The rankings (from best to worst) of the 118 VFL/AFL premiership sides.

[Pessimistic]

True, essendon 2000 werent a particularly impressive team, they just got really good numbers in a particular season.

They were fragile in 1999, and cooked by 2001

 

[TaylorMade]

Only really took a quick glance once I realised an Essendon supporter had ranked Essendon the best team ever in their unbiased opinion.

I think your argument may be flawed as it doesn't count the quality of the opposition for the year.

Also seems to have no ranking for sustained success.

But if you think the Essendon team of 2000 was the best team ever good on ya!

Don't worry about the team that beat you the next year and went on to win 3 in a row.

 

[TaylorMade]

There is no such thing as the Brisbane Lions 2001-2003 "team"

There is the Brisbane Lions 2001-2003 "era"

Premierships are individual singular achievements, won year to year. They always have been and always will be. Teams are different every year. Even if players are much the same, they are at different stages of their careers in different seasons. New players come in, old ones retire.

It's like saying that the Hawthorn 2008-2009-2010 team is the same team. Hell why not? If Brisbane can have one "team" over 3 years, why not Hawthorn in 08-09-10? Obviously the Hawthorn of 2009 and 2010 was not the same as the Hawthorn from 2008.

Just like the Brisbane from 2004 and 2005 was not the same as the Brisbane from 2003

The reality is Brisbane produced a wonderfully successful era, in which they didn't have a particularly outstanding team (by premiership standards) in any of those three years.

The 2001 and 2002 teams both went 17-5 with percentages of around 130%. Quite typical, very normal, from a premiership side.

Outstanding yes, but on this list they are being compared to their peers - OTHER premiership teams, many of which had much, much better seasons, and produced better quality football.

I think you have just come to this conclusion to suit your argument.

Lists change but the majority of it stays the same.

I'd rank a team that wins 3 flags in 6 years over a team that won 1 flag in 6 years, even if the team with only one had a higher W:L in their premiership year.

 

[POKsPies252]

Legitimate question/hypothetical -

If Pies win GrandFinal v Cats in 2011 do they directly replace them at 7 on your list?

 

[Dan26]

I think you have just come to this conclusion to suit your argument.

Lists change but the majority of it stays the same.

I'd rank a team that wins 3 flags in 6 years over a team that won 1 flag in 6 years, even if the team with only one had a higher W:L in their premiership year.

You still don't get it though, do you? A "team" that wins 3 flags in 6 years isn't a "team".

It's an era that produced 6 different teams, three of which won premierships (in your hypothetical example)

This is a list of who the BEST teams are. It's not a list of which clubs had the most sustained success over an era.

The fact that Brisbane won the 2002 premiership does NOT magically make their 2001 premiership team better. How can it? The 2001 team did their job. They can't then become better 12 months after the fact.

It doesn't work that way.

If you want to make a list of the most successful eras (separating them into 2-year eras, 3-year eras, 4-year eras etc right up to 20-year eras if you wanted to) then be my guest.

This is a list of the best teams, not the most successful eras

 

[MightyHawks]

True, essendon 2000 werent a particularly impressive team, they just got really good numbers in a particular season.

They were fragile in 1999, and cooked by 2001

The real challengers to Essendon in 2000 were:
North who were on the way out
Carlton who I felt all year would win the flag until the rash of crucial injuries late in the season
Brisbane who had some well documented off season issues which does help explain why they went from a 1999 Prelim to 2000 missing the finals then a threepeat

Melbourne, like Port in 2007 somehow ended up in a Grand Final and found themselves way out of their depth

 

[Pessimistic]

Ah dan, seems to have one opinion almost opposite to many posters, but still talks down to them

Heres the thing guys, you just dont get it, dan thinks essendon 2000 is the best and prepared to go to any length to "prove" it

Using that Logic you could say a round 21 essendon is a different team from the round 22 one. After all, theyv all improved by a week, 22 weeks collectively which is nearly six months

 

[dipper86]

The real challengers to Essendon in 2000 were:
North who were on the way out
Carlton who I felt all year would win the flag until the rash of crucial injuries late in the season
Brisbane who had some well documented off season issues which does help explain why they went from a 1999 Prelim to 2000 missing the finals then a threepeat

Melbourne, like Port in 2007 somehow ended up in a Grand Final and found themselves way out of their depth

Melbourne had finished 14th out of 16 teams the year before....it says a lot about the state of the competition in 2000, there was barely a whimper.

 

[Hawkk]

You still don't get it though, do you? A "team" that wins 3 flags in 6 years isn't a "team".

It's an era that produced 6 different teams, three of which won premierships (in your hypothetical example)

This is a list of who the BEST teams are. It's not a list of which clubs had the most sustained success over an era.

The fact that Brisbane won the 2002 premiership does NOT magically make their 2001 premiership team better. How can it? The 2001 team did their job. They can't then become better 12 months after the fact.

It doesn't work that way.

If you want to make a list of the most successful eras (separating them into 2-year eras, 3-year eras, 4-year eras etc right up to 20-year eras if you wanted to) then be my guest.

This is a list of the best teams, not the most successful eras

Probably a fair point but that doesn't explain the unusually low rating given to the 1971 Hawks team (who dominated across the season)

 

[Dan26]

Legitimate question/hypothetical -

If Pies win GrandFinal v Cats in 2011 do they directly replace them at 7 on your list?

Prior to the last home and away match (which Collingwood lost by 100 points) they had every chance to be number one.

At the time they were 20-1 with a percentage of nearly 170%. Amazing.

They would have needed to beat geelong in that last home and away game (hence finishing 21-1) and would have needed 3 convincing finals wins.

Part of me (the 1% of me that doesn't hate Collingwood) wanted this to happen as it would have been a bit of an "up yours" to the idiots that think I'm biased (which of course I'm not).

But at the end of the day, they fell away in the last 5weeks of that season. Had they won in grand final day, they would have been in the top10, but it's a moot point.

 

[Dan26]

Legitimate question/hypothetical -

If Pies win GrandFinal v Cats in 2011 do they directly replace them at 7 on your list?

Prior to the last home and away match (which Collingwood lost by 100 points) they had every chance to be number one.

At the time they were 20-1 with a percentage of nearly 170%. Amazing.

They would have needed to beat geelong in that last home and away game (hence finishing 21-1) and would have needed 3 convincing finals wins.

Part of me (the 1% of me that doesn't hate Collingwood) wanted this to happen as it would have been a bit of an "up yours" to the idiots that think I'm biased (which of course I'm not).

But at the end of the day, they fell away in the last 5weeks of that season. Had they won in grand final day, they would have been in the top10, but it's a moot point.

 

[Hawkk]

Legitimate question/hypothetical -

If Pies win GrandFinal v Cats in 2011 do they directly replace them at 7 on your list?

Collingwood surely would have been rated top 3

Had Geelong 2008 won surely they would have gone #1 Dan26?

 

[MightyHawks]

Line by line, player by player, there are many premiership sides who could defeat Essendon 2000.

If you had to nominate one side to play they Grand Final for you and your life depended on it I definitely wouldn't choose the Bombers of 2000

I'd be looking for experienced, finals hardened sides that had tasted bitter defeat in previous campaigns while having already won a flag so they knew exactly what was required

Of the teams in the modern era, 1985 Bombers, 1989 Hawks, 2014 Hawks best match that description - I'd back all 3 teams if they were playing their Grand Final against Essendon 2000. If you are wobbling and frittering away early chances against Melbourne, then you might struggle against a real opponent

 

[Thrawn]

If you are wobbling and frittering away early chances against Melbourne, then you might struggle against a real opponent

I reckon we would have beat them with a fit side, Kouta in full flight. In fact we probably would have beaten them in Round 20 if we had a bench.

 

[Dan26]

Melbourne had finished 14th out of 16 teams the year before....it says a lot about the state of the competition in 2000, there was barely a whimper.

That's ridiculous. Ask melbourne if they think there was competition that year?

Carlton (who were as good as essendon during an incredible 13 game winning streak) and essendon were two of the most dominant teams in a season we have seen.

From the point of view of the Kangaroos and Demons it was the hardest premiership to win in history.

I'd like to know how the North melbourne players, reeling from 125 point qualifying final loss thought in regards to there being no competition.

Also, there is no such thing as a weak year, really. The overall ability of the 700 players is logically the same every year. How that identical level of talent is distributed among the 16 teams is the only thing that changes.

To suggest the collective ability of the 700 players in the 2000 season were, of a lesser combined ability than other season, is wrong, insulting, and simply doesn't make sense.

 

[MightyHawks]

Legitimate question/hypothetical -

If Pies win GrandFinal v Cats in 2011 do they directly replace them at 7 on your list?

Prior to the last home and away match (which Collingwood lost by 100 points) they had every chance to be number one.

At the time they were 20-1 with a percentage of nearly 170%. Amazing.

They would have needed to beat geelong in that last home and away game (hence finishing 21-1) and would have needed 3 convincing finals wins.

Part of me (the 1% of me that doesn't hate Collingwood) wanted this to happen as it would have been a bit of an "up yours" to the idiots that think I'm biased (which of course I'm not).

But at the end of the day, they fell away in the last 5weeks of that season. Had they won in grand final day, they would have been in the top10, but it's a moot point.

Collingwood surely would have been rated top 3

Had Geelong 2008 won surely they would have gone #1 Dan26?

it's interesting that since 2000 the two sides who had a season most like Essendon of 2000 didn't actually get the job done on the day
Geelong 2008 and Collingwood of 2011 both lost their Grand Finals against quality opposition

To me that strengthens the argument that a side like Essendon of 2000 that is up for the whole year is in big danger of not actually winning the Grand Final is faced against a quality side

 

[MightyHawks]

I reckon we would have beat them with a fit side, Kouta in full flight. In fact we probably would have beaten them in Round 20 if we had a bench.

I think we agree with each other on this point every year

Kouta, SOS, Bradley & Allan all injured wasn't it?

 

[Tiger_man322]

Time to see where the latest premiership team fits in to to the list. I use my own knowledge from the time of have spent watching football combined with anecdotal, statistical, and written accounts from the early years to rank the 118 premiership teams. I use relativity, taking into account the standard of the competition at the time, so as to not disadvantage teams from the past who were not competing in a national competition, with the resources and professionalism of modern day clubs.

Hawthorn of 2014, were an even, skilful side able to withstand the loss of players through the season. Similar to the year before, they based their premiership win around precise, skillful football, with multiple players able to kick goals. Over the season, they complied:

- a 20-5 season.
- a percentage from 25 games of over 141.1%
- 3 finals wins by 36, 3 and 63 points
- 2nd on the ladder at end of H&A season
- the number one attack, 6th-best defence.

I have decided to rank them, as the 48th-best premiership side in VFL-AFL history. Not one of the most dominant teams by pure numbers, but a mature, skilful proud team, able to withstand the loss of their best player from the year before. I don't subscribe to the theory that they are a better team without Franklin - no team could be. However a spread of EIGHT players kicking 17 or more goal for the year shows how much goalkicking depth they have. They were a well-coached team, able to structure a gameplan around efficient use of the ball in the attacking half of the ground. Their ability to find loose players inside 50 is a testament to the coaching staff confusing the opposition defence and being able to create and efficient path to goal.

The list is as follows:

1.) Essendon 2000. This team earnt the right to be called the greatest in VFL-AFL history with a 24-1 record, a percentage of 163.9 from 25 games, winning three finals by an equal-record combined 230 points with margins of 125, 45 and 60 and a percentage versus the finalists of 160% - 20% higher than any other team in the modern era has managed. At no stage did they look like losing, with even their one loss being narrow, after having 27 more inside 50's, with the Bulldogs having to tactically change the way the sport was played. The Essendon team of 2000 did everything that you could ask, in order for them to be called the best ever. As close to being unbeatable as a team has ever been in VFL-AFL history, with the closest challenge being.....

2.) Collingwood 1929. This team went 19-1 over 20 matches with a percentage of 159.5. They had champions on every line, and were regarded as the greatest combination to have played to that point. The ONLY team to ever be unbeaten in the H&A season. Collingwood fans may label them the best ever VFL-AFL side – I put them at number 2 out of 118. A 62 point loss to Richmond in the finals costs them the number one position on my list. Gordon Coventry was the first to person to kick 100 goals (124) and the Pies completed the treble with Albert Collier winning the Brownlow.

3.) Melbourne 1956. The Dees were at their zenith this year with an 18-2 record and a percentage of 149.4%. Coached by the VFL-AFL coach of the century, Norm Smith and with champion players such as Barassi, Adams, Cordner and Beckwith leading the way, the 1956 Melbourne side was their best side in the most dominant era by one club in VFL-AFL history. A side that could turn it on at will. Many old-timers suggest this was the type of team who could have gone undefeated if they really wanted to.

4.) Hawthorn 1989. The Hawthorn side of ’89 was their best in one of the most powerful eras in history. The Hawks reached their zenith in ’89. They went 21-3, with a percentage of 149.5, had champions everywhere and at their best, were simply unstoppable. I rate them the 4th best of 118 premierships sides. However, unlike Essendon of 2000, or Collingwood of 1929, they didn’t quite have the aura of being totally invincible. Their loss to the Bears holds them back a spot.

5.) Essendon 1950. Tempted to put them higher, but number 5 is fair enough. Here was a team that was near invincible. Just look at their record: 19-1, with a percentage of 159.2. With Coleman at his peak, Dick Reynolds and Hutchison lurking, this was the best Essendon side in their golden era. At the time, many rated this side alongside the 1929 Magpies team as the best of all time.

6.)Geelong 2007. A fantastically dominant team in '07, winning the Grand Final be a record margin, having a percentage for the year over 160% from 25 games. Only great teams can do that. A team, who used skillful, attacking "corridor" midfield play, complimented with a group of players in the mid 20's who have played over 100 games giving them the perfect mix of youth and experience. 21-4, a percentage over 160% and three finals wins by a total of 230 points.

7.) Geelong 2011 A dominant team who didn't have any flat-spots finishing 22-3 with a percentage of 157%. The second oldest premiership side in history meant a wealth of mature bodies and experience. 3 easy finals wins, and a tough defence. More of a long kicking game plan with a defensive edge to it than the flags sides of 2007 and 2009, but perhaps a little less dominant overall than the 2007 side which is ranked one spot higher

8.) Carlton 1908. Carlton’s first golden era produced three great sides, the best of which was the 1908 side. Jack Worrall became the first ever coach, and propelled the Blues to 19-1, with a percentage of 173.7%. Old timers still hold this side as the greatest, and if modern coaching techniques were applied, no doubt they would still be hard to beat in the present day.

9.) Melbourne 1955. Marginally behind the 1956 side, this Melbourne side went 17-3 with a percentage of 150.3%, and showed the makings of a team that would continue to dominate for years to come. The 1955 Melbourne side was heralded as one of the all time greats. A great even spread of talent with no reliance on individuals - a hallmark of the Melbourne teams of this era

10.) Hawthorn 1988. Only behind their ‘89 team due to their inferior defence which conceded 200 points more than the ’89 model. This great team was ruthless, skilled and efficient, and amassed a 21-3 record. Many believe they peaked in ’88, but I believe the Hawks reached their absolute zenith in 1989. Deserve their ranking as the 9th best out of 118.

11.) Collingwood 1927. After losing the Grand Final in 1925 and 1926, this side was ready to peak. They amassed a 17-3 record, with many superstars, proving they could be a champion team and a team of champions. With Coventry kicking 97 goals, and his brother winning the Brownlow, the 1927 side featured the Magpies greats close to their best.

12.) Geelong 1952. Although other teams have amassed superior records, this Geelong side was still one of the greatest in history. They won the premiership in the middle of an unbeaten run that would stretch to 26 consecutive games into the following season, and their attacking, free-flowing style of play became a Geelong tradition. Their 18-2-1 record (140.2%) was a testament to their greatness. Geelong’s best ever side until 2007.

13.) Carlton 1995. This great side had it all - experience, hardness, skill, and a willingness to win. Amassing a 23-2 record with a percentage of 140.6% they played with a professionalism that no club had previously matched. Incredibly, did not lose to a finalist all year. They didn’t quite have the same aura of invincibility as some of the sides in the top 10, but their almost unbeatable record alone ensures them a high ranking.

14.) Carlton 1979. With a 21-3 record and a percentage of 138.9%, and three narrow, spaced losses, this team didn’t have any obvious weaknesses. They nearly blew it in the Grand Final, but their performances through the year were worthy of one of the all time great sides. A rampant mosquito fleet, with a bevy of big name stars all over the field.

15.) Essendon 1985. Sheedy's team peaked to such an extent that they blew away the opposition with a 21-3 record, and were hailed as one of the grea sides of all time. With no apparent weaknesses, a top ruckman, onballers, options everywhere in attack, and a solid defence, this side ranks as one of the greats. Their three losses were all substantial which takes a little away from them, but I still rate them at number 15 out of 118.

16.) Collingwood 1928 Slightly behind their 1929, and 1927 sides the '28 side was one of the greats but perhaps not that far ahead of the other contenders that year. Finished with a 17-3-1 record, and a percentage of 132.5%. Right smack-bang in the middle of the Magpies most famous era. Won the Grand Final by 33 points. Gordon Coventry kicked 89 goals.

17.) Melbourne 1960 This Melbourne side amassed a 16-4 record but with the players at their disposal, that record arguably didn’t do them justice. This was a side that could have easily gone through the season losing only one or two games. In their 7th consecutive Grand Final, they kept Collingwood to only 2.2.14.

18.) Essendon 1911 Under the guidance of the first super-coach, Jack Worrall, who previously led the Blues to three consecutive premierships, the Same Old's as they were known at the time amassed a 17-2-1 record with a percentage (including finals) of 173.3%! The two losses were by 3 and 8 points. Unlucky not to be higher.

19.) Melbourne 1959 Another Demons super-side from their golden era. Not talked about in the same breath as 1955, 56, but this side, along with 1960, were at roughly the same level. The team has a 15-4-1 record from 20 games, winning two finals by 44 and 37 points

20.) Carlton 1907 A great side that would become even better one year later. This side topped the ladder with a percentage of 155.7%. Coached by the first VFL coach, the great Jack Worrall, the Carlton 2007 side was one of the greats.

21.) Hawthorn 1986 Just when it seemed the era was coming to and end in 1985, the experienced ruthless Hawks bounced back in 1986 to finish minor-premiers with 18 wins, and crushed Carlton by 42 points in the Grand Final. The difference between a young Jason Dunstall kicking 77 goals from 22 games in 1986, compared to his 132 in 1988 and 138 in 1989, is essentially the difference between the rankings of where those teams sit compared to this one.
________________________________________________________
22. Essendon 1962
23. Geelong 1937
24. Fitzroy 1913
25. Fitzroy 1899
26. South Melbourne 1933
27. Collingwood 2010
28. Essendon 1901
29. Geelong 1925
30. Port Adelaide 2004
31. West Coast 1992
32. Richmond 1974
33. Brisbane 2002
34. Fitzroy 1898
35. Carlton 1906
36. Collingwood 1902
37. South Melbourne 1909
38. South Melbourne 1918
39. Essendon 1984
40. Richmond 1967
41. West Coast 1994
42. North Melbourne 1996
43. Hawthorn 2013
44. Geelong 2009
45. Hawthorn 1971
46. Richmond 1932
47. Collingwood 1930
48. Hawthorn 2014
49. Melbourne 1957
50. Melbourne 1964
51. Essendon 1946
52. Geelong 1951
53. Collingwood 1936
54. Geelong 1931
55. Collingwood 1903
56. Carlton 1914
57. Collingwood 1919
58. Carlton 1915
59. Hawthorn 2008
60. Brisbane 2001
61. Richmond 1980
62. Carlton 1981
63. Carlton 1972
64. Essendon 1949
65. Carlton 1982
66. Geelong 1963
67. Hawthorn 1961
68. Hawthorn 1983
69. Carlton 1987
70. Richmond 1934
71. Brisbane 2003
72. Richmond 1969
73. Melbourne 1939
74. St.Kilda 1966
75. Collingwood 1953
76. Carlton 1968
77. Hawthorn 1991
78. Sydney 2012
79. Carlton 1947
80. Richmond 1920
81. Essendon 1923
82. Essendon 1942
83. Melbourne 1926
84. Richmond 1973
85. Essendon 1965
86. West Coast 2006
87. Melbourne 1941
88. Fitzroy 1905
89. Fitzroy 1944
90. Carlton 1970
91. Carlton 1938
92. Richmond 1943
93. Collingwood 1935
94. Collingwood 1990
95. Collingwood 1958
96. Essendon 1924
97. Melbourne 1940
98. Hawthorn 1978
99. North Melbourne 1975
100. Hawthorn 1976
101. North Melbourne 1977
102. Essendon 1993
103. Collingwood 1910
104. Essendon 1897
105. Adelaide 1998
106. Fitzroy 1904
107. Fitzroy 1922
108. Adelaide 1997 (like any flag side they were good, but there were many better)
109. Sydney 2005 (workmanlike, needed everything to go right)
110. Essendon 1912 (stole it off South Melbourne)
111. Melbourne 1948 (stole if off Essendon)
112. Carlton 1945 (percentage of only 106% and came from 4th, as war ended.)
113. Footscray 1954 (a modest win-loss record in a very even year)
114. Kangaroos 1999 (Worst defence of the top-10 teams. Percentage of 115%)
115. Richmond 1921 (stole it off Carlton)
116. Collingwood 1917 (war years)
117. Melbourne 1900 (came from 6th and helped by finals system)
118. Fitzroy 1916 (war years. Won wooden spoon and flag)

Alot of effort gone into this, so kudos.

But Essendon 2000 Number 1? No Brisbane 2001-2003 in the top 20? Hawthorn 2008 59?

Yeah, but nah.

 

[dipper86]

That's ridiculous. Ask melbourne if they think there was competition that year?

The point is you had no competition...it was a weak year, the contenders were weak.

Carlton (who were as good as essendon during an incredible 13 game winning streak) and essendon were two of the most dominant teams in a season we have seen.

Carlton's season ended as soon as Kouta blew out his knee. You know Kouta the man that single handedly defeated your side the year before.

From the point of view of the Kangaroos and Demons it was the hardest premiership to win in history.

Of course it was, it was an end of an era for the Kangaroos whilst the Demons came from 14th but were never really in a position to win the big one. A team that was 14th the year before made the grand final.....it speaks volumes about the lack of quality competition that year.

 

[Dan26]

If you had to nominate one side to play they Grand Final for you and your life depended on it I definitely wouldn't choose the Bombers of 2000

I'd be looking for experienced, finals hardened sides that had tasted bitter defeat in previous campaigns while having already won a flag so they knew exactly what was required

Experienced? Flag sides don't "mainly" come from experienced players. They are made from the group of players who have played between 50-100 games and are between the ages of 23-28. Essendon had a mix of both

Finals hardened? Essendon's 2000 finals campaign was their 6th in 8 years, and the second Grand Final in 8 years. Eight of the starting 20 (40% of the team) had played in the 1993 premiership.

Tasted bitter defeat? 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999

Already won a flag? As I said, 40% of the starting 20 had premiership experience.

I'd suggest the 2000 team knew exactly what was required.

I thought you'd be aware of this more than anyone given that in my opinion, Essendon's best performance of the 2000 season came at Hawthorn's expense at Etihad, late in the season in round 19. I don't know if you remember it, but it was football played at the highest level. Probably even better than the Qualifying Final performance.

Probably the most startling stat about the 2000 side, is that their percentage JUST against the finalists that season was 160%.

Normally, when a team has a percentage of 160% it's by beating up on some of the lesser teams. They might have a percentage of 180% versus the lower teams, and 140% versus the best teams.

Essendon had a percentage of 160% against BOTH the finalists and non finalists. This is unprecedented in the modern era, and is actually mindboggling.

It means they eased up on the non finalists. Normally, when you have a percentage of 160%, you have to pump the non finalists (like Geelong did in 2011 with 186 and 150 point wins)

To have a percentage versus the other finalists of 160% over the course of the season, is something I don't think any of us will ever see again. Ever. It's basically a 1 in 100 year occurance.

 

[MightyHawks]

That's ridiculous. Ask melbourne if they think there was competition that year?

Carlton (who were as good as essendon during an incredible 13 game winning streak) and essendon were two of the most dominant teams in a season we have seen.

From the point of view of the Kangaroos and Demons it was the hardest premiership to win in history.

I'd like to know how the North melbourne players, reeling from 125 point qualifying final loss thought in regards to there being no competition.

Also, there is no such thing as a weak year, really. The overall ability of the 700 players is logically the same every year. How that identical level of talent is distributed among the 16 teams is the only thing that changes.

To suggest the collective ability of the 700 players in the 2000 season were, of a lesser combined ability than other season, is wrong, insulting, and simply doesn't make sense.

Actually it makes perfect sense

Lets put in this way

Under the current finals system pretty much only the top 4 sides can win it

So it's not really the strength of the 18 sides that matters that much (or the 8 sides in many of the of the years where you rate a side highly)

It's how the finals contenders actually shape up

In some years you end up with a few contenders who are in terrific shape and in other years the wheels can fall off sides at the wrong time

Look at Bulldogs 2008 for example, had been a very good side all year but simply ran out of steam

Or you get sides like West Coast in 2007 or were missing Cousins, Judd and Kerr in the finals (Cuz did play a half against Port before pinging his hammy)

In 1999 I actually felt Brisbane were the strongest side going around, when they lost the Prelim they were missing a whole stack of their best players.

In 2000 Carlton was the genuine challenger to Essendon and the players they were missing were critical to their side and their ability to challenge the Bombers

To put it another way, lets say there was some strange trading that went on right now and Buddy, Kennedy, Fyfe, Pav, TomaHawk, Selwood, Wingard & Robbie Gray were all traded to GWS, Melbourne, St Kilda & the Dogs. Hawthorn goes on to win the 2015 flag with a 22-0 season and wins every final. Would Hawthorn 2015 be the best side of all time? I mean the collective ability of the 700 players in season 2015 wouldn't have changed... I'd suggest if those list changes happened right now then Hawthorns 2015 flag odds would drop from $4 to $1.80

 

[Thrawn]

Kouta, SOS, Bradley & Allan all injured wasn't it?

Yeah, and we also had players coming back from injury which didn't help.

 

[Dan26]

The point is you had no competition...it was a weak year, the contenders were weak.

Carlton weren't weak. Melbourne had won 10 of 11 entering the Grand Final.

Like I said, ask Melbourne if they thought it was a weak year. Ask Carlton. Those are the teams that had to contend with what was basically an unbeatable opponent.

You're forgetting that the presence of Essendon themselves MADE the year strong at the top of the ladder.

It's like me claiming that the Hawthorn 1988 team wasn't good, because there was no oustanding opposition. So what? That's not Hawthorn's of 1988's fault. THEY were outstanding themselves and that's all that matters.

You don't become great by beating a great team. You become great by BEING that great team yourself.

No team proves that mantra better than Hawthorn in 1988.

 

[Here2tellyouwhy]

Perhaps the best of all time.

But that was not a VFL-AFL flag, and hence does not count in THIS list.

Well there's your problem right there.

The VFL was just a bigger version of the SANFL up untill 1987.

Now look at it.

We get 37k to a final and you get 24k which is the best you can muster in 25 years and with AFL premiership players running around.

s**t Box Hill gave up at 3/4 time by not putting Cyril on the field. WTF is up with that?

Our GF went down to the last few passages of play and will go down as one of the best in the last 25 years.

AFL premierships are one thing.
Pathetic arse flags won against five other teams in the middle of a war are not something I would compare to Hawthorn 2014, Essendon 2000 or The Lions 2001-2003.
Geelong 2007...

The VFL was what it was. Just like the SANFL. The flags won pre AFL are equal. The same.

 

[Dan26]

Actually it makes perfect sense

Lets put in this way

Under the current finals system pretty much only the top 4 sides can win it

So it's not really the strength of the 18 sides that matters that much (or the 8 sides in many of the of the years where you rate a side highly)

It's how the finals contenders actually shape up

In some years you end up with a few contenders who are in terrific shape and in other years the wheels can fall off sides at the wrong time

Look at Bulldogs 2008 for example, had been a very good side all year but simply ran out of steam

Or you get sides like West Coast in 2007 or were missing Cousins, Judd and Kerr in the finals (Cuz did play a half against Port before pinging his hammy)

In 1999 I actually felt Brisbane were the strongest side going around, when they lost the Prelim they were missing a whole stack of their best players.

In 2000 Carlton was the genuine challenger to Essendon and the players they were missing were critical to their side and their ability to challenge the Bombers

To put it another way, lets say there was some strange trading that went on right now and Buddy, Kennedy, Fyfe, Pav, TomaHawk, Selwood, Wingard & Robbie Gray were all traded to GWS, Melbourne, St Kilda & the Dogs. Hawthorn goes on to win the 2015 flag with a 22-0 season and wins every final. Would Hawthorn 2015 be the best side of all time? I mean the collective ability of the 700 players in season 2015 wouldn't have changed... I'd suggest if those list changes happened right now then Hawthorns 2015 flag odds would drop from $4 to $1.80

Even if you believe all that, none of that is Essendon's fault.

Hawthorn of 1988 had no genuine competition. Big deal. They were still great.

You don't become great by beating a great team. You become great by BEING that great team yourself. And Essendon of 2000 fits the bill.

That percentage versus the finalists over the course of the season of 160%. Oh my God. That's 20% higher than the next best