Opinion Our grand final drought breeds negativity

[Bacon8]

And, by including the 1990-1993 seasons, take 5th outright.

7 appearances in the last 4 in 24 years.

Geelong 11 3
West Coast 8 3
North Melbourne 8 2
Collingwood 8 2
Adelaide 7 2
St Kilda 7 0
Brisbane 6 3
Hawthorn 6 3
Sydney 6 2
Essendon 6 2
Western Bulldogs 6 0
Melbourne 5 0
Port Adelaide 4 1
Carlton 4 1
Fremantle 2 0
Richmond 2 0

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Collingwood won 1 flag in 51 years (1959 - 2009). They had 8 GF appearances for 0 wins in the 60's/70's.
Hawthorn went 17 years between 1991 & 2008 without a GF appearance.
Sydney went from 1933 to 2005 without a flag. And 1945 to 1996 without a GF appearance.


While it's not nice to be 16 years since a GF appearance, we aren't alone over history.

The drought might not be unique, our level of comfort with it is what's unique

 

[OldCrowBloke]

It has helped a number of clubs climb the ladder faster than us.

Not so sure about this - look at Melbourne as an example.

Maybe with the old priority picks thrown in there is a worthwhile advantage.

David King did an interesting analysis on 360 last night.

He compared the picks (in a "clean" draft) for the team finishing bottom and the eventual premiers.

Picks go:
pick 1 - bottom team

pick 18 - top team
pick19 - bottom team

pick 36- top team
pick 37 - bottom team

etc

So effectively, just one extra decent pick! In a list of 40, this does not make a lot of difference, especially allowing for maturation time for a young player.

 

[SugarShane]

But the possibility of having Walker, Tippett, and Gunston as our three main forwards is salivating.

Then having Davis with Talia in the backline.

I was having a good day, then I read that. Bit sad now.

 

[footy4ever]

How do we compare to all clubs with the number of premierships won in the last 24 years?

 

[Bacon8]

How do we compare to all clubs with the number of premierships won in the last 24 years?

Equal 5th. 4 teams have won 3 flags (or 4 teams have taken 50% of the flags on offer).

And, by including the 1990-1993 seasons, take 5th outright.

7 appearances in the last 4 in 24 years.

Geelong 11 3
West Coast 8 3
North Melbourne 8 2
Collingwood 8 2
Adelaide 7 2
St Kilda 7 0
Brisbane 6 3
Hawthorn 6 3
Sydney 6 2
Essendon 6 2
Western Bulldogs 6 0
Melbourne 5 0
Port Adelaide 4 1
Carlton 4 1
Fremantle 2 0
Richmond 2 0

 

[relapse]

Collingwood won 1 flag in 51 years (1959 - 2009). They had 8 GF appearances for 0 wins in the 60's/70's.
Hawthorn went 17 years between 1991 & 2008 without a GF appearance.
Sydney went from 1933 to 2005 without a flag. And 1945 to 1996 without a GF appearance.


While it's not nice to be 16 years since a GF appearance, we aren't alone over history.

Personally I don't think anything that happened pre 1990 holds a lot of relevance because it was never a level playing field back then. Since the advent of the Americanised recruiting equalisations (ie draft and salary cap) the entire football recruiting landscape has changed, the recruting system now is designed so that the weak get strong and vice versa.

I think our club has struggled because we've refused to "play the game" over the last decade. We've become a perennial mid table club and this limits our ability to achieve success.

 

[Bacon8]

Personally I don't think anything that happened pre 1990 holds a lot of relevance because it was never a level playing field back then. Since the advent of the Americanised recruiting equalisations (ie draft and salary cap) the entire football recruiting landscape has changed, the recruting system now is designed so that the weak get strong and vice versa.

I think our club has struggled because we've refused to "play the game" over the last decade. We've become a perennial mid table club and this limits our ability to achieve success.

So, being equal 5th for flags & 5th for Prelim appearances since 1990 is struggling?

You are a hard marker.

 

[pjcrows]

So if we'd lost a GF in the last 16 years we'd all be happy?

No. But the fact that we haven't made one in 16 years, yet many still believe we have been a successful strong club during that time, is strange.

We haven't won a flag since 1998 but what we did have until about 2010 was a lot of respect due to the way we played our football. Apart from a couple of patches between 1998-2010, we were very tough to beat and generally admired.

That has all but dissipated. We are known as soft, downhill skiers with low standards on and off the field.

This isn't good enough, and we require change.

 

[Owen_AFC97]

This has been painful reading...

 

[pjcrows]

This has been painful reading...

It'll read worse if we don't pull our finger out.

 

[fabs33]

The drought might not be unique, our level of comfort with it is what's unique

We held on to a coach for seven years and a CEO for thirteen, says it all really.

 

[Bacon8]

We held on to a coach for seven years and a CEO for thirteen, says it all really.

What does it say, really?

Geelong, the team at the top of prelim finals/flags in the last 24 years have held the same CEO for 15 years.
Bomber was head coach for 7 years, for 1 prelim appearance, before they won their flag in his 8th year.

West Coast - the second best performed club in the past 24 years, have had the same CEO for 15 years, one they appointed internally from their board.
Granted, Worsfold won the GF in his 5th year in charge, having lost in his 4th year (that broke a 10 year drought).

 

[Glenno23]

What does it say, really?

Geelong, the team at the top of prelim finals/flags in the last 24 years have held the same CEO for 15 years.
Bomber was head coach for 7 years, for 1 prelim appearance, before they won their flag in his 8th year.

West Coast - the second best performed club in the past 24 years, have had the same CEO for 15 years, one they appointed internally from their board.
Granted, Worsfold won the GF in his 5th year in charge, having lost in his 4th year (that broke a 10 year drought).

Was that same CEO in his 8th year when they won a flag?

 

[Bacon8]

Was that same CEO in his 8th year when they won a flag?

Yes (his 9th year actually).
Cook became CEO in 1999. Bomber senior coach in 2000.

Edit: And their President (Costa) was in his 10th year.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

the last two clubs that have gotten the wooden spoon and since gone on to win a premiership are Collingwood in 1999 and Brisbane in 1998.

Getting to a GF is about skill, ability and tactics - winning one is about luck. You need to have the luck go your way on grand final day.

Who said anything about a wooden spoon?

 

[pjcrows]

What does it say, really?

Geelong, the team at the top of prelim finals/flags in the last 24 years have held the same CEO for 15 years.
Bomber was head coach for 7 years, for 1 prelim appearance, before they won their flag in his 8th year.

West Coast - the second best performed club in the past 24 years, have had the same CEO for 15 years, one they appointed internally from their board.
Granted, Worsfold won the GF in his 5th year in charge, having lost in his 4th year (that broke a 10 year drought).

Geelong had a massive independent internal review in 2006. If we do that I will start listening. Not holding my breath.

If we get to a Grand Final in Sando's 4th year (next year) then we can start talking. Again, not holding my breath.

 

[skoobydoo]

Had a thought the other day, that since Triggy departed we have publicly voiced our complaints to the AFL on 2 issues - day games in Brisbane and the goal review. Is this a new approach by the Adelaide Football Club?

 

[Golumless]

Not so sure about this - look at Melbourne as an example.

Maybe with the old priority picks thrown in there is a worthwhile advantage.

David King did an interesting analysis on 360 last night.

He compared the picks (in a "clean" draft) for the team finishing bottom and the eventual premiers.

Picks go:
pick 1 - bottom team

pick 18 - top team
pick19 - bottom team

pick 36- top team
pick 37 - bottom team

etc

So effectively, just one extra decent pick! In a list of 40, this does not make a lot of difference, especially allowing for maturation time for a young player.

The problem with that analysis is that pick and what it entails.

To say the difference is one pick is quite foolish really.

When you pick first, you have the choice of the entire draft, you get the best player available, a 10 year player, a superstar. By pick 18, 17 of the best players are now out of the draft, by laws of averages you should get a lower quality player and it goes on from there.

I.e that team who gets 18th pick is behind the 8 ball from the start and rightfully so... unfortunately there are seasons like this where academies screw it up.

 

[OldCrowBloke]

The problem with that analysis is that pick and what it entails.

To say the difference is one pick is quite foolish really.

When you pick first, you have the choice of the entire draft, you get the best player available, a 10 year player, a superstar. By pick 18, 17 of the best players are now out of the draft, by laws of averages you should get a lower quality player and it goes on from there.

I.e that team who gets 18th pick is behind the 8 ball from the start and rightfully so... unfortunately there are seasons like this where academies screw it up.

The point that King was making was that the picks that "pair up" are hardly different. So that single top pick is the only outlier. With 22 players on a big field, that one player is not going to much difference. Compare that to say the NBA - the top pick is one of five and can have a massive impact.
There is also a lot more risk with that top pick anyway:
Scully is not that great
Watts ??!
Paton injury prone etc

There is so much more needed to build a team than simply getting a high pick or two

 

[fabs33]

What does it say, really?

Geelong, the team at the top of prelim finals/flags in the last 24 years have held the same CEO for 15 years.
Bomber was head coach for 7 years, for 1 prelim appearance, before they won their flag in his 8th year.

West Coast - the second best performed club in the past 24 years, have had the same CEO for 15 years, one they appointed internally from their board.
Granted, Worsfold won the GF in his 5th year in charge, having lost in his 4th year (that broke a 10 year drought).

Providing a couple of examples of clubs that have done something similar and succeeded is nice and all but it doesn't prove that it's a good way of doing things, all it really proves is that it's possible to do it that way. Besides which how does it address the point I was making? Which was rather evident given the post I quoted and the thread's title, it being that we're a change averse club despite not reaching a grand final in a long time.

 

[Juragan Cendol]

I don't know if anyone has pointed this out but in our 97-98 flag years when we won it from 4th and 5th under the McIntyre system, those years the AFL was a very even competition when 15-16 wins gives you minor premiers. Even though we finished 4th/5th, we were #1 on points percentage and points against. We didn't get smashed in our losses but managed to get a few big wins. So we were in some sense the best team of the season. CMIIW

Same case for 05 and (almost) 06 though

 

[Golumless]

The point that King was making was that the picks that "pair up" are hardly different. So that single top pick is the only outlier. With 22 players on a big field, that one player is not going to much difference. Compare that to say the NBA - the top pick is one of five and can have a massive impact.
There is also a lot more risk with that top pick anyway:
Scully is not that great
Watts ??!
Paton injury prone etc

There is so much more needed to build a team than simply getting a high pick or two

Of course, but for every Scully, Watts etc there is a Riewoldt, Hodge, Goddard..

The point of the comment is that the first draft pick is a free hit at an elite talent. These are players that can be considered the missing pieces to a puzzle, or someone you can build a team around. Imagine Aish in Adelaide colors for instance, even someone like Prestia.

One player can make the difference in the end, it's an extra bit of quality. For instance, Darren Jarman is a great example of one player making a difference. Now i'm not arguing that we'll get another DJ in any draft, but find someone who is an elite and we are a lot stronger as a club.

The chance is there for pick 18, it is just it is lower, or they have more flaws.

That there is though, you are harshly judged if you bomb out in the first couple of rounds, but even then, you kind of deserve it

 

[Bacon8]

Providing a couple of examples of clubs that have done something similar and succeeded is nice and all but it doesn't prove that it's a good way of doing things, all it really proves is that it's possible to do it that way. Besides which how does it address the point I was making? Which was rather evident given the post I quoted and the thread's title, it being that we're a change averse club despite not reaching a grand final in a long time.

So what does keeping a CEO for 13 years, and a coach for 7 say it all mean?

If you are going to make blanket calls, maybe quantify what you mean. Because having a CEO for 13 years DOESN'T say you are destined for failure.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Hate to be that guy, it was 35-14 over 05/06 - finals included. Still depressing

Huh??