An interesting stat

[gocatsgo]

I was watching the Monaco Grand Prix the other night and Martin Brundell made a comment about not one poll sitter this season had won a Grand Prix.

So I got thinking, how many poll sitters have won premierships in the last few years, the answer.... not many.

I decided to go back through the history books and find the last time the minor premier had won the premiership. I found it quite staggering that only 3 of the last 10 minor premiers have actually won the flag.

1990 - Essendon, Minor Premier, Collingwood Premiers.
1991 - WCE,MP, Hawthorn Premiers
1992 - Geelong, MP, WCE Premiers
1993, 1994, 1995, Essendon, WCE and Carlton both
1996 - Sydney, MP, Kangaroos Premiers
1997 - StKilda, MP Adelaide Premiers
1998 - Kangaroos, MP, Adelaide Premiers
1999 - Essendon MP, Kangaroos Premiers

Another staggering statistic was, that last year was the first time the minor premier had failed to make the Grand Final in more than a decade.

So based on these stats, Essendon have a 90% chance of making the Grand Final, but only a 30% chance of actually winning the premiership.

Just a little stat that I thought would give some hope to 15 AFL clubs, maybe it isn't all over yet!!!

PS: Just another quick stat - The last 4 finals that have decided by a point have ALL been lost by Essendon.

 

[Rooboy 96]

Chokers ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Hope it chaangers this year, for their sake.

 

[Arch]

interesting stat, although whenever I see a post with "so I got out the old history books" in it, I tend to groan.

However my main point after readin all these "chokers" posts, is:

Is it better to have lost 4 finals by big margins, than to have lost 4 by a point ???? (ill say 3 because that 80's game v fitzroy had a totally different player group- different era).

Would we be better off or something if we'd been flogged in those finals ?????

A.

PS- You'll get dan24 started about how unfair it was to whoever finished first all those years, and didnt win flags.

 

[Dan26]

What are you trying to do Arch ? Incite me ?

But Arch you are right, if you lose by a point, you have played well. How can you choke if you have played well enough to be virtually even with the opposition ?????

If choking is classified as not-performing, then North Melbourne, in finals fit the bill more often than Essendon. While they have won a lot of finals, they have been THRASHED numerous times in the last 7 years. Big margins. Big, big margins. Fancy losing a Grand Final by 6 goals, after leading by 4 goals at half time. That game wasn't even close !!

Essendon havn't been thrashed in finals recently. A moe apt word to describe Essendon is unlucky. Essendon always perform in finals. Can't say the saem for North unfortunatley. Sure, they win more than they lose, but when was their last "small" loss in finals. You have to go back to 1994. All the losses since then have been "chokes" of gigantic proportions. Huge margins

Unlike the Bombers, who are one of the best performed finals team. You are guaranteed to get a contest with Essendon. They won't "choke" and get thrashed.

Anyway, I don't why North supporters are bagging Essendon. Because of our unlucky loss last year, they won the flag. If we played them, they would have lost. They should be happy.

 

[Dan26]

gocatsgo,

Actualy last year was the first since 1983 that the top team has failed to make the Grand Final.

In 1983, North melbourne got annihilated in both their finals. First by Hawthorn, and then they "choked" agaisnt Essendon in the preliminary final, where they went down by 80 points !!

But remember, from 1984, to 1989 (6 consecutive years), the top team won the Grand Final every year.

Put it this way, I think the Bombers have a much better than 30% chance on Grand Final day, presuming they make it.

But the failure of the top teams in recent years illustrates perfectly why both the top team and the Grand Final winer should be rewarded. Not one, at the expense of the other. But BOTH.

 

[gocatsgo]

Dan24, I only went back to 1990 because I knew that Hawthorn were minor premiers so many times in the 1980s.

I don't consider Essendon to be chokers, they have been very unlucky in the past, but even you have to admit that they did choke preliminary final day last year. Maybe they didn't even choke, they just got ahead of themselves and started thinking about the Grand Final before the Preliminary was over.

There is absolutely no doubt that North choked in the 1998 Grand Final, but if you kick 6 15 in the first half, you don't deserve to win it as it is. North also choked in the 1994 Preliminary final, kicking 5 9 in the first qtr to 3 3, even in the last qtr they had chances to win it and in fact hit the front, but couldn't win it.

Unfortunately, Geelong is often labelled great chokers which is an unfair assessment in my book. Geelong's finals record has been excellent over the past decade, it's just their Grand Final record which has seen them become chokers. I'd say that Geelong has won more close finals than anyone in the last 10 years and only lost the one close game, in 1991 (discounting 1989 GF)

The greatest choke of all was the 1993 Preliminary final by Adelaide without doubt, but they soon turned that around in 1997/98

PS; You never know, this season could end up just like 1951, Essendon dominating the season only to lose their glamour full forward in the Finals, thus allowing Geelong an 11 point Grand Final victory, we can only live and hope.

 

[curious]

gocatsgo wrote this bit -

The greatest choke of all was the 1993 Preliminary final by Adelaide without doubt, but they soon turned that around in 1997/98

I have a doubt. Adelaide were rank underdogs in that game in 1993 yet managed to get way ahead of Essendon by half time. Adelaide were playing away.

In 1998, also in a prelim final, Bulldogs were way in front of Adelaide by half time. The difference here is - Bulldogs were raging red hot favourites, and expected to win, and Bulldogs were playing in their home state.

Both of these games were memorable chokes but the circumstances around these two games makes the Bulldogs choke of 1998 prelim take the prize by a long long way. Deadset favourites way in front in a home state final then lost the plot. THE definitive all time classic choke.

Can you say why it is not so gocatsgo?

 

[curious]

gocatsgo also claims-
Unfortunately, Geelong is often labelled great chokers which is an unfair assessment in my book. Geelong's finals record has been
excellent over the past decade, it's just their Grand Final record which has seen them become chokers.

Geelongs finals record in the last decade is unremarkable apart from their noted GF losses. The very best finals record of the decade is Adelaides. One bad loss to Melbourne and two other losses by a couple of goals each, all losses played interstate. Eight wins - each time as underdogs - including two flags. Six of those wins when playing interstate. A 100% GF victory rate. No AFL team comes anywhere close to that success rate in finals over the last decade. Yet you seem to think of them as chokers - your view is decidedly coloured if that is so.

 

[gocatsgo]

Curious, I seriuosly doubt that Adelaide was the underdog when they played Geelong in 1997 at Football Park, despite the fact Geelong had finished second, the game was still in Adelaide. If that game had have been played anywhere else, the Crows would only have 1 premiership, no-one can debate that fact.

I'm not saying that Geelong would have won it, but I am saying that the only reason Adelaide did win was because they played that final against Geelong in Adelaide.

The greatest choke was Adelaide in 1993 because they were 7 goals up and lost, the Bulldogs never got that far in front in 1997.

 

[curious]

gocatsgo typed this-
Curious, I seriuosly doubt that Adelaide was the underdog when they played Geelong in 1997 at Football Park, despite the fact Geelong had finished second, the game was still in Adelaide.

Geelong lost a final. Lucky they were not out of it completely! Decidedly the game should have been in Adelaide, since Crows won and Geelong lost the week before.

also typed:
If that game had have been played anywhere else, the Crows would only have 1 premiership, no-one can debate that fact.

Sure I can debate it. Crows have played eight finals at away venues for a return of six wins. On that form you'd have to say that Crows win more finals than they lose when they play away, and there is no reason to suppose that final against Geelong would have been any different.

also typed:
I'm not saying that Geelong would have won it, but I am saying that the only reason Adelaide did win was because they played that final against Geelong in Adelaide.

Doesn't make any sense. See above. The record shows Adelaide wins finals far more often than loses them even when playing away. Incidentally, at home Crows have a 100% record.

also typed:
The greatest choke was Adelaide in 1993 because they were 7 goals up and lost, the Bulldogs never got that far in front in 1997.

Bulldogs in 1998 were about six up weren't they? Almost as much of a gap. Adelaide were playing away in 1993 in their very first finals series as a three-year old club. Yet they managed somehow against all the odds and expectations to get ahead. That surely rates as a superb effort. Even over the whole game, to lose in a prelim final away by just two goals as a third year club is a commendable effort.

Bulldogs on the other hand were playing at home in 1998. Long time established club. They were raging red-hot favourites to win, and they got to about six goals up.

That to me is a great deal bigger choke to lose from there.

Remember this (your words) - 'they played that final against Geelong in Adelaide'. Well Bulldogs played THAT final against Adelaide in Melbourne. And LOST!

For f..ks sake try for a least a teeny tiny bit of fairmindedness. People might start to accuse you of bias otherwise.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by curious:
For f..ks sake try for a least a teeny tiny bit of fairmindedness. People might start to accuse you of bias otherwise.[/B]

Look who's bloody talking!

"Eight wins - each time as underdogs " What a crock of shit. Adelaide played W.C at HOME in the first week of the finals in 97 and were in no way underdogs. Ditto week 2 against Geelong. So lets get our own house in order shall we before telling others to do so?

And for the record I agree that Adelaide's finals record in 97/98 was bloody marvellous!

 

[kevin sooky]

But Adelaide only got there on a crippled finals system that rewarded a low finishing loser with a second chance. If this years sysytem which is better applied Adelaide would have been knocked out in the first week of 98.

The Bombers kicked their asses. And how long they had been in the comp is irrelevant when they had access all the players they had kept in Adelaide by paying them huge money on their retention scheme.

Curious, are you sure your real name isnt Michaelangelo Rucci?

Now I can see what Jim Main is getting at.

 

[Pessimistic]

Dan24

I have an Idea which might satisfy you.

You want more recognition for the minor premiers but if that were to happen (say next year), It would devalue the acheivement of Premiers before 2000.

You look to the Premier league (which used to be called division 1) for inspiration but the FA cup is not the same as our finals series. The league cup is quite close to the ansett cup and doaes come a distant third

Now one year Man Utd did the treble by winning the league, FA Cup and League cup.

I am suggesting we leave the AFL trophies as they are (but I do predict the ansett cup will gain importance) but acknowledge a 'Treble' or even a 'Double' when It occurs

Carlton did the 'Double' in 1995
Essendon did the 'Treble' in 1993
Hawthorn did the 'Double' in 1989

Essendon might do the 'Treble' in 2000

Back-to-Back 'trebles' - now there's something to aim for !

Don't de-value the premiership

 

[servo]

kevin sooky

What bundles of money did the pre Crows SANFL players get? I assume you are talking about the Player Retention Scheme. The largest purse paid out I beleive was $30000- to Rudi Mandemaker. To 'earn' that he had to stay in the SANFL for 3 years. Thats $10000- per year.

About the same time Brett Chalmers was fined $10000- for corrupting the draft by stating he would only play at Collingwod.

3 points

1/- The players that stayed for the Retention Fund monies were not great players.

2/- The money hey earned was not comparable to what they could have earned in the VFL/AFL had they gone, or been fined for that matter.

3/- Tell me who was in that 1993 side who was a part of the Retention Scheme please, I can think of 3, A Jarman, McDermott & (haha) Hodges.

[This message has been edited by servo (edited 07 June 2000).]

 

[gocatsgo]

Curious, Didn't Adelaide win the 1998 Preliminary final by about 10 goals? I don't see how the dogs could have got 6 goals up that year! and another thing, Didn't Melbourne destroy Adelaide in the first week of the 1998 finals.

Even in 1993, Adelaide lost 2 of its 3 finals.

The only reason Geelong had to play Adelaide in 1997 in Adeliade, was because the first week, despite finishing second, Geelong had to play North Melbourne (the reigning premier) who finished 7th at Night, at the MCG, North's home ground. The only reason Adelaide won that game was because umpire Vermon didn't pay THAT mark to North Melbourne's number 2.

To make matters worse, it was a Sunday night and it was pouring rain all evening. You just have to look at Norths record in the rain and/or at night in the past few years to know that they were North's favourite conditions. The game should have been played on the Sunday Afternoon, but it clashed with StKilda V Brisbane at Waverley, surely the league could have scheduled the 2 finals at the same time given the forecast for the evening.

Unfortunately that night, Carey kicked 7 goals, North kicked 11 and that was enough to win in those conditions.

[This message has been edited by gocatsgo (edited 07 June 2000).]

 

[Drakey]

Now this is a good thread!

A couple of points.

1993
We choked against Essendon no doubt.
We should never have been there in the 1st place. I mean we finished 6th in a final 6. Beat Hawthorn then lost to Carlton & got to play off in a prelim. I can't work that out.

Retention scheme or not it was a good effort all the same to be around the mark. As servo has already stated the no. of quality players retained under the scheme was not that great. Especialy as the club had to sit on their hands at the end of 1990 while Vic clubs went on a recruiting rampage before we could even approach anyone.

If we had had the same concessions as West Coast then what a team we would have now!

1997
I agree we were favourites against West Coast.
Geelong finished 2nd in the home & away series & if they couldn't beat North or Adelaide in the finals then they didn't deserve to go any further. They had 2 bites of the cherry. How many more did they want!

The umpire made the right decision anyway; that was NOT a mark to Colbert (just joking).
Anyway if you ask me its a big stretch to say a mark not payed at CHF in the 3rd 1/4 of a game results in a loss. What if he had kicked a point? We will never know.

The other 2 games were great performances against the odds. No one can denie that.

1998
A big loss to the Demons sure, but we can hardly be held responsible for a system that last year not only saw Carlton thumped in their 1st final but get a home state final the next week as a reward!

We were certainly underdogs against Sydney (how well have the Dons done in finals in Sydney), Bulldogs & North.

We also had to win our last home & away game against West Coast at Subi to be sure of a finals berth.

Thats 5 consecutive away games to win the flag. A great effort.

AND WE ARE ON OUR WAY AGAIN!

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by gocatsgo:
The only reason Geelong had to play Adelaide in 1997 in Adeliade, was because the first week, despite finishing second, Geelong had to play North Melbourne (the reigning premier) who finished 7th at Night, at the MCG, North's home ground.
To make matters worse, it was a Sunday night and it was pouring rain all evening. You just have to look at Norths record in the rain and/or at night in the past few years to know that they were North's favourite conditions. The game should have been played on the Sunday Afternoon, but it clashed with StKilda V Brisbane at Waverley, surely the league could have scheduled the 2 finals at the same time given the forecast for the evening.

Unfortunately that night, Carey kicked 7 goals

Have a cry you little girl, if you go to colonial you wont get wet.

[This message has been edited by Rooboy 96 (edited 08 June 2000).]

 

[gocatsgo]

Isn't it firghtening, Drakey is right!!

Thet're on the way again. At least this time they more than likely will be forced into a do or die elimination final in the first week, probably in Melbourne.

I'm sure come finals time, Garry Ayres will make some stupid move that will cost them the game though. After five years of seeing him coach first hand, you can bet on it.

 

[gocatsgo]

RooBoy, in 1997, despite finishing 7th, North were handed the finals on a platter. 3 MCG finals, 2 at night.

Thank God that StKilda showed them up in the Preliminary.

 

[Daniel]

I don't want to get too confident too early but there is little doubt that the signs the Crows are showing this year are not unlike the ones in '97 and '98. There is cause for hope, but we must remember Adelaide are still not in the top 8 yet.

Even though the finals structure means teams 5 to 8 can be eliminated in the first week, the advantage is that they aren't facing the best teams (i.e. the top four). This is unquestionably better for teams finishing 7th and 8th, who faced automatic elimination in the old system anyway.

If the Crows manage to finish sixth, which is quite possible if current form holds, then they would start their finals campaign at home! Then it would only be three away finals to win the flag, same as before. So I don't think Adelaide are disadvantaged at all by this better finals format.

To GoCatsGo, what about other umpiring decisions which went in favour of the Cats during that '97 semifinal? I was at that game and seem to remember a ball being rushed through by a Crows player called a goal to Geelong. Is this correct?

 

[curious]

Stuff from all over-

gocatsgo:
Curious, Didn't Adelaide win the 1998 preliminary final by about 10 goals? I don't see how the dogs could have got 6 goals up that year!

Yes. Sorry about the confusion but the game I meant to refer to was the 1997 prelim (not 1998). In the 1997 prelim, doggies got about six ahead, then Adelaide got back in the second half and pipped them
in the last minutes by two points. An all-time classic choke by the doggies who were red hot favourites.

gocatsgo:
and another thing, Didn't melbourne destroy Adelaide in the first week of the 1998 finals.

Yes, Melbourne did have a big win over Adelaide in the finals in 1998. I mentioned that. "One bad loss to Melbourne and two other losses by a couple of goals each". That game in 1998 was the one and only big loss Adelaide have ever had in finals.

gocatsgo:
Even in 1993, Adelaide lost 2 of its 3 finals.

Those were the two other losses. Yes. Every other finals match Adelaide have played they have won, total = eight wins, three losses. How about that! Just as I said.

gocatsgo:
The only reason Adelaide won that game was because umpire Vermon didn't pay THAT mark to North Melbourne's number 2.

I'm starting to get a little confused here or is it you? Do you mean the mark not paid to Colbert? (Not that again!). Sure that was a mark and it should have been paid. It wasn't paid but that did not cost Geelong the game. Modra was also not paid a mark that same game. Just as much a mark as was Colberts and just as much not paid! Also late in the game Geelong were awarded a goal that actually came of Bickley's boot. There is just no way given all that that anyone can sensibly conclude that Geelong lost due to the non-paid Colbert mark.

sooky:
The Bombers kicked their asses.

The Bombers did win by a couple of goals. To think of that as kick-arse is massive exaggeration.

Dave:
Look who's bloody talking!
"Eight wins - each time as underdogs " What a crock of shit. Adelaide played W.C at HOME in the first week of the finals in 97 and were in no way underdogs. Ditto week 2 against Geelong. So lets get our own house in order shall we before telling others to do so?

So the other six times Adelaide were underdogs? Thanks for that much at least. As far as that final against West Coast goes you have a point but not a strong one. I do believe the betting odds slightly favoured WCE but that might be wrong. Certainly the pre-game blurb was full of West Coasts record in finals and against Adelaide and how that meant it could be expected to be a West Coast win despite it being played in Adelaide. Ditto for Geelong.

The bit about "each time as underdogs" is pinched from a media commentator. Cometti or McAvaney or someone like that.

Dave:
And for the record I agree that Adelaide's finals record in 97/98 was bloody marvellous!

Agreed it was marvellous- in fact record breaking !

 

[kevin sooky]

Even if Adelaide make the finals after losing the first 5 games, it wont b the first time it has happened in VFL/AFL history. Collingwood did it in 1959 losing the first5 and winning 12 out of 13 to make the 1SF. Missed out on double chance marginally and then lost 1SF.

Even if you make it you will be eliminated the first week as you shhould have been in 98.

 

[servo]

It is very interesting that a team with a 6-7 record is generating this much fear in opposition supporters. Particularly given that we have a team with a 13-0 record at the same time.

I don't think it is jealousy because the posts are not vicious as the Roos v Bombers v Cats posts are.

I think that fear demonstrates how good a finals side the Crows have been in their first 10 years. We have never claimed to be the best team in any one year. We don't claim to be the team of the 90's. We just know we are good finals performers and tend to time our run extremely well.

I am not willing to say yet that we are a genuine chance for the flag but we are a definate chance for the finals now. Still cant see the Bombers getting beaten unless they lose it themselves though.

GO CROWS

 

[Dave]

Curious, depends on your definition of "underdogs". Adelaide were definitely not the favorites in the 6 away finals they won, but by the same token they weren't rank outsiders either. As for the final against the WC, after beating them by 70 odd points at FP in the only meeting of '97 I'd say they started favorites.

And Servo, mate we're not afraid

 

[Dan26]

It should be mentioned that in 97-98 Adelaide had the best percentage in the competition both years. From this respect, you could ARGUE that they were the best team, and therefore should have had the 7-1 finals record that they did in those 2 years.

However, this year they will not have the best percentage. This means they are not one of the leading teams. Unlike in 97-98 when they were cleary one of the leading team (as you could see from their percentage). They actually, statistically speaking, had the best defence in the compeition in BOTH 1997 and 1998. That won't happen this year.

I personally am not the slightest bit concerned about the Crows. I certainly don't think any Finals mayhem (a-la 97-98) is going to happen. They just aren't as good anymore. The opposition is better. There were no outstanding teams in 1997 or 98.

Time will tell how the Crows go. Suffice to say a narrow victory over a depleted Richmond side (admittedly a gutsy victory) doesn't exactly have me worried.

Still, I satnd to be corrected. You never know how they will go. But I doubt it.