The rankings (from best to worst) of the 127 VFL/AFL premiership teams

[Defabs]

I don't agree about 2020 being a weak flag. All 18 clubs were hampered to differing extents, but Richmond were clearly one of the most hampered clubs, if not the most hampered by the Covid arrangements. They had key players in Edwards and Houli excluded from the hub for most of the season due to fatherhood responsibilities. Then the club has had to play finals against a team who had the luxury of barely leaving their home state for the whole season and another club who also had luxuries Richmond didn't enjoy. It was a uniquely difficult season for most clubs but Richmond won that Premiership on absolute merit, and quite impressively in the end.

The Dogs 2016 to me was an impressive Premiership victory right at the pointy end of Premierships I have seen in my lifetime. They won two interstate finals for a start. 4 finals victories at any venues or v any opponents has only been done twice in history I believe, Adelaide 1997 and Bulldogs 2016. Both won 2 home state finals and 2 interstate finals. But Crows 2 home state finals were on their own home ground against teams playing interstate away. And Crows two away finals were against teams playing in their home state, but not on their home grounds.

Crows vanquished 4 teams in the finals who had won 13, 14, 15 & 15 home and away matches that season.

The Bulldogs played two interstate finals against teams playing on their home grounds. And Bulldogs 2 home state finals were not on the Bulldog's home ground, and in fact one of those was on the opponent's home ground. But if you believe in a team's strength being defined partly by its home and away record(you clearly do going by the part of your post I highlighted) then you need to appreciate the Bulldogs effort to beat 4 teams in finals with the following home and away records:

17-5 151%
17-5 119%
16-6 143%
16-6 130%

For comparison, Collingwood 2023 finished the home and away season 18-5 and 127%. Bulldogs basically beat 4 teams in succession whose home and away seasons were of similar merit to that, 2 of those interstate away on those teams' home grounds. A 3rd on another opponent's home ground. Again for comparison, Collingwood 2023 have played 3 finals on Collingwood's home ground, 2 of those against interstate away teams, and Collingwood won those 3 finals by a combined total of 12 points, against teams with 17-6, 16-7 and 13-10 home and away records.

The Bulldogs 2016 flag was far more impressive than Collingwood's 2023 flag. And I wouldn't be talking about dodgy umpiring in favour of the Dogs in 2016 if you are comparing them to Collingwood 2023, the Pies have dead set got rails runs Steve Bradbury wouldn't believe with the tribunal, umps, and venues.

Disagree. Going by your logic Fitzroy and Melbourne, the two worst premiers in VFL/AFL history, should be at the top bevause they dominated the finals even though their H&A season form was putrid.

The fact that the Bulldogs won all their finals away from home is irrelevant. They were an ordinary team that finished 7th and were in ordinary form going into the finals. The introduction of the pre finals bye greatly assisted them as well. It gave them a chance to refresh.

While finals performance should obviously be a variable, the final ladder position and % of games won during the season should be weighted substantially more.

And please don’t even defend 2020. It was nothing more than a glorified lightening premiership. No crowds, games the equivalent of just over three quarters, less games, no home ground adv. fans of the game were completely disconnected and indifferent. absolutely awful season and should never make any appearance on any highlights reel. I didn’t even care that the pies beat WCE by a point in the EF that season. for mine, it ranks near the bottom with Fitzroy and Melbourne.

 

[Vankri]

I don't agree about 2020 being a weak flag. All 18 clubs were hampered to differing extents, but Richmond were clearly one of the most hampered clubs, if not the most hampered by the Covid arrangements. They had key players in Edwards and Houli excluded from the hub for most of the season due to fatherhood responsibilities. Then the club has had to play finals against a team who had the luxury of barely leaving their home state for the whole season and another club who also had luxuries Richmond didn't enjoy. It was a uniquely difficult season for most clubs but Richmond won that Premiership on absolute merit, and quite impressively in the end.

The Dogs 2016 to me was an impressive Premiership victory right at the pointy end of Premierships I have seen in my lifetime. They won two interstate finals for a start. 4 finals victories at any venues or v any opponents has only been done twice in history I believe, Adelaide 1997 and Bulldogs 2016. Both won 2 home state finals and 2 interstate finals. But Crows 2 home state finals were on their own home ground against teams playing interstate away. And Crows two away finals were against teams playing in their home state, but not on their home grounds.

Crows vanquished 4 teams in the finals who had won 13, 14, 15 & 15 home and away matches that season.

The Bulldogs played two interstate finals against teams playing on their home grounds. And Bulldogs 2 home state finals were not on the Bulldog's home ground, and in fact one of those was on the opponent's home ground. But if you believe in a team's strength being defined partly by its home and away record(you clearly do going by the part of your post I highlighted) then you need to appreciate the Bulldogs effort to beat 4 teams in finals with the following home and away records:

17-5 151%
17-5 119%
16-6 143%
16-6 130%

For comparison, Collingwood 2023 finished the home and away season 18-5 and 127%. Bulldogs basically beat 4 teams in succession whose home and away seasons were of similar merit to that, 2 of those interstate away on those teams' home grounds. A 3rd on another opponent's home ground. Again for comparison, Collingwood 2023 have played 3 finals on Collingwood's home ground, 2 of those against interstate away teams, and Collingwood won those 3 finals by a combined total of 12 points, against teams with 17-6, 16-7 and 13-10 home and away records.

The Bulldogs 2016 flag was far more impressive than Collingwood's 2023 flag. And I wouldn't be talking about dodgy umpiring in favour of the Dogs in 2016 if you are comparing them to Collingwood 2023, the Pies have dead set got rails runs Steve Bradbury wouldn't believe with the tribunal, umps, and venues.

All your justifications are based on your subjective viewing of the games and arguments are made to retrofit the outcome you want to drive.

You are skewing the data to only gauge the finals run rather than the season because it suits you.

In reality it is more impressive to finish 1st than it is to finish 7th. That’s a fact. If there was ever a Bradbury in recent times 2016 is it, and if there was ever an asterisk to a flag it’s 2020 when the rules of the game changed.

Your umpiring comments just shows your bias. The advantage has been rebutted to death and no clear score may have come of it plus two of Brisbane’s goals came direct umpiring mistakes. For Toby Greene’s high 99% of the comp doesn’t want to see paid if it’s anybody dropping the knees like that… except against Collingwood. And the tribunal had no impact not sure what you’re onto there unless you want to admit you should have been without Cotchin for a much clearer case and may have lost as a result. I’ve got nothing against the Dogs but that’s the only year I can remember where I thought both the Prelim and GF umpiring advantaged the same team and had an impact on the result. That’s subjective but unless you live under a rock you must be aware that many share this view.

 

[Do the Dew]

Disagree. Going by your logic Fitzroy and Melbourne, the two worst premiers in VFL/AFL history, should be at the top bevause they dominated the finals even though their H&A season form was putrid.

The fact that the Bulldogs won all their finals away from home is irrelevant. They were an ordinary team that finished 7th and were in ordinary form going into the finals. The introduction of the pre finals bye greatly assisted them as well. It gave them a chance to refresh.

While finals performance should obviously be a variable, the final ladder position and % of games won during the season should be weighted substantially more.

And please don’t even defend 2020. It was nothing more than a glorified lightening premiership. No crowds, games the equivalent of just over three quarters, less games, no home ground adv. fans of the game were completely disconnected and indifferent. absolutely awful season and should never make any appearance on any highlights reel. I didn’t even care that the pies beat WCE by a point in the EF that season. for mine, it ranks near the bottom with Fitzroy and Melbourne.

Dogs fans can chime in but they had a ton of injuries deep in the season, and then with the pre-finals bye were able to get a bunch of players back and transform their team for the good. Hence why their September run wasn't that big of a surprise. Also won 6 of their last 9 after the bye before then winning 4x finals in a row. So clearly you're just making s**t up.

You may think 2020 doesn't count, but the coaches, AFL administration etc. have repeatedly said that it was the hardest flag to win in the history of the comp. Who should we believe? A bunch of experts or defabs...

 

[Do the Dew]

All your justifications are based on your subjective viewing of the games and arguments are made to retrofit the outcome you want to drive.

You are skewing the data to only gauge the finals run rather than the season because it suits you.

In reality it is more impressive to finish 1st than it is to finish 7th. That’s a fact. If there was ever a Bradbury in recent times 2016 is it, and if there was ever an asterisk to a flag it’s 2020 when the rules of the game changed.

Your umpiring comments just shows your bias. The advantage has been rebutted to death and no clear score may have come of it plus two of Brisbane’s goals came direct umpiring mistakes. For Toby Greene’s high 99% of the comp doesn’t want to see paid if it’s anybody dropping the knees like that… except against Collingwood. And the tribunal had no impact not sure what you’re onto there unless you want to admit you should have been without Cotchin for a much clearer case and may have lost as a result. I’ve got nothing against the Dogs but that’s the only year I can remember where I thought both the Prelim and GF umpiring advantaged the same team and had an impact on the result. That’s subjective but unless you live under a rock you must be aware that many share this view.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, SUBJECTIVITY!!

If I was a Pies fan, I wouldn't be saying a word about dropping the knees free kicks. Naicos and Mitchell are two of the worst offenders for playing for frees in that manner. In the GF, the first goal came from a knee collapse and the saving possession right at the end came from another, orchestrated by the aforementioned players.

I also don't recall Cotchin cleaning a bloke out while the footy was 30m away.

 

[Vankri]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, SUBJECTIVITY!!

If I was a Pies fan, I wouldn't be saying a word about dropping the knees free kicks. Naicos and Mitchell are two of the worst offenders for playing for frees in that manner. In the GF, the first goal came from a knee collapse and the saving possession right at the end came from another, orchestrated by the aforementioned players.

I also don't recall Cotchin cleaning a bloke out while the footy was 30m away.

No cleaning blokes involved, just read the tribunal verdict. Sorry but the Cotchin one looked very very borderline based on how they adjudicated bumps that season, whether you like it or not. But it went your way, I’m fine with it as a 50/50 but I’m pointing out the hypocrisy.

Your point on high free kicks is a bigger rules question the AFL has not been able to solve. Daicos gets his face slapped by the second tackler, I don’t see how they don’t pay that one. On Mitchell’s the tackler (ruckman) is very forceful, again hard not to pay it. The majority of head high free kicks in the game have become 50/50s between the intent of the tackler and the intent of the one getting tackled, all clubs included. There were many instances of Brisbane drawing high free kicks (the first one of the game in fact before the Daicos one). If you think this is a Collingwood thing only you are again simply being biased, or simple-minded, or both.

Especially if you never mention that there’s a 12 points turnaround if you remove Brisbane’s goals that came from clear cut umpiring mistakes (Cox smothered and Markov 50) and I’m not even touching on the grey area ones.

 

[Do the Dew]

No cleaning blokes involved, just read the tribunal verdict. Sorry but the Cotchin one looked very very borderline based on how they adjudicated bumps that season, whether you like it or not. But it went your way, I’m fine with it as a 50/50 but I’m pointing out the hypocrisy.

Your point on high free kicks is a bigger rules question the AFL has not been able to solve. Daicos gets his face slapped by the second tackler, I don’t see how they don’t pay that one. On Mitchell’s the tackler (ruckman) is very forceful, again hard not to pay it. The majority of head high free kicks in the game have become 50/50s between the intent of the tackler and the intent of the one getting tackled, all clubs included. There were many instances of Brisbane drawing high free kicks (the first one of the game in fact before the Daicos one). If you think this is a Collingwood thing only you are again simply being biased, or simple-minded, or both.

Especially if you never mention that there’s a 12 points turnaround if you remove Brisbane’s goals that came from clear cut umpiring mistakes (Cox smothered and Markov 50) and I’m not even touching on the grey area ones.

The Maynard tribunal verdict has been argued ad nauseam in other threads, but the fact is there were other incidents this year with a very similar set of circumstances that had a completely different result. On the Cotchin incident from checks notes 6 years ago, Shiel wasn't knocked out by that one action. He actually played the rest of the quarter but got collided into by Astbury just before the siren and then didn't return.

It's odd that you call me biased as you gloss over the Pies getting the rub of the green but you highlight when Brisbane got it. You're forgetting the very soft 50m penalty that Sidebottom converted.

The whole collapsing the knees, angling the head sideways, and raising the arm to draw high frees was mastered by JSelwood for a decade. But Collingwood have some masters of exploiting (i.e. cheating) to win these free kicks, namely Naicos, Mitchell, Ginnivan. You can't say there's forceful contact coming from the tackler when the player with the ball contributes to the high contact. This rule was updated a few years ago to stop guys from ducking into tackles. It works the same here. Collapsing the legs to draw high tackles shouldn't be rewarded, but for some select players it consistently is.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

There's something very funny about ranking the Roos in '99 123rd, Brisbane in '01 63rd, but then claiming Essendon in 2000 was a clear #1.

that was Dan's schtick. He put Don's 2000 down first and then just smashed the others out in any old order. Dont take it seriously.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I don't agree about 2020 being a weak flag. All 18 clubs were hampered to differing extents, but Richmond were clearly one of the most hampered clubs, if not the most hampered by the Covid arrangements. They had key players in Edwards and Houli excluded from the hub for most of the season due to fatherhood responsibilities. Then the club has had to play finals against a team who had the luxury of barely leaving their home state for the whole season and another club who also had luxuries Richmond didn't enjoy. It was a uniquely difficult season for most clubs but Richmond won that Premiership on absolute merit, and quite impressively in the end.

The Dogs 2016 to me was an impressive Premiership victory right at the pointy end of Premierships I have seen in my lifetime. They won two interstate finals for a start. 4 finals victories at any venues or v any opponents has only been done twice in history I believe, Adelaide 1997 and Bulldogs 2016. Both won 2 home state finals and 2 interstate finals. But Crows 2 home state finals were on their own home ground against teams playing interstate away. And Crows two away finals were against teams playing in their home state, but not on their home grounds.

Crows vanquished 4 teams in the finals who had won 13, 14, 15 & 15 home and away matches that season.

The Bulldogs played two interstate finals against teams playing on their home grounds. And Bulldogs 2 home state finals were not on the Bulldog's home ground, and in fact one of those was on the opponent's home ground. But if you believe in a team's strength being defined partly by its home and away record(you clearly do going by the part of your post I highlighted) then you need to appreciate the Bulldogs effort to beat 4 teams in finals with the following home and away records:

17-5 151%
17-5 119%
16-6 143%
16-6 130%

For comparison, Collingwood 2023 finished the home and away season 18-5 and 127%. Bulldogs basically beat 4 teams in succession whose home and away seasons were of similar merit to that, 2 of those interstate away on those teams' home grounds. A 3rd on another opponent's home ground. Again for comparison, Collingwood 2023 have played 3 finals on Collingwood's home ground, 2 of those against interstate away teams, and Collingwood won those 3 finals by a combined total of 12 points, against teams with 17-6, 16-7 and 13-10 home and away records.

The Bulldogs 2016 flag was far more impressive than Collingwood's 2023 flag. And I wouldn't be talking about dodgy umpiring in favour of the Dogs in 2016 if you are comparing them to Collingwood 2023, the Pies have dead set got rails runs Steve Bradbury wouldn't believe with the tribunal, umps, and venues.

You're on a mission! Got to admire that.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

The Maynard tribunal verdict has been argued ad nauseam in other threads, but the fact is there were other incidents this year with a very similar set of circumstances that had a completely different result. On the Cotchin incident from checks notes 6 years ago, Shiel wasn't knocked out by that one action. He actually played the rest of the quarter but got collided into by Astbury just before the siren and then didn't return.

It's odd that you call me biased as you gloss over the Pies getting the rub of the green but you highlight when Brisbane got it. You're forgetting the very soft 50m penalty that Sidebottom converted.

The whole collapsing the knees, angling the head sideways, and raising the arm to draw high frees was mastered by JSelwood for a decade. But Collingwood have some masters of exploiting (i.e. cheating) to win these free kicks, namely Naicos, Mitchell, Ginnivan. You can't say there's forceful contact coming from the tackler when the player with the ball contributes to the high contact. This rule was updated a few years ago to stop guys from ducking into tackles. It works the same here. Collapsing the legs to draw high tackles shouldn't be rewarded, but for some select players it consistently is.

Surely you're not arguing that Ginnivan gets rewarded?? Or than only Collingwood has players who try to draw frees. Really??

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You're on a mission! Got to admire that.

Just thinking of all those poor Pies fans out there. I don't want them thinking they are some sort of high quality Premier then getting disappointed when they are exposed in future years as imposters.

 

[Do the Dew]

Surely you're not arguing that Ginnivan gets rewarded?? Or than only Collingwood has players who try to draw frees. Really??

Well in 2022 he was the poster boy for head high free kicks and had a statline of 32 - 13 frees for - against. Admittedly he has calmed down a bit.

Daicos this year, 27 - 13.

Take the black and white goggles off next year when you're watching and recognize how much he drops the knees.

We had Grimes and Vlastuin at the Tigers do it for years but they changed their ways, so there's hope for these serial cheats.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Well in 2022 he was the poster boy for head high free kicks and had a statline of 32 - 13 frees for - against. Admittedly he has calmed down a bit.

Daicos this year, 27 - 13.

Take the black and white goggles off next year when you're watching and recognize how much he drops the knees.

We had Grimes and Vlastuin at the Tigers do it for years but they changed their ways, so there's hope for these serial cheats.

Daicos is probably the most hunted player in the comp now by the opposition. He will always get frees - and injuries. also "calmed down a bit" is easier than posting Ginnivans free kick stats since mid 2022 I guess.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

All your justifications are based on your subjective viewing of the games and arguments are made to retrofit the outcome you want to drive.

You are skewing the data to only gauge the finals run rather than the season because it suits you.

In reality it is more impressive to finish 1st than it is to finish 7th. That’s a fact. If there was ever a Bradbury in recent times 2016 is it, and if there was ever an asterisk to a flag it’s 2020 when the rules of the game changed.

Your umpiring comments just shows your bias. The advantage has been rebutted to death and no clear score may have come of it plus two of Brisbane’s goals came direct umpiring mistakes. For Toby Greene’s high 99% of the comp doesn’t want to see paid if it’s anybody dropping the knees like that… except against Collingwood. And the tribunal had no impact not sure what you’re onto there unless you want to admit you should have been without Cotchin for a much clearer case and may have lost as a result. I’ve got nothing against the Dogs but that’s the only year I can remember where I thought both the Prelim and GF umpiring advantaged the same team and had an impact on the result. That’s subjective but unless you live under a rock you must be aware that many share this view.

It is more impressive to finish the home and away season 1st than 7th in isolation? Of course it is. Collingwood 2023 lost 2 less home and away matches than Bulldogs 2016, and had a percentage of 127 v 115, so they were not as far apart in performance as 1st v 7th would normally suggest. For example in 2023 the 7th placed team had 5 more losses than Collingwood, and finished 20% behind them on the ladder.

From there it is a matter of what criteria you use to rate a Premier. For me there is only one criteria to use, and that is how good they were in the finals series. Because that is when all teams know the have to be at their best to give themselves their best chance of winning a flag. The very team that finished 7th this home and away season 5 losses and 20% below Collingwood, met them in the finals series. Suddenly there was no such great gulf between them. The Collingwood that showed up in the finals series was now only 1 point better than GWS playing on Collingwood's home ground with GWS interstate away and with Collingwood benefitting from some extremely dubious adjudications. This performance from Collingwood is miles below what the Bulldogs managed to do in that 2016 finals series - who you labelled the weakest Premier.

Consider this gulf in finals performance:

- Bulldogs 2016 won 4 finals to 2023 Collingwood's 3.

- Bulldogs won their 4 finals by an average margin of 27 points. Collingwood won their 3 finals by an average margin of 4 points.

- Bulldogs played none of their 4 finals on their own home ground. Collingwood played all 3 of their finals on their own home ground.

- Bulldogs played two finals interstate away on the opponent's home ground. Collingwood played no finals out of Victoria.

- Bulldogs played 75% of their finals opponents on the opponent's home ground(V Eagles, Hawks, GWS.) Collingwood played 33% of their finals on the opponent's home ground(v Demons.)

- Bulldogs played opponents with average home and away losses of 5.5 matches. Collingwood played opponents with average home and away losses of 7.66 matches.

- Bulldogs played teams with average home and away percentage of 136%. Collingwood played opponents with average home and away percentage of 118%.

- Bulldogs did not get a rest during the finals series, Collingwood did get a week off.

In short, in finals the 2016, Bulldogs beat way better performed opponents on way more difficult venues by way higher margins with a much tougher schedule than did Collingwood 2023.

There is no escaping that the Bulldogs team that turned up for the 2016 finals series performed at a level well above what Collingwood produced in the 2023 finals series. I am unashamed in judging teams this way, based on their finals performances. This is because all teams know way in advance no amount of home and away performance is worth anything if you don't perform well in finals, but the reverse does not apply(so long as you qualify for finals.)

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Disagree. Going by your logic Fitzroy and Melbourne, the two worst premiers in VFL/AFL history, should be at the top bevause they dominated the finals even though their H&A season form was putrid.

The fact that the Bulldogs won all their finals away from home is irrelevant. They were an ordinary team that finished 7th and were in ordinary form going into the finals. The introduction of the pre finals bye greatly assisted them as well. It gave them a chance to refresh.

While finals performance should obviously be a variable, the final ladder position and % of games won during the season should be weighted substantially more.

And please don’t even defend 2020. It was nothing more than a glorified lightening premiership. No crowds, games the equivalent of just over three quarters, less games, no home ground adv. fans of the game were completely disconnected and indifferent. absolutely awful season and should never make any appearance on any highlights reel. I didn’t even care that the pies beat WCE by a point in the EF that season. for mine, it ranks near the bottom with Fitzroy and Melbourne.

Almost none of that post makes any sense to me.

Your point about Fitzroy 1916(I presume) holds no weight in downgrading the Bulldog's 2016 Premiership as there were only 4 teams in the competition in 1916 versus 18 in 2016. In 1916 the season was literally decided 100% in the finals series so nothing that took place prior to that holds any relevance in terms of the Premiership, yet you are referring to those glorified exhibition matches as if they are an authoritative measuring stick of how good the teams were. If you want to know how good the teams actually were, go to the games that matter! Fitzroy were the best of the 4 teams during the finals series, and comfortably.

You have also thrown Melbourne in there and I have no idea at all what year you are even referring to, but no doubt similar principles would apply.

You state the fact that Bulldogs "winning all their finals away from home is irrelevant." It is very relevant to how well they needed to play to win those finals. Which is in turn very relevant to how strong a Premier they were.

Your point about the pre finals bye is meaningless. All finals teams got the pre finals bye, not just Bulldogs. They entered the finals series needing to win 4 matches to take the title where 4 other teams had only to win 3 matches to do so. So Bulldogs started with a disadvantage over half the other finalists - rightly so given their respective home and away finishing positions. But this disadvantage only elevates their finals performance.

2020 was obviously a season heavily effected by Covid lockdowns. But it was a credible Premiership of no less merit than any other. 18 teams were all effected, and as I pointed out in an earlier post, the Premier Richmond were probably chief amongst those effected. The conditions the games were played under were the same for all clubs. There were 18 clubs competing as best they could, and Richmond won, in the end, impressively establishing they were the best team of the season.

So your post doesn't make much sense. It just looks like a poor effort to deflect from Collingwood's all time weak finals performance for a Premiership team.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Almost none of that post makes any sense to me.

Your point about Fitzroy 1916(I presume) holds no weight in downgrading the Bulldog's 2016 Premiership as there were only 4 teams in the competition in 1916 versus 18 in 2016. In 1916 the season was literally decided 100% in the finals series so nothing that took place prior to that holds any relevance in terms of the Premiership, yet you are referring to those glorified exhibition matches as if they are an authoritative measuring stick of how the good teams were. If you want to know how good the teams actually were, go to the games that matter! Fitzroy were the best of the 4 teams during the finals series, and comfortably.

You have also thrown Melbourne in there and I have no idea at all what year you are even referring to, but n doubt similar principles would apply.

You state the fact that Bulldogs "winning all their finals away from home is irrelevant." It is very relevant to how well they needed to play to win those finals. Which is in turn very relevant to how strong a Premier they were.

Your point about the pre finals bye is meaningless. All finals teams got the pre finals bye, not just Bulldogs. They entered the finals series needing to win 4 matches to take the title where 4 other teams had only to win 3 matches to do so. So Bulldogs started with a disadvantage over half the other finalists - rightly so given their respective home and away finishing positions. But this disadvantage only elevates their finals performance.

2020 was obviously a season heavily effected by Covid lockdowns. But it was a credible Premiership of no less merit than any other. 18 teams were all effected, and as I pointed out in an earlier post, the Premier Richmond were probably chief amongst those effected. the conditions the games were played under were the same for all clubs. There were 18 clubs competing as best they could, and Richmond won, in the end, impressively establishing they were the best team of the season.

So your post doesn't make much sense. It just looks like a poor effort to deflect from Collingwood's all time weak finals performance for a Premiership team.

Generally i prefer trolling that is more succinct and less repetitive. Just food for thought

 

[Cuzz09]

There's something very funny about ranking the Roos in '99 123rd, Brisbane in '01 63rd, but then claiming Essendon in 2000 was a clear #1.

To be fair Ess prob should've won all 3

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Generally i prefer trolling that is more succinct and less repetitive. Just food for thought

I would probably hate having that sort of detailed evidence presented against my argument as well Reg.

 

[Brad Goodman]

People can disagree with the method, but I think the results largely agree with that method. Can’t say I have an issue with ranking us there.

 

[Fadge]

Note to posters in this thread:

If someone is trying to argue that Bulldogs 2016 were a stronger premier than Collingwood 2023, do not even waste your time with a response.

I mean, would you waste your time arguing with someone who was trying to claim $2 coin is worth more than a $5 note because it weighs more? Because that's the kind of mental arithmetic he is using...

 

[Vankri]

Note to posters in this thread:

If someone is trying to argue that Bulldogs 2016 were a stronger premier than Collingwood 2023, do not even waste your time with a response.

I mean, would you waste your time arguing with someone who was trying to claim $2 coin is worth more than a $5 note because it weighs more? Because that's the kind of mental arithmetic he is using...

I feel like that’s aimed at me ha. I was going to respond but I think the poster’s latest post makes it clear they invented an obfuscated set of criteria to make sure the outcome fell the way they wanted.

I would have thought it obvious that a team being the best all year is a greater achievement than a team having a hot streak for 4 weeks. Just judging finals means completely dismissing the luck involved with injuries, direct opponent meetings and missed clashes, others falling apart rather than you dominating, umpiring and everything that can influence a set of 3-4 games which can’t influence a whole season.

Anyway in reality there are only two things that matter. Firstly all the flags go in the record book equally whatever we think and secondly the emotions and memories you get from them are not based on objective greatness. For example I think our 2010 team was stronger than our 2023 team but the memory that our close games this year and an epic grand final brought will bring me as much if not more joy (the replay in 2010 was fun but just not a great GF objectively).

 

[Fadge]

I feel like that’s aimed at me ha. I was going to respond but I think the poster’s latest post makes it clear they invented an obfuscated set of criteria to make sure the outcome fell the way they wanted.

I would have thought it obvious that a team being the best all year is a greater achievement than a team having a hot streak for 4 weeks. Just judging finals means completely dismissing the luck involved with injuries, direct opponent meetings and missed clashes, others falling apart rather than you dominating, umpiring and everything that can influence a set of 3-4 games which can’t influence a whole season.

Anyway in reality there are only two things that matter. Firstly all the flags go in the record book equally whatever we think and secondly the emotions and memories you get from them are not based on objective greatness. For example I think our 2010 team was stronger than our 2023 team but the memory that our close games this year and an epic grand final brought will bring me as much if not more joy (the replay in 2010 was fun but just not a great GF objectively).

It wasn't aimed at anyone specifically, but oh my, I feel dumber for reading his attempted rationale, let alone contemplating debating it...

 

[Fadge]

Also, Vankri, I agree. Collingwood's 2010/11 team was stronger than our current 2022/23 team. We were just unlucky to run into the strongest team we have seen since the turn of the century that stood in the way of B2B in 2010/11.

But the 2023 Collingwood team was still stronger than most flag teams of the past decade.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Also, Vankri, I agree. Collingwood's 2010/11 team was stronger than our current 2022/23 team. We were just unlucky to run into the strongest team we have seen since the turn of the century that stood in the way of B2B in 2010/11.

But the 2023 Collingwood team was still stronger than most flag teams of the past decade.

Yep lol, that is why Collingwood 2023 shot the lights out in the finals, winning 3 games on their home ground, 2 of those against interstate teams, by a combined 12 points.

 

[Fadge]

Yep lol, that is why Collingwood 2023 shot the lights out in the finals, winning 3 games on their home ground, 2 against interstate teams, by a combined 12 points.

I understand why your MO is to talk up teams who get on a run during the back half of the season, finish strong and claim the premiership with a strong win/loss record and percentage over the final 8/10/12 games of the season.

We're all very well aware it's because Richmond weren't able to maintain elite form over the course of a full season in the way that the best premiers this century have. The one chance they had to maintain form over a full season was 2018, and we all know how that worked out for you.

I started a thread this season entitled 'The Changing Face of The Premiership Favourite', because year on year, the Premiership Favouritism fluctuates on close to a week by week basis. Collingwood were installed as Premiership Favourites after round 3, and retained favouritism for the remainder of the season, including on Grand Final Day. And they won the premiership.

When was the last time this happened? Essendon 2000?

Here is the form line leading into the finals for the other teams that were still alive on Semi Final Day:
Brisbane - 9 wins, 2 losses in final 11 home and away games;
GWS - 9 wins, 2 losses in final 11 home and away games;
Carlton - 9 wins, 1 loss in final 10 home and away matches (the loss being a dead rubber against GWS, when they couldn't move from 5th place on the ladder in the final round);
Melbourne - 7 wins, 1 loss in final 11 home and away games;
Port Adelaide - the outlier with only three wins from their final 7 games (though had won 13 matches on the trot prior to that).

So in your deluded world, if any of Brisbane, GWS, Carlton or Melbourne win the flag, they are a strong premier based on their form leading into finals, in addition to winning three finals to win the flag (regardless of whether they lose their Qualifying Final).

But if a team wins 16 of their first 18 matches, secures top 4 and most likely top 2 by that stage, manages their list with an eye on the finals and in the process drop 3 of their last 5 matches, but go through the finals undefeated by beating three of the above 'form' teams, that team is a weak premier because of their form leading into the finals was poor and their winning margins in finals weren't great enough?

Boy oh boy Wowee!

 

[Danw0w]

Note to posters in this thread:

If someone is trying to argue that Bulldogs 2016 were a stronger premier than Collingwood 2023, do not even waste your time with a response.

I mean, would you waste your time arguing with someone who was trying to claim $2 coin is worth more than a $5 note because it weighs more? Because that's the kind of mental arithmetic he is using...

Dogs beat both the previous years grand finalists, including one in Perth and one against a dynasty team coming off a three-peat.

They beat a giants side that was gifted the most talent the afl has ever seen. Away from home as well.

They beat the minor premiers and perennial contenders Sydney in the grand final.

Now compare to Collingwood.

They beat the dees by 7 points who:
-had no forward line due to injuries
-had one of their best players knocked out in a thug act at a crucial time
-aided by the dees missing an unusual amount of easy shots (dees had more inside 50s and shots on goal)

Now the prelim:
-Pies had greatest home crowd advantage of all time and could only manage a 1 point win
-GWS were completely and utterly robbed as the umpires put the whistle away. They missed a blatant trip and several high contacts (don't try to justify it when Daicos got a free for high in the opening minutes of the grand final)

Now the grand final:
-they beat the lions who had won one game at the MCG in God knows how many years
-they won by only four points
-they got away with a contentious advantage late in the game (I think it was the right call but many disagree

All this with the bulldogs having two* (22 game season) less wins in a more competitive top end of the ladder, with an injury crisis that Collingwood didn't have to endure.

I think the only reason you "do not need to waste your time with a response" is because you know that the dogs were better.