Greatest Dynasty of the 21st century - Lions vs Cats vs Hawks vs Tigers

[Meteoric Rise]

It's been a fascinating discussion.

I previously would have said no-one would be able to mount a cohesive argument that could possibly convince me that 3 non consecutive flags in 5 years could be as agood as 3 flags in a row, but MR, Fadge, etc. have done an exemplary job. I still find myself wondering whether it passes the pub test ? Then again, pubs aren't that smart, are they ?

Then I ponder Collingwood's 4 flags in a row in the 1920s. While there are clearly anomalies from an amateur code 100 years ago, I also note it's never been done since. If 4 flags in a row hasn't been done in almost 100 years it stands to reason it's a very hard thing to do. So, would 4 flags in 5 years be as easy as 4 flags in a row ? I can't conceive that it would be. Where do you draw the line ?

I don't have the answer, but I'm left with a ''feeling'', nothing tangibly more, that an unblemished run is superior to a marginally blemished run, notwithstanding the fantastic arguments that have probably convinced me otherwise. It's just gut feel.

It is good your mind is open to seeing alternative views.

Let’s post some more facts around this to try to give a bit more perspective.

There have been 125 VFL/AFL seasons.

72 Premierships have not formed part of a succession of at least 2 consecutive Premierships.

53 Premierships have formed a part of a chain of successive Premierships.

On 23 occasions a club has won 2 or more Premierships in succession, a conversion rate of almost 1 in 5 of the previous Premier winning at least 1 subsequent Premiership.

On 6 of those 23 occasions the team has gone on to win the 3rd flag in succession. A conversion rate of better than 1 in 4 from the group of 23 who won a Premiership then at least one more in succession.

On 1 of those 6 occasions a team won 3 in succession, it also won a fourth in succession.

It seems from this that flag winners win the subsequent flag between 1 in 4 and 1 in 6 times, regardless of whether they have won 1,2 or 3 in succession beforehand.

How many times has a Premier got another flag within the next 2 seasons but those two flags not being consecutive? 16 times. So WW happens 23 times but WLW just 16 times. When you take into account the related contingency factor, this suggests to me 2 in 3 is no less(and no more) difficult to achieve than 2 in 3 which includes consecutive flags.

Obviously all of the 6 x 3 consecutive Premiership cases are also examples of 3 in 4 and 3 in 5 and 3 in 6. So how many other cases are there of the following:

3 flags in 4 seasons - Beside the consecutive hat-ricks, this has occurred just 3 times without one of the flags also making up part of a consecutive treble. Hawks 88-89-91. Blues 79-81-82. Tigers 2017-19-20.

3 flags in 5 seasons with none of the flags also making up part of a consecutive treble or part of a 3 in 4 sequence? Essendon 46-49-50. Carlton 68-70-72. Geelong 07-09-11.

3 in 6 flags with no flag forming part of any of the above 3 sequences of 3 in 3, 3 in 4 or 3 in 5? Melbourne 59-60-64. Richmond 69-73-74. Hawks 83-86-88.

How many times total did a team win at least 3 flags within 6 seasons? Counting just discrete occurrences, so no individual flag counts in more than one sequence, this has happened 14 times. Of those 14 occasions obviously 6 of them were 3 consecutive flags.

Finally, instances of a team winning a flag and not winning another one within the previous or following 5 seasons……this has actually only happened 29 times though both Melbourne and the Eagles could reduce that number by winning a flag within 5 seasons of their most recent flags. This means that 96 of the 125 Premierships won to date make up part of at least 2 flags won by the club within a 6 year window.

So there are only 27 confirmed cases of a team winning a solitary flag within a 6 year window. There are I think also 27 cases of teams winning 2 or more flags within a 6 year window. Of those 27, 23 involved at least 2 flags in succession.

Conclusions: We can conclude that it is as common to win 2 flags within your typical 6 year window as it is to win just one flag. Of those winning 3 or more within a 6 year window, 14 individual instances, almost half of those(6) contained 3 consecutive flags.

Finally there are 6 discrete hat-tricks of flags. However, only 3 teams have ever won 4 or more flags within a 6 year window: Collingwood 4 from 6 around the 27-30, Melbourne 5 from 6 from 55-60, Hawthorn 4 from 6 from 1986-91. And in the Hawks case only 7 players from 1986 played in the 1991 flag, so almost two thirds of the team had been changed. The Hawks 86-91 are the only non hat-trick team ever to win as many as 4 flags in 6 years and 2/3rds of the team had to be changed to achieve that, so it wasn’t substantially the same team.

What is extremely difficult is winning at least 4 flags with one team. It has really only happened twice, both times before I was born. Winning three within 6 seasons with a team has been more common, occurring 14 times in all. That 6 of those 14 contained hat-tricks of consecutive flags I think tells us that it isnt the consecutive flags that is so difficult to achieve, it is the 4th flag within a 6 year window with one team that would be the greatest mountain to climb. And none of these recent great dynasty teams were able to achieve that, the Hawks probably coming closest, then the Cats, then the Lions.

Could Melbourne be the team to do it?

 

[Fadge]

It is good your mind is open to seeing alternative views.

Let’s post some more facts around this to try to give a bit more perspective.

There have been 125 VFL/AFL seasons.

72 Premierships have not formed part of a succession of at least 2 consecutive Premierships.

53 Premierships have formed a part of a chain of successive Premierships.

On 23 occasions a club has won 2 or more Premierships in succession, a conversion rate of almost 1 in 5 of the previous Premier winning at least 1 subsequent Premiership.

On 6 of those 23 occasions the team has gone on to win the 3rd flag in succession. A conversion rate of better than 1 in 4 from the group of 23 who won a Premiership then at least one more in succession.

On 1 of those 6 occasions a team won 3 in succession, it also won a fourth in succession.

It seems from this that flag winners win the subsequent flag between 1 in 4 and 1 in 6 times, regardless of whether they have won 1,2 or 3 in succession beforehand.

How many times has a Premier got another flag within the next 2 seasons but those two flags not being consecutive? 16 times. So WW happens 23 times but WLW just 16 times. When you take into account the related contingency factor, this suggests to me 2 in 3 is no less(and no more) difficult to achieve than 2 in 3 which includes consecutive flags.

Obviously all of the 6 x 3 consecutive Premiership cases are also examples of 3 in 4 and 3 in 5 and 3 in 6. So how many other cases are there of the following:

3 flags in 4 seasons - Beside the consecutive hat-ricks, this has occurred just 3 times without one of the flags also making up part of a consecutive treble. Hawks 88-89-91. Blues 79-81-82. Tigers 2017-19-20.

3 flags in 5 seasons with none of the flags also making up part of a consecutive treble or part of a 3 in 4 sequence? Essendon 46-49-50. Carlton 68-70-72. Geelong 07-09-11.

3 in 6 flags with no flag forming part of any of the above 3 sequences of 3 in 3, 3 in 4 or 3 in 5? Melbourne 59-60-64. Richmond 69-73-74. Hawks 83-86-88.

How many times total did a team win at least 3 flags within 6 seasons? Counting just discrete occurrences, so no individual flag counts in more than one sequence, this has happened 14 times. Of those 14 occasions obviously 6 of them were 3 consecutive flags.

Finally, instances of a team winning a flag and not winning another one within the previous or following 5 seasons……this has actually only happened 29 times though both Melbourne and the Eagles could reduce that number by winning a flag within 5 seasons of their most recent flags. This means that 96 of the 125 Premierships won to date make up part of at least 2 flags won by the club within a 6 year window.

So there are only 27 confirmed cases of a team winning a solitary flag within a 6 year window. There are I think also 27 cases of teams winning 2 or more flags within a 6 year window. Of those 27, 23 involved at least 2 flags in succession.

Conclusions: We can conclude that it is as common to win 2 flags within your typical 6 year window as it is to win just one flag. Of those winning 3 or more within a 6 year window, 14 individual instances, almost half of those(6) contained 3 consecutive flags.

Finally there are 6 discrete hat-tricks of flags. However, only 3 teams have ever won 4 or more flags within a 6 year window: Collingwood 4 from 6 around the 27-30, Melbourne 5 from 6 from 55-60, Hawthorn 4 from 6 from 1986-91. And in the Hawks case only 7 players from 1986 played in the 1991 flag, so almost two thirds of the team had been changed. The Hawks 86-91 are the only non hat-trick team ever to win as many as 4 flags in 6 years and 2/3rds of the team had to be changed to achieve that, so it wasn’t substantially the same team.

What is extremely difficult is winning at least 4 flags with one team. It has really only happened twice, both times before I was born. Winning three within 6 seasons with a team has been more common, occurring 14 times in all. That 6 of those 14 contained hat-tricks of consecutive flags I think tells us that it isnt the consecutive flags that is so difficult to achieve, it is the 4th flag within a 6 year window with one team that would be the greatest mountain to climb. And none of these recent great dynasty teams were able to achieve that, the Hawks probably coming closest, then the Cats, then the Lions.

Could Melbourne be the team to do it?

You're not per chance setting us up for a Richmond flag in 2022, are you?!?

 

[Pessimistic]

Did you just argue that Geelong going wlwlw is actually better than if they had gone wwwlw as everyone expected them to win 2008

because it’s a rarer sequence occurring in vfl afl history?

and would have killed this argument stone dead if they had

 

[Trav 20]

It is good your mind is open to seeing alternative views.

Let’s post some more facts around this to try to give a bit more perspective.

There have been 125 VFL/AFL seasons.

72 Premierships have not formed part of a succession of at least 2 consecutive Premierships.

53 Premierships have formed a part of a chain of successive Premierships.

On 23 occasions a club has won 2 or more Premierships in succession, a conversion rate of almost 1 in 5 of the previous Premier winning at least 1 subsequent Premiership.

On 6 of those 23 occasions the team has gone on to win the 3rd flag in succession. A conversion rate of better than 1 in 4 from the group of 23 who won a Premiership then at least one more in succession.

On 1 of those 6 occasions a team won 3 in succession, it also won a fourth in succession.

It seems from this that flag winners win the subsequent flag between 1 in 4 and 1 in 6 times, regardless of whether they have won 1,2 or 3 in succession beforehand.

How many times has a Premier got another flag within the next 2 seasons but those two flags not being consecutive? 16 times. So WW happens 23 times but WLW just 16 times. When you take into account the related contingency factor, this suggests to me 2 in 3 is no less(and no more) difficult to achieve than 2 in 3 which includes consecutive flags.

Obviously all of the 6 x 3 consecutive Premiership cases are also examples of 3 in 4 and 3 in 5 and 3 in 6. So how many other cases are there of the following:

3 flags in 4 seasons - Beside the consecutive hat-ricks, this has occurred just 3 times without one of the flags also making up part of a consecutive treble. Hawks 88-89-91. Blues 79-81-82. Tigers 2017-19-20.

3 flags in 5 seasons with none of the flags also making up part of a consecutive treble or part of a 3 in 4 sequence? Essendon 46-49-50. Carlton 68-70-72. Geelong 07-09-11.

3 in 6 flags with no flag forming part of any of the above 3 sequences of 3 in 3, 3 in 4 or 3 in 5? Melbourne 59-60-64. Richmond 69-73-74. Hawks 83-86-88.

How many times total did a team win at least 3 flags within 6 seasons? Counting just discrete occurrences, so no individual flag counts in more than one sequence, this has happened 14 times. Of those 14 occasions obviously 6 of them were 3 consecutive flags.

Finally, instances of a team winning a flag and not winning another one within the previous or following 5 seasons……this has actually only happened 29 times though both Melbourne and the Eagles could reduce that number by winning a flag within 5 seasons of their most recent flags. This means that 96 of the 125 Premierships won to date make up part of at least 2 flags won by the club within a 6 year window.

So there are only 27 confirmed cases of a team winning a solitary flag within a 6 year window. There are I think also 27 cases of teams winning 2 or more flags within a 6 year window. Of those 27, 23 involved at least 2 flags in succession.

Conclusions: We can conclude that it is as common to win 2 flags within your typical 6 year window as it is to win just one flag. Of those winning 3 or more within a 6 year window, 14 individual instances, almost half of those(6) contained 3 consecutive flags.

Finally there are 6 discrete hat-tricks of flags. However, only 3 teams have ever won 4 or more flags within a 6 year window: Collingwood 4 from 6 around the 27-30, Melbourne 5 from 6 from 55-60, Hawthorn 4 from 6 from 1986-91. And in the Hawks case only 7 players from 1986 played in the 1991 flag, so almost two thirds of the team had been changed. The Hawks 86-91 are the only non hat-trick team ever to win as many as 4 flags in 6 years and 2/3rds of the team had to be changed to achieve that, so it wasn’t substantially the same team.

What is extremely difficult is winning at least 4 flags with one team. It has really only happened twice, both times before I was born. Winning three within 6 seasons with a team has been more common, occurring 14 times in all. That 6 of those 14 contained hat-tricks of consecutive flags I think tells us that it isnt the consecutive flags that is so difficult to achieve, it is the 4th flag within a 6 year window with one team that would be the greatest mountain to climb. And none of these recent great dynasty teams were able to achieve that, the Hawks probably coming closest, then the Cats, then the Lions.

Could Melbourne be the team to do it?

Great data, thanks. You've got a very analytical mind, so I'm sure you do well with your betting and factoring in the associated odds and weight bets accordingly.

Odds are fascinating to me. Like if you're in a room of 30-35 people the odds are two of them will share the same birthday even though there are 365 days in a year.

I also like the chances of Melbourne adding to their total based on this data.

How though, does one interpret all of these stats into one big melting pot and factor in that there are now 18 teams compared to a large part of history when there was only 12 ?

I suspect it skews the conclusions somewhat.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You're not per chance setting us up for a Richmond flag in 2022, are you?!?

Sadly I don’t think that is very likely.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Great data, thanks. You've got a very analytical mind, so I'm sure you do well with your betting and factoring in the associated odds and weight bets accordingly.

Odds are fascinating to me. Like if you're in a room of 30-35 people the odds are two of them will share the same birthday even though there are 365 days in a year.

I also like the chances of Melbourne adding to their total based on this data.

How though, does one interpret all of these stats into one big melting pot and factor in that there are now 18 teams compared to a large part of history when there was only 12 ?

I suspect it skews the conclusions somewhat.

Yes it is a good one to show the logical errors our brains can make the birthday one. Most of us would make the logical error of thinking in terms of one person matching any one of the other 30 odd people’s birthdays. But of course there are a lot more combinations than that logical error would lead us to believe as you have to think in terms of each of the 30 odd people matching with any of he others. Meaning the first person you select has 29 possible matches, the second person has an extra 28 the third person another 27 and so on.

I am not much of a mathematician, but if you want to making money betting, you have to take some pretty serious steps to reduce your logical errors. I work with 2 other people and at the moment I make most of the bet decisions. While I think they have faith in my reasoning capacity, we find errors in my decisions all the time.

But the post of mine you commented on, that is sort of similar to how we go about starting the process of selecting bets. First we just gather relevant information. This helps us gain a clear understanding of what has happened in the past. Then you consider all the instant factors, like form, conditions, player availability and so on. And finally, you try to work out the probability of certain outcomes occurring then compare that with prices offered in the market. There isn’t anything too surprising about our methods. I had to have about two years off before last year because I was malfunctioning badly, with stale ideas and a brain that was probably sick of watching and betting on sport. But I have come back to it in the last 18 months and after a bit of a difficult time getting familiar with it again, everything now seems back to normal, which is a very big relief. Not that I have any big ideas of going back into high stakes betting, but it would be nice to have a little pocket money, for essential items like a natural swimming pool and and overseas property.

On Melbourne, I think they are a very strong chance to win multiple flags. But here is a question for you. If you were told they will win another two flags in the next 5 seasons, would it make you feel better or worse if those two flags came in the next two years compared to some other sequence?

On the question of winning Premierships in an 18 team competition versus a competition with less teams, of course it is more difficult in the current structure than it was before. That the probability of a random team winning has gone from 11 to 1 to now being 17 to 1 tells you that.

 

[Trav 20]

Yes it is a good one to show the logical errors our brains can make the birthday one. Most of us would make the logical error of thinking in terms of one person matching any one of the other 30 odd people’s birthdays. But of course there are a lot more combinations than that logical error would lead us to believe as you have to think in terms of each of the 30 odd people matching with any of he others. Meaning the first person you select has 29 possible matches, the second person has an extra 28 the third person another 27 and so on.

I am not much of a mathematician, but if you want to making money betting, you have to take some pretty serious steps to reduce your logical errors. I work with 2 other people and at the moment I make most of the bet decisions. While I think they have faith in my reasoning capacity, we find errors in my decisions all the time.

But the post of mine you commented on, that is sort of similar to how we go about starting the process of selecting bets. First we just gather relevant information. This helps us gain a clear understanding of what has happened in the past. Then you consider all the instant factors, like form, conditions, player availability and so on. And finally, you try to work out the probability of certain outcomes occurring then compare that with prices offered in the market. There isn’t anything too surprising about our methods. I had to have about two years off before last year because I was malfunctioning badly, with stale ideas and a brain that was probably sick of watching and betting on sport. But I have come back to it in the last 18 months and after a bit of a difficult time getting familiar with it again, everything now seems back to normal, which is a very big relief. Not that I have any big ideas of going back into high stakes betting, but it would be nice to have a little pocket money, for essential items like a natural swimming pool and and overseas property.

On Melbourne, I think they are a very strong chance to win multiple flags. But here is a question for you. If you were told they will win another two flags in the next 5 seasons, would it make you feel better or worse if those two flags came in the next two years compared to some other sequence?

On the question of winning Premierships in an 18 team competition versus a competition with less teams, of course it is more difficult in the current structure than it was before. That the probability of a random team winning has gone from 11 to 1 to now being 17 to 1 tells you that.

It's vexed.

I'll be super excited if they win 3 and delirious if they managed 4. It won't matter if they're consecutive, or not, but I can't help feeling that if they were in a row it's particularly special. Can you imagine 4 in a row ? I'm delighted with one, so two will do. But the feeling is addictive.

I actually think most of the players will get better. Petracca and Oliver can get even better and so can a host of the younger players. Surely the belief will be sky high and that in itself helps lift performance. It all gets back to hunger, but I don't see that being an issue. And injuries.

Getting back to your point. And this goes in your favour.

Michael Tuck is a 7 time premiership player. It's never discussed how many he won in a row. The feat is simply lauded for what it is. 7. Incredible.

 

[MinerBoy]

Michael Tuck is a 7 time premiership player. It's never discussed how many he won in a row. The feat is simply lauded for what it is. 7. Incredible.

The 88-89 B2B were actually considered a major and desired achievement by all at Hawthorn at that time. The consecutive flags was considered especially treasured. It was a major theme that the club wanted to address after not winning the next ones after 83 and 86.

 

[Trav 20]

The 88-89 B2B were actually considered a major and desired achievement by all at Hawthorn at that time. The consecutive flags was considered especially treasured. It was a major theme that the club wanted to address after not winning the next ones after 83 and 86.

I was around. And yes, they're considered arguably Hawthorn's greatest teams.

The feat has probably lost some of its lustre due to the number of triples since.

My Brother was on Hawthorn's senior list for 3 years back when they were winning flags and still barracks for the swines.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Probably Lions. 3 flags in a row, 4 GFs in a row (yes I know, Hawks the same), but Brisbane had to travel more than anyone to get theirs.

Hawks second. 3 flags in a row, 4 GFs in a row. Let a unique opportunity slip, going for 4 in a row in 2016, was top of the ladder with 2 rounds to go, finished 3rd, out in straight sets.

Cats third. 3 flags in 5 years, 4 GF's in 5 years, 5 consecutive prelims. Amazing

Richmond last in comparison to the others because their record doesn't match the rest. 3 flags in 4 years, 4 consecutive prelims, then slumped to 12th with only 9 wins.

They also had more salary cap privilege's than anyone else.....

1 Hawks
2 Cats
3 Tigers
4 Brisbane

 

[Noidnadroj]

It is well if you bow out of the discussion now as you are losing the proverbial plot. To defeat my arguments and facts you have first had to mangle them so badly they are unrecognisable from what I presented.

The Premier over the last 32 seasons has won the next Premiership roughly once in every 5 seasons. No other finishing position has that high a frequency of winning th Premiership the following year. That is pretty simple stuff all clearly and I think faithfully layed out.

Remember it is you making claims about the difficulty of being the “hunted” when you are the Premier. Be that as it may, there is no other single finishing position that indicates as high a likelihood of winning the next Premiership.

Nowhere have I claimed or argued it is easy for a Premier to win the next flag, or that it is handed to them or whatever other nonsense you attribute to me. It is not easy. But it is at least equally difficult from any other finishing position, that is clear.

MinerBoy: "I'd read that as 26/32 means somewhere other than 1st is most likely.”

That you have actually said that reduces your credibility in my eyes by orders of magnitude. If a finishing position somewhere other than 1st is more likely to win the next flag, tell us what that position is….

Of course it is more likely the Premier will come from the 17 non-Premier clubs in any given season than from the one premier club, by a factor of roughly 4:1 in the AFL era. But that does absolutely nothing to advance the argument for why consecutive flags are more meritorious than the same amount of flags won non-consecutively. Geelong actually won their 3 flags from 10th, 3rd and 2nd placed finishes the year before, whereas the Hawks won theirs from 2nd, 1st, and 1st the previous seasons. If it is easier to win from lower positions than first, then why does the Premier not come more frequently from other individual positions?

I’m not sure this statistical argument makes sense. Take a tennis major in comparison. Let’s say the stats show the previous years winner wins 2% of the time the following year. And all other positions from 2-20 win 1%. And from 21+ it’s 0.5%. So the winner is TWICE as likely statistically to win than anyone else. However …going back-to-back-to-back at odds of 2% x 2% is more meritorious and much less likely than a team going win-loss-win-loss-win from a range of positions that are not 2%, isn’t it?

So let’s say Nadal was runner-up in 2010 then wins 3 in a row from 2011-2013. So the chances of doing this are 1% x 2% x 2%.

But to win 3 in 5-years, it’s statistically far far easier as he gets 5 attempts to achieve 3 wins.

Just as it’s easier to achieve 3 wins over 7-years than 3 over 5-years and so on.

So I’m not a mathematician, but if you used your odds of winning the flag, and on pure statistical terms compared the chances of a team winning 3 x flags from 2022-24 to a team winning 3 x flags from 2022-26, I’d say the odds of doing it in 3-years are astronomically more difficult than doing it in 5-years, making the achievement logically much more meritorious.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Fadge]

I’m not sure this statistical argument makes sense. Take a tennis major in comparison. Let’s say the stats show the previous years winner wins 2% of the time the following year. And all other positions from 2-20 win 1%. And from 21+ it’s 0.5%. So the winner is TWICE as likely statistically to win than anyone else. However …going back-to-back-to-back at odds of 2% x 2% is more meritorious and much less likely than a team going win-loss-win-loss-win from a range of positions that are not 2%, isn’t it?

So let’s say Nadal was runner-up in 2010 then wins 3 in a row from 2011-2013. So the chances of doing this are 1% x 2% x 2%.

But to win 3 in 5-years, it’s statistically far far easier as he gets 5 attempts to achieve 3 wins.

Just as it’s easier to achieve 3 wins over 7-years than 3 over 5-years and so on.

So I’m not a mathematician, but if you used your odds of winning the flag, and on pure statistical terms compared the chances of a team winning 3 x flags from 2022-24 to a team winning 3 x flags from 2022-26, I’d say the odds of doing it in 3-years are astronomically more difficult than doing it in 5-years, making the achievement logically much more meritorious.

This is a logical way of looking at it - it's all about probability.

Hawthorn was as lucky (arguably luckier) to win the 2014 Preliminary Final against Port Adelaide, where they had 7 fewer scoring shots, than they were unlucky not to win the 2011 Preliminary final against Collingwood (where they had 2 more scoring shots and were in front with 90 seconds to go).

These games were no more than tosses of the coin, but we have people rating Hawthorn exponentially higher because they won 2014 (and therefore achieved the threepeat), than if they had have lost 2014 but won the flag in 2011?

Come on man....

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

This is a logical way of looking at it - it's all about probability.

Hawthorn was as lucky (arguably luckier) to win the 2014 Preliminary Final against Port Adelaide, where they had 7 fewer scoring shots, than they were unlucky not to win the 2011 Preliminary final against Collingwood (where they had 2 more scoring shots and were in front with 90 seconds to go).

These games were no more than tosses of the coin, but we have people rating Hawthorn exponentially higher because they won 2014 (and therefore achieved the threepeat), than if they had have lost 2014 but won the flag in 2011?

Come on man....

The only thing lucky about the Port v Hawks prelim was the umpiring that Port got in the last 15 minutes to even get that close.

 

[Fadge]

I’m not sure this statistical argument makes sense. Take a tennis major in comparison. Let’s say the stats show the previous years winner wins 2% of the time the following year. And all other positions from 2-20 win 1%. And from 21+ it’s 0.5%. So the winner is TWICE as likely statistically to win than anyone else. However …going back-to-back-to-back at odds of 2% x 2% is more meritorious and much less likely than a team going win-loss-win-loss-win from a range of positions that are not 2%, isn’t it?

So let’s say Nadal was runner-up in 2010 then wins 3 in a row from 2011-2013. So the chances of doing this are 1% x 2% x 2%.

But to win 3 in 5-years, it’s statistically far far easier as he gets 5 attempts to achieve 3 wins.

Just as it’s easier to achieve 3 wins over 7-years than 3 over 5-years and so on.

So I’m not a mathematician, but if you used your odds of winning the flag, and on pure statistical terms compared the chances of a team winning 3 x flags from 2022-24 to a team winning 3 x flags from 2022-26, I’d say the odds of doing it in 3-years are astronomically more difficult than doing it in 5-years, making the achievement logically much more meritorious.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Whilst on tennis, how many consecutive Australian Open titles has Novak won?

What about consecutive French Open titles for Rafa?

Quickly...

How much more impressive would their records be if they didn't have 'losing years'?!?

 

[MinerBoy]

Whilst on tennis, how many consecutive Australian Open titles has Novak won?

What about consecutive French Open titles for Rafa?

Quickly...

How much more impressive would their records be if they didn't have 'losing years'?!?

If Fed had won Wimbledon 7 times between 2000 and 2012 it would be awesome.

If Fed had won Wimbledon 7 times between 2000 and 2006 it would be better.

 

[Fadge]

If Fed had won Wimbledon 7 times between 2000 and 2012 it would be awesome.

If Fed had won Wimbledon 7 times between 2000 and 2006 it would be better.

Why?

Also, you don't know the streaks for Novak at the Aus Open or Rafa at the French Open off the top of your head?

 

[RAPPA]

Why?

Also, you don't know the streaks for Novak at the Aus Open or Rafa at the French Open off the top of your head?

Quality of the competition I suspect between the contrasting periods. Nonetheless, a title is a title.

 

[Trav 20]

If Fed had won Wimbledon 7 times between 2000 and 2012 it would be awesome.

If Fed had won Wimbledon 7 times between 2000 and 2006 it would be better.

Fair point.

Bjorn Borg was always lauded for his 5 Wimbledons in a row, which had never been done before.

 

[Trav 20]

Good arguments on both sides.

 

[Fadge]

Quality of the competition I suspect between the contrasting periods. Nonetheless, a title is a title.

So he'd be rated higher if he had have beaten Ivanisevic in 2001 and Hewitt in 2002, than he would be by beating Rafa or Novak post 2006?

 

[MinerBoy]

Why?

Also, you don't know the streaks for Novak at the Aus Open or Rafa at the French Open off the top of your head?

I don't give enough of a s**t about tennis. If I was a tennis fan like I am an AFL fan I am sure I would.

I not only don't know their streaks, I wouldn't have a clue how many they've won in total.

 

[MinerBoy]

Why?

For the statistical minded, what are the odds of winning 7 in a row v 7 in 13 years?

 

[RAPPA]

So he'd be rated higher if he had have beaten Ivanisevic in 2001 and Hewitt in 2002, than he would be by beating Rafa or Novak post 2006?

I'm only guessing here as to the point being made.

2002 was a very weak final 16. Ivanisevic was no mug and the final 16 in 2001 had some very decent quality.

That aside, there are valid arguments on both sides - a sustained period of dominance evidenced by winning seven consecutive titles of the same slam; conversely, the fact that he won 7 in total over a longer period could equally demonstrate his successful longevity at the top end over a greater period.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I’m not sure this statistical argument makes sense. Take a tennis major in comparison. Let’s say the stats show the previous years winner wins 2% of the time the following year. And all other positions from 2-20 win 1%. And from 21+ it’s 0.5%. So the winner is TWICE as likely statistically to win than anyone else. However …going back-to-back-to-back at odds of 2% x 2% is more meritorious and much less likely than a team going win-loss-win-loss-win from a range of positions that are not 2%, isn’t it?

So let’s say Nadal was runner-up in 2010 then wins 3 in a row from 2011-2013. So the chances of doing this are 1% x 2% x 2%.

But to win 3 in 5-years, it’s statistically far far easier as he gets 5 attempts to achieve 3 wins.

Just as it’s easier to achieve 3 wins over 7-years than 3 over 5-years and so on.

So I’m not a mathematician, but if you used your odds of winning the flag, and on pure statistical terms compared the chances of a team winning 3 x flags from 2022-24 to a team winning 3 x flags from 2022-26, I’d say the odds of doing it in 3-years are astronomically more difficult than doing it in 5-years, making the achievement logically much more meritorious.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Not to disrespect what you have written but there is a smoke and mirror effect here. The reality of the situation is all these clubs have a 4-6 year window in which they can realistically win flags. Let’s say the window is 5 years max because that is the maximum span for the 4 clubs on this thread, so far.

So they are all trying to win 5 flags in 5 years. They each failed to win flags in two of those years. To say that it is tougher to win 3 in 3 than 3 in 5 is true. But you only have Hawks and Lions winning 3 in 3 by excluding the two years they did not win. They really won 3 in 5.

Who had the best 3 year spans? Brisbane and Hawthorn, if you choose their 01-03 and 13-15 years.

But who had the most 3 year spans with a Premiership in it? Let’s compare Hawks with Cats over 9 seasons.

Cats xxWxWxWxx

Hawks xxxWWWxxx

There are 7 x 3 year spans in those data sets, years 1-3, 2-4, 3-5 and so on. Cats had 7 x consecutive 3 year spans with at least one Premiership. The Hawks had 5.

So if we said to you now, which of these two is easier to achieve, a run of 3 consecutive flags on one hand OR on the other hand winning at least one Premiership within 7 consecutive 3 year spans, which would you now fancy you would have the greater chance of doing?

The correct answer is you would have a roughly equal chance of achieving either feat, neither is a greater achievement than the other.

Winning the fourth flag, well that is a different matter…that is clearly much harder to achieve.

 

[Hank Heavenly]

Not to disrespect what you have written but there is a smoke and mirror effect here. The reality of the situation is all these clubs have a 4-6 year window in which they can realistically win flags. Let’s say the window is 5 years max because that is the maximum span for the 4 clubs on this thread, so far.

So they are all trying to win 5 flags in 5 years. They each failed to win flags in two of those years. To say that it is tougher to win 3 in 3 than 3 in 5 is true. But you only have Hawks and Lions winning 3 in 3 by excluding the two years they did not win. They really won 3 in 5.

Who had the best 3 year spans? Brisbane and Hawthorn, if you choose their 01-03 and 13-15 years.

But who had the most 3 year spans with a Premiership in it? Let’s compare Hawks with Cats over 9 seasons.

Cats xxWxWxWxx

Hawks xxxWWWxxx

There are 7 x 3 year spans in those data sets, years 1-3, 2-4, 3-5 and so on. Cats had 7 x consecutive 3 year spans with at least one Premiership. The Hawks had 5.

So if we said to you now, which of these two is easier to achieve, a run of 3 consecutive flags on one hand OR on the other hand winning at least one Premiership within 7 consecutive 3 year spans, which would you now fancy you would have the greater chance of doing?

The correct answer is you would have a roughly equal chance of achieving either feat, neither is a greater achievement than the other.

Winning the fourth flag, well that is a different matter…that is clearly much harder to achieve.

The flaw in your theory is, why is the parameter set at 5 years??? why not 10, then the Cats with their additional finals appearances win easily don't they.
Or limit it to three years, and you could claim the cats only won 1 in 3 years if you went 08-10...??? the worst of the lot.

What you are doing, is really just counting premierships, so aren't Essendon and Carlton the best dynasties?