AFL Grand Final Grand Final Win-Loss Records

[Dazzler9]

So back in the 90s, when the Grand Final logos emobossed on player jumpers used to say "95th Grand Final" etc, right up to "100th Grand Final" when North won it in 1996 and received a gold premiership cup for the centenary of the league,...that was all completely erroneous, yeah? Trust the AFL.

 

[rapidfire7]

I wish the team that finished higher in the H&A got a home grand final. Does any other competition in the world always host their decider at the one venue?

Might’ve made sense for a VFL comp but not for a national comp.

So, you'd be happy with the Cats hosting a Grand Final at GMHBA if they earnt it?

 

[Hydatina Physis]

So, you'd be happy with the Cats hosting a Grand Final at GMHBA if they earnt it?

Yeah I couldn't care less where its played. If it's earnt, it's earnt.

I'm sure that AFLHQ wouldn't like it though, but **** em.

 

[Pistol Night]

So, you'd be happy with the Cats hosting a Grand Final at GMHBA if they earnt it?

But where will the 50k corporate flogs that dont care about the game sit?

 

[Hydatina Physis]

But where will there 50k corporate flogs that dont care about the game sit?

They can sit on this.

 

[Pistol Night]

They can sit on this.

Prelim atmosphere is electric compared to grannys

 

[Grumpyshades]

How bad was 1992? We came 3rd on percentage with the same points as WC and Geelong and got to play 6th away.

Loewe too good for us that day, would've lost at the G anyway but it was a bad look.

sliding doors moment for WC. Because you guys lost we qualified for the 2nd semi instead of playing in the 1st semi..

 

[Gavin Excell]

Prelim atmosphere is electric compared to grannys

It always seems a far tougher and harder game than the following week
I guess though there are 2 PFS in every year. Tend to forget there are some ordinary games

 

[magpiemaniac44]

Yes its not a great system, but the challenge system is essentially just the team that finished first during the regular season getting a double chance, not completely different to what we have now

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Yes its not a great system, but the challenge system is essentially just the team that finished first during the regular season getting a double chance, not completely different to what we have now

It was probably more like the teams that didn't finish top getting a half chance. They essentially had to win the GF twice to take the flag.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Further to my post #41 this thread...

There were never really more than 8 clubs who had any real chance of contending for the first 50-60 years of the competition.

Saints won just 3 finals in their first 68 seasons in the competition, and 2 of those were in one season.

North, Hawks, Dogs entered 1925 & each won their first finals in the 1950's, and they had just a handful of GF appearances between them in their first 50 odd years in the competition.

University never played in a final in their short time in the VFL.

So it left just Collingwood, Carlton, Melbourne, Richmond, Geelong, Essendon, and up until the mid 1940's only South Melbourne & Fitzroy to share all the GF's between them. By the time North & Hawks sustained any success in the 1970's, Bulldogs, Saints, Fitzroy, Melbourne and South Melbourne were no serious threat from year to year.

So particularly in the first 40-50 odd years of the competition the team who enjoyed the most success was always going to look pretty remarkable for GF appearances when you relate those to the expanded & national competition era.

And that most successful team in those first 50 years of the competition was undoubtedly Collingwood.

Since 1960 they have appeared in the GF of the 1960, 64, 66, 70, 77, 79, 80, 81, 90, 2002, 03, 10, 11, 18 & 23 seasons. So 15 in 65 seasons.

In this same period:

Hawks have appeared in 19 Grand Finals.
Collingwood 15
Carlton 14
Geelong 11
Richmond, Essendon 10
North, Sydney 8
Eagles 7 in 38 years
Brisbane 6 in roughly 30 years
Saints 6
Demons 5


23 of Collingwood's 43 top 2 finishes had occurred by 1939. That is what put them off the scale. Over the last 85 seasons they have a high amount of top 2 finishes, it is very much back on the scale:

Top 2 finishes last 85 years(from 1940):

21 Essendon
20 Collingwood
19 Hawthorn
17 Carlton
15 Melbourne
14 Richmond Geelong

 

[Fadge]

Further to my post #41 this thread...

There were never really more than 8 clubs who had any real chance of contending for the first 50-60 years of the competition.

Saints won just 3 finals in their first 68 seasons in the competition, and 2 of those were in one season.

North, Hawks, Dogs entered 1925 & each won their first finals in the 1950's, and they had just a handful of GF appearances between them in their first 50 odd years in the competition.

University never played in a final in their short time in the VFL.

So it left just Collingwood, Carlton, Melbourne, Richmond, Geelong, Essendon, and up until the mid 1940's only South Melbourne & Fitzroy to share all the GF's between them. By the time North & Hawks sustained any success in the 1970's, Bulldogs, Saints, Fitzroy, Melbourne and South Melbourne were no serious threat from year to year.

So particularly in the first 40-50 odd years of the competition the team who enjoyed the most success was always going to look pretty remarkable for GF appearances when you relate those to the expanded & national competition era.

And that most successful team in those first 50 years of the competition was undoubtedly Collingwood.

Since 1960 they have appeared in the GF of the 1960, 64, 66, 70, 77, 79, 80, 81, 90, 2002, 03, 10, 11, 18 & 23 seasons. So 15 in 65 seasons.

In this same period:

Hawks have appeared in 19 Grand Finals.
Collingwood 15
Carlton 14
Geelong 11
Richmond, Essendon 10
North, Sydney 8
Eagles 7 in 38 years
Brisbane 6 in roughly 30 years
Saints 6
Demons 5


23 of Collingwood's 43 top 2 finishes had occurred by 1939. That is what put them off the scale. Over the last 85 seasons they have a high amount of top 2 finishes, it is very much back on the scale:

Top 2 finishes last 85 years(from 1940):

21 Essendon
20 Collingwood
19 Hawthorn
17 Carlton
15 Melbourne
14 Richmond Geelong

So your effort to diminish Collingwood's record sees them having the best Grand Final appearance / Top 2 record prior to your two different arbitrary cut off dates, and falling to 'only' having the second best Grand Final appearance / Top 2 record post your two different arbitrary cut off dates ( to two different teams)?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Those early seasons with the challenge system can **** off.

1909 - South Melbourne lost the Grand Final to Carlton.

Challenge - Create a new game. South Melbourne win the new grand final over Carlton.

Same as top 4 teams now getting the double chance. Also there's been discussion that many of those games were treated as less than serious knowing there would be another chance the following week (and another chance to take gate receipts).

 

[Fadge]

Same as top 4 teams now getting the double chance.

Nah....

Those of us who regularly finish top 4 know full well the importance of winning the Qualifying Final to set up a tilt at the premiership.

Collingwood in 2022 - we get over Geelong in the Qualifying Final and we have a home Preliminary Final, as opposed to needing to win the following week for the privilege of playing Sydney in Sydney.

Melbourne in 2023 - they beat Collingwood and they set up a home Preliminary Final, but instead a narrow loss sees them having to beat Carlton (which they didn't) for the privilege of playing a Preliminary Final against Brisbane in Brisbane.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So your effort to diminish Collingwood's record sees them having the best Grand Final appearance / Top 2 record prior to your arbitrary cut off date, and falling to 'only' having the second best Grand Final appearance / Top 2 record post your arbitrary cut off date ( to two different teams)?

You assume I am trying to diminish Collingwood's excellent record of finishing top 2.

I am merely trying to make sense of it and put it into perspective.

Their record since 1940 in regard to making top two is very good, but it is not astounding, especially given two other clubs have made top 2 roughly the same amount of times in the last 85 seasons.

Their record before 1940 of 23 x top 2 finishes in 43 seasons looks astounding when viewed throught the lens of the current competition. But it is less astounding when viewed in context. In that period there were only mainly around 6-8 teams who could realistically have contended. Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, Fitzroy, South Melbourne, Melbourne & Geelong. We can also see evidence of other clubs having what look remarkable runs of top 2 finishes during and just after the period.

• Blues 9 x top 2 finishes 1904-1916(13 years)
• Fitzroy 12 x top 2 finishes 1898-1923(25 years)
• Essendon 9 x top 2 finishes 1941-1951(11 seasons)
• Richmond 15 top 2 finishes 1919-1944(26 seasons)
• Melbourne 13 top 2 finishes 1939-1964(26 seasons)

Even South Melbourne had 10 x top 2 finishes in 38 years 1899-1936.

Geelong & StKilda were foundation clubs but only had 5 x top 2 finishes between them in the first 54 years of the competition. It meant there were around 100 x top 2 finishes to split between 7 other clubs, and one of those, Richmond, wasn't in the competition for 11 years and didn't win their first final for another 11.

Against all this we can see that whilst Collingwood's 23 x top 2 finishes in 39 years 1901-1939 is clearly better than any other team, but is about the amount, or just a few more than you would expect the strongest club to achieve top 2 in a normal distribution.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Fadge

Collingwood's high prevelance of top 2 finishes is probably best understood by dividing their time in the competition into 3 phases:

The first 43 years they finished top two 23 times. (v anywhere from 3 to 8 realistic rivals.)

The next 43 years they finished top two 13 times. (v mainly 7 to 10 realistic rivals.)

The next 42 years they finished top two 7 times. (v an average of around 12-14 realistic rivals.)

 

[Pistol Night]

Fadge

Collingwood's high prevelance of top 2 finishes is probably best understood by dividing their time in the competition into 3 phases:

The first 43 years they finished top two 23 times. (v anywhere from 3 to 8 realistic rivals.)

The next 43 years they finished top two 13 times. (v mainly 7 to 10 realistic rivals.)

The next 42 years they finished top two 7 times. (v an average of around 12-14 realistic rivals.)

Do you put as much effort into anything else in life as hating Collingwood? Its actually quite flattering

 

[Fadge]

You assume I am trying to diminish Collingwood's excellent record of finishing top 2.

I am merely trying to make sense of it and put it into perspective.

Their record since 1940 in regard to making top two is very good, but it is not astounding, especially given two other clubs have made top 2 roughly the same amount of times in the last 85 seasons.

Their record before 1940 of 23 x top 2 finishes in 43 seasons looks astounding when viewed throught the lens of the current competition. But it is less astounding when viewed in context. In that period there were only mainly around 6-8 teams who could realistically have contended. Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, Fitzroy, South Melbourne, Melbourne & Geelong. We can also see evidence of other clubs having what look remarkable runs of top 2 finishes during and just after the period.

• Blues 9 x top 2 finishes 1904-1916(13 years)
• Fitzroy 12 x top 2 finishes 1898-1923(25 years)
• Essendon 9 x top 2 finishes 1941-1951(11 seasons)
• Richmond 15 top 2 finishes 1919-1944(26 seasons)
• Melbourne 13 top 2 finishes 1939-1964(26 seasons)

Even South Melbourne had 10 x top 2 finishes in 38 years 1899-1936.

Geelong & StKilda were foundation clubs but only had 5 x top 2 finishes between them in the first 54 years of the competition. It meant there were around 100 x top 2 finishes to split between 7 other clubs, and one of those, Richmond, wasn't in the competition for 11 years and didn't win their first final for another 11.

Against all this we can see that whilst Collingwood's 23 x top 2 finishes in 39 years 1901-1939 is clearly better than any other team, but is about the amount, or just a few more than you would expect the strongest club to achieve top 2 in a normal distribution.

So he now doubles down by referencing records of other clubs, over much shorter timeframes.

If it was so easy to do, why didn't any of these other clubs do more, for longer, in the same way Collingwood did?

 

[Fadge]

Fadge

Collingwood's high prevelance of top 2 finishes is probably best understood by dividing their time in the competition into 3 phases:

The first 43 years they finished top two 23 times. (v anywhere from 3 to 8 realistic rivals.)

The next 43 years they finished top two 13 times. (v mainly 7 to 10 realistic rivals.)

The next 42 years they finished top two 7 times. (v an average of around 12-14 realistic rivals.)

So how does that record compare to the other teams in the competition?

Quite favourably, I'd expect...

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Do you put as much effort into anything else in life as hating Collingwood? Its actually quite flattering

Yep, hating Geelong.

No really, credit where credit is due, Collingwood has an unimpeachable record for finishing top 2 throughout history, we should recognise that. Clearly the strongest of any club.

So if we are going to highlight all the Grand Finals they failed to win, we have to acknowledge their record for making top 2.

I am not attempting to diminish that record, just trying to put some perspective to it. Especially that the exceptional part of Collingwood's top 2 record occurred before 1940. Two other teams have pretty much matched them since then for top 2 finishes, Bombers & Hawks.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So he now doubles down by referencing records of other clubs, over much shorter timeframes.

If it was so easy to do, why didn't any of these other clubs do more, for longer, in the same way Collingwood did?

You are being unnecessarily combative because you think I am here to run Collingwood's top 2 record down. I am not. I have already acknowledged it is clearly the best in the competition.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So how does that record compare to the other teams in the competition?

Quite favourably, I'd expect...

Of course. Maybe except for the last phase. Several clubs will have matched or bettered Collingwood for top 2 finishes in the last 1/3 of the history of the competition.

Hawks 14 top 2 finishes in that time for eg.

Cats 10

Swans 8

Bombers Pies Eagles 7( Eagles entered comp 5 years into the period so ahead pro rata.)

Lions 6 woud be ahead pro rata for years in the comp.

 

[Fadge]

Of course. Maybe except for the last phase. Several clubs will have matched or bettered Collingwood for top 2 finishes in the last 1/3 of the history of the competition.

Hawks 14 top 2 finishes in that time for eg.

Cats 10

Swans 8

Bombers Pies Eagles 7( Eagles entered comp 5 years into the period so ahead pro rata.)

Lions 6 woud be ahead pro rata for years in the comp.

Awesome.

So you've found a stat and a timeline where Collingwood are ranked only 4th.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

During the middle third of the competition's history 1940-82(43 years) the "finished top 2" ladder looks like this:

14 Essendon
13 Collingwood
12 Melbourne, Carlton
11 Richmond
6 Hawthorn, North
5 Geelong
3 St Kilda
2 Footscray
1 Fitzroy, Sth Melbourne


So for finishing top 2, Collingwood's record in each 1/3rd of the competition's history looks like this:


First 1/3rd 1897-1939 1st

Second 1/3rd 1940-1982 2nd

Third 1/3rd 1983-current =4th or =6th by pro rata method


Has anyone else noticed Fadge seems annoyed at these facts being published for some unknowable reason?

 

[Fadge]

During the middle third of the competition's history 1940-82(43 years) the "finished top 2" ladder looks like this:

14 Essendon
13 Collingwood
12 Melbourne, Carlton
11 Richmond
6 Hawthorn, North
5 Geelong
3 St Kilda
2 Footscray
1 Fitzroy, Sth Melbourne


So for finishing top 2, Collingwood's record in each 1/3rd of the competition's history looks like this:


First 1/3rd 1897-1939 1st

Second 1/3rd 1940-1982 2nd

Third 1/3rd 1983-current =4th or =6th by pro rata method


Has anyone else noticed Fadge seems annoyed at these facts being published for some unknowable reason?

So in summary, Collingwood are still #1 across the history of the competition?

Good to know.