 8
Nth Melb - 2 - 0 - 270 - 183 - 147.54% - 8
Melbourne - 2 - 0 - 209 - 157 - 133.12% - 8
Footscray - 2 - 0 - 217 - 167 - 129.94% - 8
Essendon - 1 - 1 - 169 - 153 - 110.46% - 4
Carlton - 1 - 1 - 183 - 181 - 101.10% - 4
Geelong - 1 - 1 - 195 - 210 - 92.86% - 4
Richmond - 1 - 1 - 192 - 216 - 88.89% - 4
Fitzroy - 0 - 2 - 141 - 161 - 87.58% - 0
Sth Melb - 0 - 2 - 162 - 188 - 86.17 - 0
Hawthorn - 0 - 2 - 134 - 228 - 58.77% - 0
St Kilda - 0 - 2 - 147 - 254 - 57.87% - 0

ROUND THREE 1946

Collgwood - 3 - 0 - 282 - 193 - 146.11% - 12
Footscray - 3 - 0 - 319 - 253 - 126.09% - 12
Essendon - 2 - 1 - 310 - 238 - 130.25% - 8
Nth Melb - 2 - 1 - 344 - 267 - 128.84% - 8
Richmond - 2 - 1 - 302 - 267 - 113.11% - 8
Carlton - 2 - 1 - 314 - 282 - 111.35% - 8
Melbourne - 2 - 1 - 294 - 298 - 98.66% - 8
Fitzroy - 1 - 2 - 280 - 224 - 125.00% - 4
Geelong - 1 - 2 - 258 - 349 - 73.93% - 4
Sth Melb - 0 - 3 - 248 - 290 - 85.52% - 0
Hawthorn - 0 - 3 - 235 - 363 - 64.74% - 0
St Kilda - 0 - 3 - 198 - 364 - 54.40% - 0

ROUND FOUR 1946

Collwood – 4 – 0 – 386 – 278 – 138.85% - 16
Footscray – 4 – 0 – 452 – 365 – 123.84% - 16
Essendon – 3 – 1 – 467 – 292 – 159.93% - 12
Nth Melb – 3 – 1 – 470 – 351 – 133.90% - 12
Melbourne – 3 – 1 – 381 – 372 – 102.42% - 12
Fitzroy – 2 – 2 – 394 – 276 – 142.75% - 8
Richmond – 2 – 2 – 414 – 400 – 103.50% - 8
Carlton – 2 – 2 – 366 – 396 – 92.42% - 8
Geelong – 1 – 3 – 342 – 475 – 72.00% - 4
Sth Melb – 0 – 4 – 322 – 377 – 85.41% - 0
St Kilda – 0 – 4 – 283 – 468 – 60.47% - 0
Hawthorn – 0 – 4 – 289 – 520 – 55.58% - 0

ROUND FIVE 1946

Footscray – 5 – 0 – 598 – 450 – 132.89% - 20
Essendon – 4 – 1 – 546 – 331 – 164.95% - 16
Collwood – 4 – 1 – 414 – 372 – 111.29% - 16
Nth Melb – 3 – 2 – 535 – 432 – 123.84% - 12
Richmond – 3 – 2 – 508 – 428 – 118.69% - 12
Carlton – 3 – 2 – 447 – 461 – 96.96% - 12
Melbourne – 3 – 2 – 466 – 518 – 89.96% - 12
Fitzroy – 2 – 3 – 433 – 355 – 121.97% - 8
Sth Melb – 1 – 4 – 409 – 430 – 95.12% - 4
Geelong – 1 – 4 – 416 – 570 – 72.98% - 4
St Kilda – 1 – 4 – 378 – 542 – 69.74% - 4
Hawthorn – 0 – 5 – 342 – 607 – 56.34% - 0

ROUND SIX 1946

Footscray – 6 – 0 – 670 – 519 – 129.09% - 24
Essendon – 5 – 1 – 629 – 374 – 168.18% - 20
Richmond – 4 – 2 – 657 – 515 – 127.57% - 16
Carlton – 4 – 2 – 596 – 533 – 111.82% - 16
Collwood – 4 – 2 – 483 – 444 – 108.78% - 16
Nth Melb – 3 – 3 – 578 – 515 – 112.23% - 12
Melbourne – 3 – 3 – 557 – 624 – 89.26% - 12
Fitzroy – 2 – 4 – 496 – 427 – 116.16% - 8
Sth Melb – 2 – 4 – 481 – 493 – 97.57% - 8
Geelong – 1 – 5 – 503 – 719 – 69.96% - 4
St Kilda – 1 – 5 – 450 – 691 – 65.12% - 4
Hawthorn – 1 – 5 – 448 – 698 – 64.18% - 4




ROUND SEVEN 1946

Footscray – 7 – 0 – 769 – 609 – 126.27% - 28
Essendon – 6 – 1 – 769 – 432 – 178.01% - 24
Collwood – 5 – 2 – 615 – 512 – 120.12% - 20
Carlton – 5 – 2 – 699 – 609 – 114.78% - 20
Richmond – 4 – 3 – 733 – 618 – 118.61% - 16
Fitzroy – 3 – 4 – 593 – 468 – 126.71% - 12
Nth Melb – 3 – 4 – 648 – 591 – 109.64% - 12
Sth Melb – 3 – 4 – 557 – 563 – 98.93% - 12
Melbourne – 3 – 4 – 598 – 721 – 82.94% - 12
Hawthorn – 1 – 6 – 538 – 797 – 67.50% - 4
Geelong – 1 – 6 – 571 – 851 – 67.10% - 4
St Kilda – 1 – 6 – 508 – 831 – 61.13% - 4

ROUND EIGHT 1946

Footscray – 8 – 0 – 887 – 664 – 133.58% - 32
Essendon – 7 – 1 – 876 – 502 – 174.50% - 28
Collwood – 6 – 2 – 727 – 568 – 127.99% - 24
Carlton – 5 – 3 – 755 – 721 – 104.72% - 20
Fitzroy – 4 – 4 – 691 – 532 – 129.89% - 16
Nth Melb – 4 – 4 – 704 – 618 – 113.92% - 16
Richmond – 4 – 4 – 803 – 725 – 110.76% - 16
Sth Melb – 4 – 4 – 669 – 610 – 109.67% - 16
Melbourne – 3 – 5 – 625 – 777 – 80.44% - 12
Hawthorn – 1 – 7 – 602 – 895 – 67.26% - 4
Geelong – 1 – 7 – 626 – 969 – 64.60% - 4
St Kilda – 1 – 7 – 555 – 943 – 58.85% - 4

ROUND NINE 1946

Footscray – 9 – 0 – 993 – 763 – 130.14% - 36
Essendon – 8 – 1 – 994 – 578 – 171.97% - 32
Collwood – 6 – 3 – 803 – 686 – 117.06% - 24
Carlton – 6 – 3 – 883 – 810 – 109.01% - 24
Sth Melb – 5 – 4 – 793 – 720 – 110.14% - 20
Fitzroy – 4 – 5 – 790 – 638 – 123.82% - 16
Nth Melb – 4 – 5 – 801 – 740 – 108.24 – 16
Richmond – 4 – 5 – 913 – 849 – 107.54% - 16
Melbourne – 4 – 5 – 721 – 834 – 86.45% - 16
Hawthorn – 2 – 7 – 724 – 992 – 72.98% - 8
Geelong – 1 – 8 – 715 – 1097 – 65.18% - 4
St Kilda – 1 – 8 – 612 – 1039 – 58.80% - 4


OUR PATH TO THE TOP

Round 1 - Footscray 100 - 98 Essendon
Round 2 - Footscray 117 - 69 St Kilda
Round 3 - Footscray 102 - 86 South Melb
Round 4 - Footscray 133 - 112 Richmond
Round 5 - Footscray 146 - 85 Melbourne
Round 6 - Footscray 72 - 69 Collingwood
Round 7 - Footscray 99 - 90 Hawthorn
Round 8 - Footscray 118 - 55 Geelong
Round 9 - Footscray 106 - 99 Fitzroy


OUR STREAK ENDS

Round 10 - Carlton 92 - 88 Footscray
Round 11 - Footscray 117 - 66 North Melb
Round 12 - Essendon 120 - 92 Footscray
Round 13 - St Kilda 46 - 41 Footscray
Round 14 - Footscray 84 - 31 South Melb
Round 15 - Footscray 99 - 93 Richmond
Round 16 - Melbourne 112 - 91 Footscray
Round 17 - Collingwood 132 - 70 Footscray
Round 18 - Footscray 165 - 53 Hawthorn
Round 19 - Geelong 120 - 77 Footscray

FINAL LADDER

Essendon ----------- 60
Collingwood -------- 52
Footscray ----------- 52
Melbourne ---------- 52

Richmond ----------- 44
Carlton -------------- 44
Sth Melb ------------ 40
Fitzroy --------------- 36
Nth Melb ------------ 32
Geelong ------------- 16
St Kilda -------------- 16
Hawthorn ----------- 12


FOR THE RECORD

- That 9 game winning streak is our best winning streak :)

[Chicago1]

Geesh, Xie, that was even before I was born!:( :p

[Flood Gates]

Just our of curiosity Chicago ... How is your accent?
Is it half Aussie half American? Or more Aussie and American?

[Chicago1]

Originally posted by Flood Gates
Just our of curiosity Chicago ... How is your accent?
Is it half Aussie half American? Or more Aussie and American?

What accent youse talkin' 'bout? I don't have an accent, y'all!;) :D

And I kinda like that idea of being called Dr Chicago1 too! Right, Flood Gates Joffa?;)

[Iso]

Good to see those records FG - 54 was a good season too....

Bulldogs.......mmmmmmmm

[Flood Gates]

Originally posted by Iso
Good to see those records FG - 54 was a good season too....

Bulldogs.......mmmmmmmm

Iso, you may not agree, but in all honesty the Bulldogs didnt have the best season in 1954, but they had the best result - (if you know what I mean)

I think we went 11 wins and 6 loses and a draw for the home and away season. Thats only a 64% of wins for that season. Believe it or not, the following year in 1955, we failed to make the finals and its fair to say we performed far better in 1955 than what we did in 1954. We went 12-6 in 55, whilst having two big winning streaks happening. We missed the final 4 by .6 of a % that season behind Essendon.

Now - In our first season as a finalist, we won over 72% of our games going 13 and 5. In 1942 we went 10 and 4, with a 71% amount of games won. We also equaled out efforts of 1038 also in 1953 yet again going 13 and 5. In 1985, I think the Bulldogs had their best season in that season, with Hardie and Beasley both taking away medals. We went 16-6, which is fractionally better than our 13-5 record we set in 38 and 53. We also achieved this 16-6 record in 92, however we had a better percentage that season. However, I would state rate 85 as a better season, we were harder to beat that season.

Even though we went 15 and 7 in 98, which is a 68% amount of games won, we were still the power-house side of the year spending 22 weeks in the top 2 - (15 of them were spent on top)
In 1999 we finished with 2 points more than the amount we did the previous season, however in this season there were 3 other power-house sides, and we couldnt really live up to the expectations.

So there you go. Realisitcally, 85 and 92 were our best seasons, but I would rate 98 higher than 92 simply because of the fact the way we dominated the season. 1954 wouldnt even come close to our top 5 performances in a year!

[Iso]

You sure you aren't stan the Statistician in disguise? 85 was great - it seemed almost every week either Beezer would set a record or the team would.
:)

[sigscotty]

Originally posted by Flood Gates

So there you go. Realisitcally, 85 and 92 were our best seasons, but I would rate 98 higher than 92 simply because of the fact the way we dominated the season. 1954 wouldnt even come close to our top 5 performances in a year!

This ignores the fact that not all games are of equal importance. To look at winning percentages as a measure of how good a year the team had is not accurate.

Some very interesting historical stats there though xie, good work.

[K9-54]

Originally posted by Flood Gates
Realisitcally, 85 and 92 were our best seasons
54 the best, 61 second. Nothing else matters. For the others, it's simply a best of the rest argument.

For what it's worth, I would have placed 97 next. I thought we were a real shot to win it. 85 - a great year and I thought we would have put up a decent show against Essendon (couldn't have been worse than Hawthorn's).

Thanks for the post Xie - I didn't know those details about 46.

[Iso]

97........that was a BAD thing. Our worst loss ever.

[Flood Gates]

Originally posted by K9-54



For what it's worth, I would have placed 97 next. I thought we were a real shot to win it. 85 - a great year and I thought we would have put up a decent show against Essendon (couldn't have been worse than Hawthorn's).



I disagree, in 97 the season was far too even.
After round 12, just 4 pts seperated 1st from 9th. If we had've lost 1 more game, we wouldve been just inside the 8 on percentage.

Also in 97, we lost to the following teams who at the stage we lost to them, they were outside the 8.


Round 1 V Freo
Round 5 V Adelaide
Round 12 V Port
Round 15 V Brisbane
Round 18 V Richmond

After we beat the Blues in round 14, we were ontop of the ladder, going nicely 4 points ahead of Geelong. We then happened to lose 4 games in a row to Brisbane, Fremantle, Sydney and Richmond respectively and amazingly slipped to 9th. Being 9th after 18 rounds isnt a sign of a good year. Anyway, we happened to win our last 4 and climb from 9th - 3rd, which goes to show you how even the season actually was.

We were on a roll going into the preliminary final. We had 5 wins in a row leading up to the match, and Adelaide had only 2 wins in a row, which were fairly close wins in the finals against Westcoast and Geelong

So K9, all in all 97 was a disappointing season!
I look at 98 as being more of a waste in 97, because a 2 point result in a preliminary final, doesnt wrap up our season.

[K9-54]

Originally posted by Flood Gates
I disagree, in 97 the season was far too even.

...

So K9, all in all 97 was a disappointing season
The fact that it was even is precisely why we were such a good chance that year. You're sounding a bit like Dan Xie - number of wins mean didly squat if you're not likely to win the premiership. Carlton had a good year in 2000 but if I was a Carlton supporter I would be fonder of 99 - they were a real chance to win that one - they were not likely to win in 2000.

97 had a devastatingly disappointing finish for us. But I was not disappointed by the year at all. It was a great year considering where we were in 96. It gave me hope that we had a team and coach to have some belief in. It made me think (rather than just wish) that we could truly win a premiership and not just compete in the occasional final.

[Flood Gates]

Originally posted by K9-54

Carlton had a good year in 2000 but if I was a Carlton supporter I would be fonder of 99 - they were a real chance to win that one - they were not likely to win in 2000.




There is no way the Blues shouldve made the grand final that year, they were one of the worst grand final sides I have ever seen. In our current finals series they wouldve been knoced out after the first round, but the Blues survived another day.

The Blues played the Lions in the first round of the finals. Now Carlton entered that game with a 9.25% chance of winning the flag, whilst Brisbane entered with a 15.75% chance of winning the flag. On that occasion, the Lions thumped the Blues, however both sides ended up playing the following week in the semis.

Carlton went from a 9.25% chance of winning the flag from the quater finals and losing, up to 12.50% chance of winning the flag after advancing to the semis courtesy to their lose against the Lions the previous week. So how exactly does this work out? If Carlton start with a 9.25% chance, how can they lose and that chance increase?

Brisbane also went down from 15.75% chance to 12.50% chance even though they won. It doesnt make sence, explain that to me K9!

[K9-54]

Originally posted by Flood Gates
There is no way the Blues shouldve made the grand final that year, they were one of the worst grand final sides I have ever seen.
...

Brisbane also went down from 15.75% chance to 12.50% chance even though they won. It doesnt make sence, explain that to me K9!
Whether they were lucky or not isn't the point (and I agree they were). The point is they were a real chance to win the premiership. In 2000 they were a better side but not a big chance at all. I would have loved to have been Carlton in 99.

As for the percentages - they are absolute Dan-like crap. It doesn't make sense because it is complete rubbish. There is nothing to explain. And it's too late to even want to try.

[dogboy23]

Xie I feel as though you are deliberately trying to sound like Dan.Would you say that we were a better side in 99 than 97?We had more wins in 99 but at no stage were we going to win the flag.Many of our wins were unconvincing and scrappy.In 97 I always thought we had a shot because we were playing brilliant football apart from our 4 game losing streak.These statistics mean nothing!97 was an extremely succesful season and it was the closest we have come to a flag since 61 therfore our next most succesful year closely followed by by 85(which we may have have been closer to I was only 2 or 3;) )