Since 1995 We have had 11 premiers

[The Darkman]

One observation I have noticed is when new clubs are added to the competition, a club then wins a series of premierships. After Hawthorn, North Melbourne & Footscray were added to the VFL competition in 1925, Collingwood won 4 premierships in succession from 1927-1930. In 1987, West Coast & Brisbane were granted licences, Hawthorn (a great team already) won premierships in 1988, 1989 & 1991. My understanding is injuries hampered their 1990 campaign.

After Port Adelaide joined in 1997, Brisbane, after a few years of internal issues of catering for ex-Fitzroy players they got lumbered with, went on to win three premierships in row. Now, after Gold Coast & GWS have joined, we have Hawthorn winning three premierships in a row plus the 2008 title (sorry Cats fans!)

My theory is when new teams are added to the competition, an established club will go on a premiership winning streak. Whether that be from talent availability/dilution for other clubs allowing one team to consistently win or a club locks in players to long term contracts.


Switching channels. I don't like the conference system as it leads to having new teams join and lowering the standard of the competition. At the moment, I think we are two teams too many. I like that teams play each other at least once. I'd scrap equalising the draw with the better performing clubs playing each other more often than lesser performing clubs as it's creating a division 1 & division 2 with the same teams stuck in the bottom 6 and their players feeding the better performing clubs (Brian Lake, Ben Macavoy & James Frawley).


I can't see the 2016 premiership being won by a club not amongst the clubs which have won since 1995 with Geelong loading up, Port bouncing back, West Coast continuing to improve, North remaining consistent and Hawthorn remaining strong. It leads to an intriguing season.

 

[PAFC_1870]

Conferences is the only way to make the draw fair if we don't have 17 games. There is no other way.

The only way to make it fair is if had 2 teams in Victoria to go with the 2 elsewhere throughout Australia, but that will never happen, so it will always be compromised.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

That makes no logical sense. If we draw names out of a hat at the end of each season to decide the premiership, that will give you a nice spread of teams, but prove nothing about how "fair" the system is, unless you think "fair" means "give everyone a premiership no matter how good they are."

I've got a solution. Let's give a trophy of participation to every team that doesn't win the premiership, that way everyone's a winner... even the losers

 

[telsor]

The only way to make it fair is if had 2 teams in Victoria to go with the 2 elsewhere throughout Australia, but that will never happen, so it will always be compromised.

Except for the tiny detail that the league would go broke, sure....

To take Vic out of it...

Do you think Tas should have as many teams as SA, even though SA has (over) 3 times as many people?

 

[coxon]

Less than the NRL who don't have a draft?

agree... hasn't League had 8 different premiers in the last 10 years... ?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Between 1967 and 1989 only Carlton Richmond Essendon hawthorn and North won flags....North only the two (their first two, thanks partly to the ten year rule). Add Collingwood who had their chances and most of the other teams didn't come within miles of it. Prior to that Melbourne dominated.

The draft and the cap and national expansion have fixed that and smoothed out every teams chances

 

[PAFC_1870]

Except for the tiny detail that the league would go broke, sure....

To take Vic out of it...

Do you think Tas should have as many teams as SA, even though SA has (over) 3 times as many people?

Do you seriously believe I'm advocating it?

I said how it could actually be fair.

 

[Inferno]

The competition can only be so even before you compromise it by punishing success and rewarding mediocrity too much.

Clubs which are consistently poorly managed over a long period of time aren't going to be good no matter how many top draft picks, compensation picks, equalisation funding, easy fixtures etc. that they receive.

 

[telsor]

Do you seriously believe I'm advocating it?

I said how it could actually be fair.

But it wouldn't, it would just substitute different kinds of unfairness (how do you think the 2 Vic clubs would do with the go home factor for example?) while being totally impractical.

 

[PAFC_1870]

But it wouldn't, it would just substitute different kinds of unfairness (how do you think the 2 Vic clubs would do with the go home factor for example?) while being totally impractical.

The 2 Vic clubs will be best served doing what the WA and SA teams presently do on a 50/50 selection, take the local boy.

Given they'd have many trying to come home too.... But most won't fit obviously.

I'm focusing purely on the H&A draw, which would see fairness. I get the other issues. Hence why I'd never honestly advocate it.

 

[catstorm]

I can't see the 2016 premiership being won by a club not amongst the clubs which have won since 1995 with Geelong loading up, Port bouncing back, West Coast continuing to improve, North remaining consistent and Hawthorn remaining strong. It leads to an intriguing season.

Well Freo still has some chance, they should be around the mark again and the Bulldogs look to be preparing for a tilt though 2016 is probably a year or 2 early.

 

[AstonSouffle]

Except for the tiny detail that the league would go broke, sure....

To take Vic out of it...

Do you think Tas should have as many teams as SA, even though SA has (over) 3 times as many people?

Do you not think that the concentrated effort to reach more eyes in NSW played a considerable part in the boosting the TV dollars?

There's clubs in the Vic that don't make money, they lose money. Everyone knows that, but of course there's the emotional and sentimental aspect which is also entirely understandable.

Taking a few Vic clubs out of it might even make Victoria stronger.

 

[The Darkman]

Well Freo still has some chance, they should be around the mark again and the Bulldogs look to be preparing for a tilt though 2016 is probably a year or 2 early.

Freo has been around the mark for a few years now. The loss in Launceston was a bad loss and I thought come preliminary final time they would have bridged the gap. Harley Bennell could be the X factor (I hate that term) given his skillset. I'm still concerned on where the goals are going to come. The Bulldogs took a lot of impressive scalps last year but also dropped games against Melbourne, St Kilda & Brisbane. I agree they will be a force in 2017.

Richmond may step up given tumultuous offseason with 'Chopstickgate'.

 

[The Joker]

There may have been 4 teams that won the premiership over the past 9 years but each of those teams have been outside the 8 in that period.

Hawthorn - '09
Sydney - '09
Geelong - '15
Collingwood - '14 & '15

Of the 4 runners-up that have not won a GF in that period they have also spent time outside the top 8.

P Adelaide - '08, '09, '10 '11, '12, '15
StKilda - '12, '13, '14, '15
Fremantle - '07, '08 '09, '11
West Coast - '08, '09, '10, '13, '14

The 9 Minor Premierships has been won by 6 teams with only 3 of them winning the GF that year.

Geelong -'07*, '08
StKilda - '09
Collingwood - '10*, '11
Hawthorn - '12, '13*
Sydney - '14
Fremantle - '15


Of course had StKilda, Fremantle and West Coast won then this thread would not have been made.

 

[telsor]

Do you not think that the concentrated effort to reach more eyes in NSW played a considerable part in the boosting the TV dollars?

Not a lot. At least, not yet.

The AFL requires ch7 to show the 'home' teams games into NSW & QLD live where they get the same kind of ratings as the VFL/WAFL/SANFL get, and the TV rights money for them is, at best, low, if not negative (not sure about SANFL or VFL, but WAFL pay for the coverage because it gets more sponsorship money, and NSW/QLD are both bigger markets and the games are in bigger/better timeslots, so the deal is probably worse). Sure, they might get a little extra for the 'national' marker, but no advertiser is going to pay a fortune for markets rating ~50-70 as happens in Sydney and Brisbane.

There's clubs in the Vic that don't make money, they lose money. Everyone knows that, but of course there's the emotional and sentimental aspect which is also entirely understandable.

Taking a few Vic clubs out of it might even make Victoria stronger.

Vic clubs bring in a lot more money for the league in other ways however...e.g. 'buying' docklands for the AFL (worth tens of millions per year), AFL members and the bonuses the league gets for big crowd totals at the MCG.

Ignoring all that, you need to remember that experience shows that when a team is killed off (Fitzroy), about a third of it's supporters are lost to the game....Even with the smaller Vic clubs, that's comfortably over a hundred thousand supporters lost. How much would the AFL pay to get many 'new' fans in NSW/QLD?

 

[andrew coombs]

One observation I have noticed is when new clubs are added to the competition, a club then wins a series of premierships. After Hawthorn, North Melbourne & Footscray were added to the VFL competition in 1925, Collingwood won 4 premierships in succession from 1927-1930. In 1987, West Coast & Brisbane were granted licences, Hawthorn (a great team already) won premierships in 1988, 1989 & 1991. My understanding is injuries hampered their 1990 campaign.

After Port Adelaide joined in 1997, Brisbane, after a few years of internal issues of catering for ex-Fitzroy players they got lumbered with, went on to win three premierships in row. Now, after Gold Coast & GWS have joined, we have Hawthorn winning three premierships in a row plus the 2008 title (sorry Cats fans!)

My theory is when new teams are added to the competition, an established club will go on a premiership winning streak. Whether that be from talent availability/dilution for other clubs allowing one team to consistently win or a club locks in players to long term contracts.


Switching channels. I don't like the conference system as it leads to having new teams join and lowering the standard of the competition. At the moment, I think we are two teams too many. I like that teams play each other at least once. I'd scrap equalising the draw with the better performing clubs playing each other more often than lesser performing clubs as it's creating a division 1 & division 2 with the same teams stuck in the bottom 6 and their players feeding the better performing clubs (Brian Lake, Ben Macavoy & James Frawley).


I can't see the 2016 premiership being won by a club not amongst the clubs which have won since 1995 with Geelong loading up, Port bouncing back, West Coast continuing to improve, North remaining consistent and Hawthorn remaining strong. It leads to an intriguing season.

Your theory has a few holes. Every decade of VFL/AFL footy has had at least one dominant club. The Demons have twice won three Premierships in a row.Essendon were dominant in the 40"s. Geelong had a dominant period in the early 50"s. Richmond won four flags in eight years in the late 60"s and early 70"s. North played in five Grand Finals in a row in the 70"s and won twice. Hawthorn played in four GF"s in the 70"s and four in the 80"s before West Coast and Brisbane joined in and won five flags. The Bombers were a powerhouse in the early to mid 80"s. None of these clubs" period of dominance was after the introduction of new teams to the league. Actually,to compare the Collingwood four in a row of 26-29 to the Hawthorn 13-15 run is like comparing apples with oranges. In the the 20"s there was no zoning, drafting or salary cap. The introduction of Hawthorn,North and Footscray had no effect on the Collingwood machine other than giving them three opportunities to boost percentage. In those days there was no assistance for the three newbies of any kind. It took Hawthorn 32 years to make the finals!

 

[Upgrayedd]

Conferences are fine. If you have 30 odd teams scattered everywhere and you have to play 4 games a week. Seriously in the nba when you have 82 games per season la is not going to play toronto the same amount of times as sac town which is 2 hours drive.

 

[The Darkman]

Your theory has a few holes. Every decade of VFL/AFL footy has had at least one dominant club. The Demons have twice won three Premierships in a row.Essendon were dominant in the 40"s. Geelong had a dominant period in the early 50"s. Richmond won four flags in eight years in the late 60"s and early 70"s. North played in five Grand Finals in a row in the 70"s and won twice. Hawthorn played in four GF"s in the 70"s and four in the 80"s before West Coast and Brisbane joined in and won five flags. The Bombers were a powerhouse in the early to mid 80"s. None of these clubs" period of dominance was after the introduction of new teams to the league. Actually,to compare the Collingwood four in a row of 26-29 to the Hawthorn 13-15 run is like comparing apples with oranges. In the the 20"s there was no zoning, drafting or salary cap. The introduction of Hawthorn,North and Footscray had no effect on the Collingwood machine other than giving them three opportunities to boost percentage. In those days there was no assistance for the three newbies of any kind. It took Hawthorn 32 years to make the finals!

No theory is ever perfect. My point was the requirement of extra players following the creation of new teams lowers the available player pool. The players now in the newly created teams may have bolstered existing clubs. For example, if the Gold Coast was not created, would GAJ still be at Geelong and prevented Hawthorn's (& Sydney's 2012 premiership) success. Back in the 1920's most clubs wouldn't have looked far outside Melbourne for new players. North took advantage of the 10 year rule. In the late 1940's, Essendon had a bloke called John Coleman. In the 1970's John Kennedy felt players could push beyond their physical restrictions.

I never said it was the only way a club can become a powerhouse was from the addition of new clubs. Clearly history has shown clubs have become dominant through either astute recruiting, having a great player as a focal point, taking advantage of an administrative anomaly or using revolutionary training methods.

 

[RobbieGray17]

I'd totally forgotten about this thread.

Comparing to other leagues we are doing pretty good. Teams win in waves, but in other leagues like the NBA, the same teams pop up over and over and over.

Since 2000 every single team has made a prelim, except GC and GWS.

 

[Rod Stroker]

Between 1967 and 1989 only Carlton Richmond Essendon hawthorn and North won flags....

A.k.a The Big 5

 

[doona]

This is the reason we should NOT change our game, the game works fine. Roo made comments in the paper the other day about conferences. While the idea sounds cute, its not an issue.

If you look to the NBA, they have 30 teams, and over the last 30 years, they've managed to find only 8 different championship winners.

13 out of the 16 teams have been involved in a grand final. (not including GWS and Gold Coast)

Fremantle, Richmond and Bulldogs haven't made the GF, however the Bulldogs have at least made a number of prelim finals.

Leaving just Freo and Richmond to have been the only clubs to have really failed to have a genuine chance at a premiership.

Those two teams interestingly have a genuine chance in the next 3 years.

Leave the game as it is.

I could have sworn I saw the Hawks beat freo in a grand final

 

[catstorm]

I could have sworn I saw the Hawks beat freo in a grand final

Check date of post, this is a revived thread.

 

[doona]

Check date of post, this is a revived thread.

My bad

 

[mfcrox]

I GUARANTEE that if you look back in 2026 at the number of premiers since 2005, it won't be close to 11. Currently we are at 5, which means there has to another 6 different premiers in the 10 seasons to match that. Umm, yeah... nah... won't happen.

AFL is becoming EPL unfortunately.

 

[MightyHawks]

I GUARANTEE that if you look back in 2026 at the number of premiers since 2005, it won't be close to 11. Currently we are at 5, which means there has to another 6 different premiers in the 10 seasons to match that. Umm, yeah... nah... won't happen.

AFL is becoming EPL unfortunately.

But if you look back in 2024 at the number of premiers since 2003 then currently we are at 7 and need another 4 different premiers in the next 8 seasons...

IMO its not the number of different premiers that's most important - its the number of different Preliminary Finalists as those sides have a real opportunity to win a premiership

If you look at the Bulldogs from 1985 onwards they've had ample opportunity to play in a Grand Final and to say the system is broken because they haven't played in a Grand Final or won a premiership is absolute rubbish

The Saints have had more chances than most sides to win a premiership in the last 20 years but haven't - is that the fault of the system?

There are those of us who think that teams like St Kilda, Bulldogs and Collingwood are so inept at winning premierships that if two of them actually played in a Grand Final it'd be a draw (Extreme example as the odds of that happening are ridiculous)