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

[TaylorMade]

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

I realise at this point I am on a hiding to nowhere. You've spent a good couple of hours creating this post to tell everyone how great Essendon of 2000 is and you will never back down, regardless of how stupid your analogies become.

If you asked a group of AFL footballers if they considered the bunch of guys they played with for 6 years a "team" they would say yes, regardless of a few ins and outs.

We all see what you are trying to do. You have used a bunch of selective stats to try and tell us that the 2000 Bombers team was the best ever. Nobody is buying it.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

I think the quality of the opposition on GF day has to come into it when ranking teams

Geelong lost 4 GFS in 80s/ 90s - look at the opposition - Hawthorn 89 - nearly unbeatable - Eagles92/94 - basically a state team - Carlton 95 - went 20-2 and a champion team - there was no " soft " flag there on offer for the poor old Cats

Same arguement can be made with Collingwood - their GF 1970 side - which was a raging hot favourite - but ran into a top flite Carlton side - was a far superior - ( in fact about a 12-15 goal more talented team ) than the 1990 Collingwood premiership team - which played against a tired old dads army side - called Essendon at the time

 

[MightyHawks]

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

They come with a mix of these things. Flag sides usually have a core group of players with over well over 100 games experience. The three sides I've mentioned have all these features

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.

Since the 1993 Grand Final which was 7 year earlier, you'd only had two serious finals campaigns, with no Grand Final appearances
8 players with distant Premiership experience is good, but how many had losing Grand Final experience to go with it? You can't use Barnesy multile times here...

Tasted bitter defeat? 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999

Tasted bitter defeat - 1995? 1998? Are you serious about those years? Like really 1998 - you finished 8th and lost a nothing match to a good side that didn't get out of second gear
1996 and 1999 I'll give you
But you are missing a Grand Final defeat there and they sting like nothing else

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

Yep that's a good amount of premiership experience, but not as good as other sides I suggested. You are defending Essendon as the best team of all time remember

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.

So you are saying that the best football the greatest side of all time played was against an inexperienced side that snuck into the finals that year...
I mean really and truly is anyone saying the best football the 2014 Hawks side played was their big win against Richmond earlier this year?

Reckon we looked pretty good against Fremantle in Round 3 and Sydney in the Grand Final - quality opposition (though happy to note that Freo were missing Barlow & Fyfe)

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.

There were some bad finalists in there. Brisbane had the talent to be a top 4 side that year but had some very big off field issues

It's noticeable in 2000 that half the finalists only won 12 games. Collingwood finished second last with 7 wins

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.

It's a good stat that one, and it helps your case that Essendon were a very good side in 2000

 

[MightyHawks]

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

Hawthorn of 1988 had competition. Carlton and Melbourne beat them early in the year, while Collingwood nearly beat them. None of the other top 5 sides had a poor run with injuries etc... Hawthorn of 1988 were simply better than the competition

 

[MightyHawks]

Carlton weren't weak.

Well if Carlton weren't weak, imagine how they'd have been if they'd had use of some of their best players

Kouta was the best player in the comp in 2000

It's not like the were missing spuds

 

[PIES 4 LIFE]

Collingwood 2010 seems too high. They almost didn't win the thing. I'd call West Coast's 1994 flag a bit better.

won by 56 points, i would say that's a comfortable victory.

 

[DrEvil_]

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.

Melbourne were shithouse.

 

[Pessimistic]

Its the best since there is a final 8

 

[telsor]

115. Richmond 1921 (stole it off Carlton)

How so?

Looks like we came 2nd, both teams won their semis, then we beat Carlton in the Prelim, then beat them against in the grand final (challenge system, so they had a 2nd shot).

We had to beat them twice and we did....where is the theft?

 

[Richo83]

I think the quality of the opposition on GF day has to come into it when ranking teams

Geelong lost 4 GFS in 80s/ 90s - look at the opposition - Hawthorn 89 - nearly unbeatable - Eagles92/94 - basically a state team - Carlton 95 - went 20-2 and a champion team - there was no " soft " flag there on offer for the poor old Cats

Same arguement can be made with Collingwood - their GF 1970 side - which was a raging hot favourite - but ran into a top flite Carlton side - was a far superior - ( in fact about a 12-15 goal more talented team ) than the 1990 Collingwood premiership team - which played against a tired old dads army side - called Essendon at the time

This is what makes me feel like the 2000 flag is overrated. The second best side was Carlton with 16 wins, the next best were Melbourne and North with 14. Yes, Essendon did take a lot of wins from clubs but it was also a fairly even year with no standouts from the rest of the competition.

 

[X_box_X]

'99 premiership the 5th worst of all time? Yeeeah, nah.

Who would you rate that team ahead of?

Why was their percentage so low? And why were the Gods on their side in the preliminary final?

 

[Schraderbrau]

There are now three teams in the last 15 years who can be said have been clearly better than Essendon 2000. It's bizarre seeing them on top especially considering the opposition they played in 2000. I suppose they need something to cling on to after the barren last decade and half. These days success for the Bomber seems to be defined by the ability to finish in 8th spot and not lose the first final by more than 10 goals.

 

[Fyfetheknife]

#1 Freo 2015

 

[JackOutback]

Stats only ever tell half the story...Brisbane 2001-03 should have been ranked higher, as should West Coast 1992, becoming the first team to overcome a punishing travel schedule and unfair finals fixturing to win the premiership from interstate.

Hawks of the late '80s and Geelong recently are both good picks though.

That all said, it's one person's opinion, no need to get upset about it. Plus kudos to the amount of work put in.

 

[LiterallyNobody]

Maybe it's because I'm a st Kilda supporter and I don't actually give a * about premierships and measuring my dick because compared to everyone else, st Kilda has a tiny shrivelled wiener.

But I believe (and I could be wrong) that Dan, despite being an Essendon supporter is basing this purely on statistics. It just so happens that he has his team on top. I'm going offer you a hypothetical.

In 2009, when st Kilda still hadn't been defeated and were faced with what was expected to be theirs at challenging match so far - the bulldogs who were otherwise in great form - and we destroyed them. Dan remarked that st Kilda had the opportunity to take the top place which they would do if they remained undefeated. If riewoldt had have kicked the goals he missed in rounds 20 and 21 we would finished the season 21-0-1 (drawing North Melbourne but still technically undefeated) had we won the flag we would have statistically been the most successful team in history - dan remarked if we were to go undefeated it would be amazing that statistically the least successful team had had the most successful season.

Of course as we all know we didn't even get close to undefeated and didn't even win the flag so it's all a moot point.

Back to the point I was making. Three teams have gone through an entire afl/vfl season with only one loss. It just so happens that Essendon of 2000 had the best winning percentage so it came down to statistics.

I will however say one thing as I would hate to be accused of defending an Essendon supporter considering my intense hatred of the team.

It is pretty easy to be somewhat selective when making threads like that. Dan knows that no other team can beat Essendon 2000 and that's why he can justify everything everyone else throws at him. Because statistically Essendon of 2000 are (and I say this begrudgingly because their fans were utter UTTER campaigners to me in that year) the greatest team of all time.

Going by the biased criteria anyway.

I'd love somebody to make a similar thread about eras/dynasties. Hawthorn of the 80's, collingwood four peat, Brisbane three peat, north in the 90's, west coast, Melbourne's five from seven in the fifties, hawthorn last three years, Geelong from 2007-11. Would be interesting to rank all of the great eras (two or more flags with consecutive finals appearances throughout would probably be the criteria)

 

[Jade]

It's a good stat that one, and it helps your case that Essendon were a very good side in 2000

Come at me 2014 Hawks, come at me.....

 

[Pessimistic]

Maybe it's because I'm a st Kilda supporter and I don't actually give a **** about premierships and measuring my dick because compared to everyone else, st Kilda has a tiny shrivelled wiener.

But I believe (and I could be wrong) that Dan, despite being an Essendon supporter is basing this purely on statistics. It just so happens that he has his team on top. I'm going offer you a hypothetical.

In 2009, when st Kilda still hadn't been defeated and were faced with what was expected to be theirs at challenging match so far - the bulldogs who were otherwise in great form - and we destroyed them. Dan remarked that st Kilda had the opportunity to take the top place which they would do if they remained undefeated. If riewoldt had have kicked the goals he missed in rounds 20 and 21 we would finished the season 21-0-1 (drawing North Melbourne but still technically undefeated) had we won the flag we would have statistically been the most successful team in history - dan remarked if we were to go undefeated it would be amazing that statistically the least successful team had had the most successful season.

Of course as we all know we didn't even get close to undefeated and didn't even win the flag so it's all a moot point.

Back to the point I was making. Three teams have gone through an entire afl/vfl season with only one loss. It just so happens that Essendon of 2000 had the best winning percentage so it came down to statistics.

I will however say one thing as I would hate to be accused of defending an Essendon supporter considering my intense hatred of the team.

It is pretty easy to be somewhat selective when making threads like that. Dan knows that no other team can beat Essendon 2000 and that's why he can justify everything everyone else throws at him. Because statistically Essendon of 2000 are (and I say this begrudgingly because their fans were utter UTTER campaigners to me in that year) the greatest team of all time.

Going by the biased criteria anyway.

I'd love somebody to make a similar thread about eras/dynasties. Hawthorn of the 80's, collingwood four peat, Brisbane three peat, north in the 90's, west coast, Melbourne's five from seven in the fifties, hawthorn last three years, Geelong from 2007-11. Would be interesting to rank all of the great eras (two or more flags with consecutive finals appearances throughout would probably be the criteria)

Those comparisons happen all the time. Quite common. The fact three teams in the last 15 years says ists not that remarkable.
Very few take dans tack on things. Theres a reason for that

 

[LiterallyNobody]

Those comparisons happen all the time. Quite common. The fact three teams in the last 15 years says ists not that remarkable.
Very few take dans tack on things. Theres a reason for that

Yes but I think it would be cool if somebody would do a ranking of all the eras, taking into consideration the strength of opponent, size of competition, overall record and of course number of premierships.
For the purposes of the thread you would need to define what an era is exactly.

 

[MightyHawks]

Back to the point I was making. Three teams have gone through an entire afl/vfl season with only one loss. It just so happens that Essendon of 2000 had the best winning percentage so it came down to statistics.

I will however say one thing as I would hate to be accused of defending an Essendon supporter considering my intense hatred of the team.

It is pretty easy to be somewhat selective when making threads like that. Dan knows that no other team can beat Essendon 2000 and that's why he can justify everything everyone else throws at him. Because statistically Essendon of 2000 are (and I say this begrudgingly because their fans were utter UTTER campaigners to me in that year) the greatest team of all time.

Going by the biased criteria anyway.

I'd love somebody to make a similar thread about eras/dynasties. Hawthorn of the 80's, collingwood four peat, Brisbane three peat, north in the 90's, west coast, Melbourne's five from seven in the fifties, hawthorn last three years, Geelong from 2007-11. Would be interesting to rank all of the great eras (two or more flags with consecutive finals appearances throughout would probably be the criteria)

As Dan has stated many times, his list isn't a pure statistical ranking

Dan uses Stats to back up his arguments when it suits him

When the Stats don't measure up then he relies on other arguments

Look how far down the list Carlton of 1995 are considering they only lost 2 matches

 

[LiterallyNobody]

To st Kilda and Sydney. The previous years wooden spooners and a asker case of a club who were at the time favourites to win the wooden spoon. And they were thrashed in both games.

However I agree they are too low

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Joining in the chorus, early noughties Brisbane is the best team I can remember, their seasons should be ranked higher. Stats just can't explain the way they brutalised other teams.

Blues in 1995 was the other time I felt genuinely in awe of a side.

Too young to remember '89, then again, Brad Johnson telling Barnes to EAD is about my only memory of 2000

 

[Jade]

#1 Freo 2015

Your list is not capable my friend, I'm sorry.

 

[Fyfetheknife]

Your list is not capable my friend, I'm sorry.

Exacty that's why it will be this greatest premiership of all time, a team on the down, written off, with a list not good enough, rises to the occasion and conquers all!
Or something like that

 

[The Dice Man]

In my memory hawthorn of 88-89 wipe anything I've seen since. But they regularly smashed us tigers back then.

 

[Pessimistic]

Yes but I think it would be cool if somebody would do a ranking of all the eras, taking into consideration the strength of opponent, size of competition, overall record and of course number of premierships.
For the purposes of the thread you would need to define what an era is exactly.

And in the defining, you build in the bias. Just look at dan