We often hear that a club's list is "rebuilding" towards a premiership. The best case in point at the moment is a Richmond, North Melbourne or Melbourne. Or if you look back only a year or two, Carlton. Every club, at some point or another, has been in premiership rebuild mode. The clubs tend to use this to manage supporters, sponsors and the media's expectation during the lean years. It takes the pressure off.
It got me thinking. After a team has won a premiership, what is the quickest period of time it has rebuilt its list to win the premiership again?
I have confined this post to the modern era of football, 1990 and onwards. The reasons are threefold: firstly, I started following football at around this time and, secondly, I couldn't be stuffed going through the history books back to 1897. Thirdly, the further we go back the less relevance it has to now. Before anyone complains about their club's quicker premiership rebuild in 1255, I'm not saying it is any less in important but I had to draw the line somewhere and 1990 is as good as any other year. It's purely arbitrary.
This is what I found:
1. Teams that have successfully rebuilt premiership lists in the modern era (1990 onwards)
1. North Melbourne: 1996 - 1999 - 3 years
2. Essendon: 1993 - 2000 - 7 years
3. West Coast: 1994 - 2006 - 12 years
4. Hawthorn: 1991 - 2008 - 17 years
5. Collingwood: 1990 - 2010 - 20 years
2. Teams that have won a premiership(s) in the modern era, but are yet to develop another premiership winning list
6. Geelong: 2007- 2009 (still pursuing premierships with current list)
7. Sydney: 2005 - 6 years
8. Port Adelaide: 2004 - 7 years
9. Brisbane: 2001 - 2003 - 8 years
10. Adelaide: 1997 - 1998 - 13 years
11.Carlton: 1995 - 16 years
3. Teams that are yet to win a premiership at all in the modern era
12. Fremantle
13. Gold Coast
14. Melbourne
15. Richmond
16. St Kilda
17. Western Bulldogs
Now, I did not includes WCE 1992 and 1994 (75% of the players played in both premierships), Adelaide 1997-1998 (back to back), Brisbane Lions 2001-2003 (back to back to back) or Geelong's 2007-2009 (81% of the players played in both premierships) in the first category as the lists were not rebuilt and the premierships were effectively part of the same dynasty.
Of course, it depends on what you define as a "rebuild" between premierships. I applied a simple 50% formula rule relating to the team fielded in the Grand Finals. If the team had 50% or more of the same players playing in the previous and next premiership, then it was apart of the same dynasty. If it was less than 50%, then it was considered a rebuild of the list. It is a simplistic approach and not perfect. The benefit, however, is it removes all subjective argument and relies purely on a statistical analysis.
I initially considered North Melbourne's premierships of 1996 and 1999 to be part of the same dynasty, but when I inspected their GF teams I found a big player turn over in that short three years. Only 10 players (47%) played in both premierships. The same core group was obviously present in both GF. I'm sure there are a million reasons why NM belong in category 2. It didn't feel like a true rebuild, i.e. they never bottomed out, they continued to compete in the finals in 1997/1998 and they had the same coach and key core playing group. They probably belong in category 2 and are only in category 1 due to the simplistic nature of my formula. In relation to Essendon, only 7 players (35%) played in both the 1993 and 2000 premierships. This feels much more like a truer rebuild than NM.
What does this all tell us? Maybe nothing! Or maybe it tells us:
1. When the club is telling us they are rebuilding to win a premiership, it probably won't eventuate in a premiership; or
2. If it does happen to eventuate, it will be a while!
It got me thinking. After a team has won a premiership, what is the quickest period of time it has rebuilt its list to win the premiership again?
I have confined this post to the modern era of football, 1990 and onwards. The reasons are threefold: firstly, I started following football at around this time and, secondly, I couldn't be stuffed going through the history books back to 1897. Thirdly, the further we go back the less relevance it has to now. Before anyone complains about their club's quicker premiership rebuild in 1255, I'm not saying it is any less in important but I had to draw the line somewhere and 1990 is as good as any other year. It's purely arbitrary.
This is what I found:
1. Teams that have successfully rebuilt premiership lists in the modern era (1990 onwards)
1. North Melbourne: 1996 - 1999 - 3 years
2. Essendon: 1993 - 2000 - 7 years
3. West Coast: 1994 - 2006 - 12 years
4. Hawthorn: 1991 - 2008 - 17 years
5. Collingwood: 1990 - 2010 - 20 years
2. Teams that have won a premiership(s) in the modern era, but are yet to develop another premiership winning list
6. Geelong: 2007- 2009 (still pursuing premierships with current list)
7. Sydney: 2005 - 6 years
8. Port Adelaide: 2004 - 7 years
9. Brisbane: 2001 - 2003 - 8 years
10. Adelaide: 1997 - 1998 - 13 years
11.Carlton: 1995 - 16 years
3. Teams that are yet to win a premiership at all in the modern era
12. Fremantle
13. Gold Coast
14. Melbourne
15. Richmond
16. St Kilda
17. Western Bulldogs
Now, I did not includes WCE 1992 and 1994 (75% of the players played in both premierships), Adelaide 1997-1998 (back to back), Brisbane Lions 2001-2003 (back to back to back) or Geelong's 2007-2009 (81% of the players played in both premierships) in the first category as the lists were not rebuilt and the premierships were effectively part of the same dynasty.
Of course, it depends on what you define as a "rebuild" between premierships. I applied a simple 50% formula rule relating to the team fielded in the Grand Finals. If the team had 50% or more of the same players playing in the previous and next premiership, then it was apart of the same dynasty. If it was less than 50%, then it was considered a rebuild of the list. It is a simplistic approach and not perfect. The benefit, however, is it removes all subjective argument and relies purely on a statistical analysis.
I initially considered North Melbourne's premierships of 1996 and 1999 to be part of the same dynasty, but when I inspected their GF teams I found a big player turn over in that short three years. Only 10 players (47%) played in both premierships. The same core group was obviously present in both GF. I'm sure there are a million reasons why NM belong in category 2. It didn't feel like a true rebuild, i.e. they never bottomed out, they continued to compete in the finals in 1997/1998 and they had the same coach and key core playing group. They probably belong in category 2 and are only in category 1 due to the simplistic nature of my formula. In relation to Essendon, only 7 players (35%) played in both the 1993 and 2000 premierships. This feels much more like a truer rebuild than NM.
What does this all tell us? Maybe nothing! Or maybe it tells us:
1. When the club is telling us they are rebuilding to win a premiership, it probably won't eventuate in a premiership; or
2. If it does happen to eventuate, it will be a while!