The (on field) "big 5" of the AFL era

[kid_a]

Of the 58 Grand final teams since 1990, just five clubs make up more than half of all GF combatants and indeed Premiers in the AFL era.

Collingwood- 1990, 2002, 2003, 2010, 2011, 2019 (6 gfs- 2 prems)
Geelong- 1992, 1994, 1995, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011 (7 gfs- 3 prems)
Hawthorn- 1991, 2008, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 (6 gfs- 5 prems)
Sydney- 1996, 2005, 2006, 2012, 2014, 2016 (6 gfs- 2 prems)
West Coast- 1991, 1992, 1994, 2005, 2006, 2015, 2018 (7 gfs- 4 prems)

Combined they make up 32/58 Grand finalists and 16/29 premiers.

What really pushes the point home though is the fact all five clubs have played in at least one GF in each decade since the re-brand of the league (as opposed to say a team like Brisbane who literally had one good period in that time).

So whilst its good to be proud of you clubs history and historical achievements, i think in terms of on field reults we can safely the say the in the modern footballing landscape these are the five leading clubs.

 

[Pessimistic]

Is there a case for stats sites to have all their pages have an ‘AFL only’ since 1990 listing.

The EPL is similar age but mostly shows only EPL stats now

 

[RogersResults]

Is there a case for stats sites to have all their pages have an ‘AFL only’ since 1990 listing.

The EPL is similar age but mostly shows only EPL stats now

Consider the following:
1) In 1990 the 'Victorian Football League' altered its corporate identity to the 'Australian Football League'. It was the same entity that had been originally incorporated in 1929 which in turn was a follow-on from the un-incorporated entity founded at the end of 1896.
2) The competition in 1990 besides being administered by the same corporate entity consisted of exactly the same clubs in 1987-89 with Premiership being decided in exactly the same manner.
3) The official League statistical policy is that the AFL is one continuous competition beginning with the 1897 season.
4) Limiting the League's and its constituent club's records from 1990 (when it essence the League changed its letter head and logo) would also make for more boring stats.

For example see: http://www.users.on.net/~rogersresults/Rogers_Results/home.htm

 

[Big Blood]

Consider the following:
1) In 1990 the 'Victorian Football League' altered its corporate identity to the 'Australian Football League'. It was the same entity that had been originally incorporated in 1929 which in turn was a follow-on from the un-incorporated entity founded at the end of 1896.
2) The competition in 1990 besides being administered by the same corporate entity consisted of exactly the same clubs in 1987-89 with Premiership being decided in exactly the same manner.
3) The official League statistical policy is that the AFL is one continuous competition beginning with the 1897 season.
4) Limiting the League's and its constituent club's records from 1990 (when it essence the League changed its letter head and logo) would also make for more boring stats.

For example see: http://www.users.on.net/~rogersresults/Rogers_Results/home.htm

Stats don't have to be exciting, or boring, they just have to be meaningful. It's nonsense to pretend that every mark and handball and match result of a national fully professional league is equivalent to those of a suburban amateur league. Why not just call the AFL AFL and the VFL VFL. There's nothing to stop us from combining them if we wish, ie, like Test and first-class cricket can be combined. Just make the distinction clear. I don't even see why it should be a problem.

 

[Gibbke]

1987 was the year things changed. New teams, every other senior league relegated, the draft, tv deals, everything...the entire face of footy surgically altered...

The only thing that changed in 1990 was the logo on the front of the jumper. They didn't even finish the job on the rest of the uniform - check out the VFL stripes contrasting with the AFL logo...!

 

[Procrastinator35]

1987 was the year things changed. New teams, every other senior league relegated, the draft, tv deals, everything...the entire face of footy surgically altered...

The only thing that changed in 1990 was the logo on the front of the jumper. They didn't even finish the job on the rest of the uniform - check out the VFL stripes contrasting with the AFL logo...!

View attachment 600931

True....But it wasn't really until Adelaide joined in 1991 that it became truly national & all other competitions subsumed to the power of the almighty AFL.

 

[Gibbke]

True....But it wasn't really until Adelaide joined in 1991 that it became truly national & all other competitions subsumed to the power of the almighty AFL.

Depends on what you define as "national". Tasmania isn't in the AFL, so right there the words "truly national", as used in your context, go out the window. "National" in Australia means including all of the states, and Tasmania doesn't play anything else except Aus footy. The WAFL and SANFL were also subsumed in 1987, not 1990. They went from chest beating top tier opponents in the 1986 night series (North Adelaide won two games that year) and contenders for the title of Aus Champions (as Subi fan Kwality will tell you), to second division no-names in a minute...

The Yanks, whose off field structures we model our code on, have never called their professional football leagues anything but "National" or "American", despite never having better than half of the 50 states represented, but the big thing there is that their professional football mindset meant that every American male was a chance to be asked to try out, especially once they got past their aversion to selecting black players. So what did Adelaide bring to the comp? Nothing except the actual physical presence of an SA team! Maybe the finalisation of the AFL draft as being the ultimate goal of every Australian footballer too, I guess, because there were a few abstainers in SA and they then had no excuses. The drafting and availability of players was already there, and nothing in that area really changed. If you define a national league as one where the best players are in it as a matter of course, just like the Yanks always aspired to until they finally got it in 1970, then the vehicle was already built well before the interstaters arrived in the form of the all-devouring VFL. The fact that many champs didn't take up the offers, including notably a few SA stars who'd been drafted by the Bears in the late 1980's, is beside the point. The structure was there, and for every interstater who didn't switch, there were a hundred others who did, and the trend was never going to subside...

1986 and 1987 were vastly different seasons, chalk and cheese with only the continued dominance of Hawthorn and Carlton (who got in just in time with huge recruitment raids on SA and WA before the Eagles and Bears locked them all up) wallpapering the huge crack between them. The Australian league started then...

 

[Procrastinator35]

Depends on what you define as "national". Tasmania isn't in the AFL, so right there the words "truly national", as used in your context, go out the window. "National" in Australia means including all of the states, and Tasmania doesn't play anything else except Aus footy. The WAFL and SANFL were also subsumed in 1987, not 1990. They went from chest beating top tier opponents in the 1986 night series (North Adelaide won two games that year) and contenders for the title of Aus Champions (as Subi fan Kwality will tell you), to second division no-names in a minute...

The Yanks, whose off field structures we model our code on, have never called their professional football leagues anything but "National" or "American", despite never having better than half of the 50 states represented, but the big thing there is that their professional football mindset meant that every American male was a chance to be asked to try out, especially once they got past their aversion to selecting black players. So what did Adelaide bring to the comp? Nothing except the actual physical presence of an SA team! Maybe the finalisation of the AFL draft as being the ultimate goal of every Australian footballer too, I guess, because there were a few abstainers in SA and they then had no excuses. The drafting and availability of players was already there, and nothing in that area really changed. If you define a national league as one where the best players are in it as a matter of course, just like the Yanks always aspired to until they finally got it in 1970, then the vehicle was already built well before the interstaters arrived in the form of the all-devouring VFL. The fact that many champs didn't take up the offers, including notably a few SA stars who'd been drafted by the Bears in the late 1980's, is beside the point. The structure was there, and for every interstater who didn't switch, there were a hundred others who did, and the trend was never going to subside...

1986 and 1987 were vastly different seasons, chalk and cheese with only the continued dominance of Hawthorn and Carlton (who got in just in time with huge recruitment raids on SA and WA before the Eagles and Bears locked them all up) wallpapering the huge crack between them. The Australian league started then...

I doubt that Tasmania had a unified State League to match that of the SANFL.....That was the context & gist behind my comments.

If you want to say truly national, then until both Canberra & Darwin have a team, we can grind over the semantics all night if you wish.

 

[Gibbke]

You could. The American example shows that it's all simply a name, though. There's just no reason to justify ignoring years or decades of stats in a comp based upon something as spurious as a name change. I'd even wager that the lack of stats relating to the EPL before 1992, as was brought up earlier, is more based upon naming rights, sponsorship and promoting the product than it is to do with a belief that the product is different. Statto, before his amazing website disappeared, sure as hell didn't go along with that...

And the Tasmanian comp was doing quite well in the 1988-91 period, between the additions of the flagship interstaters. Decent crowds, big name players and coaches, and building a standard that saw it knock off all three mainland big leagues in the mid-90's, never mind 3 very creditable performances in origin games v Victoria. It's only been lately that you could say Tasmanian footy is really wallowing in standard and comp stability, a follow on from being set adrift in the first place by mainland interests, and the reason they're not in the national league is more to do with AFL principles and business philosophy and not actual Tasmanian footy standards...