Was 2017 a weak year, and is this a bad thing?

[Red Black and Blue]

Not weak, just different. First time in footballing history the most important attribute is ability to pressure the opposition. So while individuals aren’t as traditionally ‘talented’ as previously, team structure and cohension are at an all time high standard.

 

[Oscarman]

If your team wins the flag I'm pretty sure there's zero *s given about how strong the competition was or whether it was Bradbury or umpire assisted. I sure as s**t hope to find out.

 

[Minka Beaver]

Not weak, just different. First time in footballing history the most important attribute is ability to pressure the opposition. So while individuals aren’t as traditionally ‘talented’ as previously, team structure and cohension are at an all time high standard.

They had four players of elite talent - Cotchin, Rance, Riewoldt and Martin. The latter was far and away the best player in the competition in 2017, due to his skill and explosiveness.

The game plan mattered, but Richmond simply wouldn't even be in the running if they didn't have top talent.

 

[demondavey]

Seriously, these ‘hindsight’ threads only breed and perpetuate over analysis and arguing over comparative non events. It’s ridiculous to pit the teams of one year against another, whenever a side succeeds in a GF they’ve beaten the best opposition at the time in the highest competitive environment.

 

[demondavey]

If your team wins the flag I'm pretty sure there's zero ****s given about how strong the competition was or whether it was Bradbury or umpire assisted. I sure as s**t hope to find out.

Exactly. I couldn’t give a flog if our GF opponents had 6 ACL injuries in the first half.

 

[Xhoquelin]

Dee’s were a good side on paper with an inability to defend any good big forward, minimal defensive contribution, and piss weak mental strength from half of the team. Don’t want to have a crack at Clarry, Jones, Tyson but it really seemed like half of the time we just shut off completely.

Teams like the Dee’s don’t contend for top eight most years. In 2015 Port and the Saints missed out on finals, both were as strong as the Dee’s team last season.

That being said the weaker teams have definitely gotten stronger, Carlton were such a nuisance in the middle of last season, Collingwood has one of the top 3 midfields on paper and are always going to break even in the contested possessions and clearances, North have more fight than most teams I’d say.

 

[Juddernaut08]

If your team wins the flag I'm pretty sure there's zero ****s given about how strong the competition was or whether it was Bradbury or umpire assisted. I sure as s**t hope to find out.

Yep, this. Only people complaining that it was a weak year is Tiges fans! Enjoy it instead of being insecure guys!

 

[Final Siren]

It's still interesting to think about, though.

Naturally fans of the premier start to think, "Maybe we're not just the best team of THIS year but of ALL TIME!" while other fans think, "There must be some bullshit reason why that pack of flogs could win."

2016 & 2017 were definitely more even than we've seen for a while, but further back there were seasons like 1993, when 13 wins made you minor premiers.

 

[demondavey]

It's still interesting to think about, though.

Naturally fans of the premier start to think, "Maybe we're not just the best team of THIS year but of ALL TIME!" while other fans think, "There must be some bullshit reason why that pack of flogs could win."

2016 & 2017 were definitely more even than we've seen for a while, but further back there seasons like 1993, when 13 wins made you minor premiers.

At the end of the day, finals are finals. And you’ve still got to win 3-4 games if required to win the flag. You do what you have to do.

 

[iluvparis]

No team deep in the premiership zone in the squiggle and for most of the year only one team anywhere near it.

/thread

 

[Coaster2012]

How does a rise in quality across the board, and not just 1 team dominating everyone else, mean its a weak year?

 

[owen87]

How does a rise in quality across the board, and not just 1 team dominating everyone else, mean its a weak year?

I think it's the difference between having a handful of dominating teams, where the rest are miles off, and a more even competition.

As a fan; I'd much rather an even competition than one with bottom feeders who can barely win a game while we have the Geelong, Hawthorn, Sydney merry-go-round that we had for a significant chunk of the last decade.

 

[The Punter]

C'mon guys, we can occasionally deal with qualitative analysis as well.

2007 was a weak year because it was obviously a transition year. West Coast, Sydney and Adelaide (the three dominant teams of 2005-2006) fell away but still made finals, indicating they were on the downward part of the premiership cycle. St Kilda had a new coach and the playing group would not gel until midway through the next year. Collingwood and Hawthorn were just about to arrive, but not quite there yet.

That takes little to nothing away from Geelong, who were an exceptional team. But no one was near to their quality that season.

Other factors in weak year analysis are injuries to long-term dominant teams. Yes, St Kilda won 15 games and finished top in 1997, but that doesn't make it a weak year in isolation. Put it together with North Melbourne (who made the GF the previous year and the two years after) and their injuries, and the falling away of Geelong, Carlton and West Coast, and then you get a weak year.

Not everything boils down to statistical analysis.

 

[mehow2g]

My bar is Geelong of 2007 and 2008 (apart from their flag performance), nothing has topped that imo.

give it 1-3 years and we will see some strong sides after the GWS/GC hand outs are done taking affect on other clubs.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Weak vs even.

Yes, very even year.

Weak, if measured against a dominant side. Saying that a team that won 19 H&A games would destroy 2017's crop is a straw man. It's quite possible they would just be a decent team in 2017. Assuming that one year's dominant team would dominate in other years is to say that all seasons are much the same in terms of evenness. SO weak doesn't mean much to me really. It's too subjective.

 

[Gydafud]

Depends how a weak year is judged. The strength of the winning team? Or the quality of the bottom team/s. I tried combing the ladders of 2007-2017 to see if there was anything interesting to come of it.

https://i.imgur.com/2XiemYd.jpg

2016/2017 were ranked the lowest of the premiership teams. 2011 produced a lot of teams high on the ladder. The 3 "best" teams of the past 11 years didn't produce a premiership. 2017 produced the highest "loser".

Does this mean anything? Not really. But it was fun to make and look at.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

Depends how a weak year is judged. The strength of the winning team? Or the quality of the bottom team/s. I tried combing the ladders of 2007-2017 to see if there was anything interesting to come of it.

https://i.imgur.com/2XiemYd.jpg

2016/2017 were ranked the lowest of the premiership teams. 2011 produced a lot of teams high on the ladder. The 3 "best" teams of the past 11 years didn't produce a premiership. 2017 produced the highest "loser".

Does this mean anything? Not really. But it was fun to make and look at.

Yeah, doesn't mean much. Fun to look at.

Richmonds 13/15 sides were higher than our 17 side. They wouldn't have got within a bulls roar.

The top 4 seasons look amazing in dominance though, stacked up.

 

[Snake_Baker]

My bar is Geelong of 2007 and 2008 (apart from their flag performance)

This is the last time that a really strong side played in the AFL. You have to go back to Brisbane before that.

I know Hawthorn won 3 flags on the trot, but that was based on an elite version of "keepings off"

Footy has been decidedly average and declining for 10 years, when you think about it.

 

[Final Siren]

Does this mean anything? Not really. But it was fun to make and look at.

Story of my life.

 

[Gydafud]

Story of my life.

You did inspire me

 

[BEaston]

Two dominant teams like 2008, 2009, 2011 = strong year

Five or more contenders like 2016 and 2017 = weak year

I never understood this distinction.

It should be the opposite.

 

[Hinkley29]

Isn't a closer competition a stronger competition.

Surely its easier to win when you are 1 of 2 or 3 breakaway teams rather than 6 or 7 close teams.

I don't follow the logic.

No way.

It is much easier to beat an even field than win a premiership against 1 or 2 very good or great sides.

Prime example is 2009. It is one of the most lop sided seasons of all time. 1 team won 20 games, another won 18. These 2 teams were undefeated after 13 rounds. No other team won more than 15 games all season. Half of the competition won 9 games or less, and 10 wins was enough to play finals.

St Kilda were a great side, but happened to run into another great side and lost a close GF. If that St Kilda side played in any of the last 6 seasons, they would have likely won the flag.

The Collingwood side of 2011 were another prime example. Put them into any season since 2011 and they would win the flag.

 

[Final Siren]

No way.

It is much easier to beat an even field than win a premiership against 1 or 2 very good or great sides.

Prime example is 2009. It is one of the most lop sided seasons of all time. 1 team won 20 games, another won 18. These 2 teams were undefeated after 13 rounds. No other team won more than 15 games all season. Half of the competition won 9 games or less, and 10 wins was enough to play finals.

St Kilda were a great side, but happened to run into another great side and lost a close GF. If that St Kilda side played in any of the last 6 seasons, they would have likely won the flag.

The Collingwood side of 2011 were another prime example. Put them into any season since 2011 and they would win the flag.

I really disagree about 2009 being lop-sided. Geelong and St Kilda dominated the first half of the home & away season so completely that it conceals how even the second half was, including the finals.

After Round 13, the Cats and Saints were both 13-0 with percentages of 178% and 150% respectively.

But after that, Geelong went 5-4 with a sub-100 percentage, which was 7th best in a league of 16 teams. Three of those wins were by a combined total of 8 points! So they could actually have gone 2-7. Over the same period, the Saints were one of three teams who went 7-2, with only the second-best percentage (behind Collingwood).

So things had really squared up by finals, with the Bulldogs, Pies, and Crows all strongly closing the gap. And those finals matches were mostly close-fought. Geelong scraped through its QF by 14 pts over the Bulldogs. St Kilda got over Collingwood by 28 but then only survived the prelim by 7 pts against a wayward Bulldogs.

Neither side had to play Adelaide, who were improving fast and won their Elimination Final by 96 points - they got taken out by Collingwood. The Pies didn't have much left to show after that against the Cats in the prelim, admittedly, but then the Grand Final was decided by only 12 pts (really 6, if you don't count that kick after the siren).

I do think the Cats and Saints were the two best teams that year, but the Dogs and Pies could have won it, too, and it isn't one of the most lop sided seasons of this century, let alone all time.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

I have no idea what a weak year is as opposed to a strong year. Was it a strong year when Collingwood won in 2010, when the Saints were the best team all year?

?

Collingwood won two more H&A games than St Kilda in 2010, H2H was St Kilda b Collingwood by 28 and CFC b Saints by 58, and Collingwood beat more top 8 sides

 

[citizen-erased]

Couldn't disagree more with it being a weak year.
Weak years to me would constitute one where the top 4 are only in competition with themselves and the quality falls away before we run out of finalists.

In 2017;
Essendon beat 3 finalists quite convincingly in Eagles, Port and Geelong.
They also pushed GWS and Sydney in the H&A series.
And were the weakest finalist.

Outside the 8 you had the Hawks and Dees- all of which who had beaten the top 8, and had wins against premiership favourites Adelaide on their home deck and the hawks had wins against the Swans when they were the second best form side of the comp at that stage.

I'd argue the evenness meant a flag was tougher to win for the top 4.
And on paper, the tigers would have been the least fancied top 4 team to win it.
Can't take anything away from their win. They undid a lot of good teams on their way to the flag.