Opinion Has the era of the “multi premiership” devalued the single flag?

[Bunk Moreland]

From 2000 to 2020 we had four clubs win 3 flags in a six year (or less) period - Brisbane, Geelong, Hawthorn, Richmond. Big, dynastic eras for all four of them.

But that’s unprecedented.

From 1980 to 1999 there was only two - Hawthorn (4 between 86 and 91), and Carlton (3 between 79 and 82).

Before that (post war) there’s only been another four… Richmond (3 between 69 and 74), Carlton (3 between 68 and 72)… then you’re back to the legendary Melbourne juggernaut of the early 60s and Essendon of the late 1940s. Basically before time began for almost all footy supporters now.

So the “multi premiership” run (three or more flags in a short period) has never been this frequent.

Anyway my point is… has this led to a real devaluing of individual premierships?

It’s something that is often said about Essendon of 99-01. How they “wasted” the era with “only” one flag. I always counter with what I believe to be true… people shouldn’t underestimate how very, very bloody hard it is to win one. Let alone two. Let alone three!

But I kinda understand it too… maybe it was an underachievement?

I then also had the conversation with a Dees mate when Melbourne got dumped from the finals… how he thought the Dees would really have wasted this period if they just win the one flag.

Have people underestimated just how difficult they are to win and how much has to go right (luck as much as anything else with injuries etc)? Are single flags being taken too lightly?

Is this what has happened due to what has been an unprecedented run (history wise) where we’ve seen four clubs win 3 flags in very quick succession?

Even if your team is great, do footy supporters need to realign our expectations, realise one flag is an amazing achievement and recognise the Lions / Cats / Hawks / Tigers period was just a freak run of great teams?

 

[Sky]

I believe in showing respect to every premiership team throughout history except for the 5 acquired by clubs with extra salary.

Not interested in having this argument with any Brisbane or Sydney fans because you can’t change how I feel.

 

[hoianbulldog]

2016. I value it.

 

[PhatBoy]

I believe in showing respect to every premiership team throughout history except for the 5 acquired by clubs with extra salary.

Not interested in having this argument with any Brisbane or Sydney fans because you can’t change how I feel.

Let me ask you something mate.

Let’s say you run a golf competition that is exclusively based on how far you hit the ball. It works by players in the 6 capital cities teeing it up and smashing it as far as they can.

Every player on the mainland can use a standard spec driver.

But you run this competition and you want everyone to have a fair chance to compete, right? It will make the comp more even, it will make things more exciting for the fans.

Poor old Hobart spends 99 per cent of the year battling gale force winds and their driving range is facing right into the teeth of the general wind direction.

Now if you’re the competition organiser, do you offer the Hobart franchise a concession so they can use oversized clubs that are outside the design specs of the other franchises?

Or do you just say ‘too bad, deal with it.’

 

[Sky]

Let me ask you something mate.

Let’s say you run a golf competition that is exclusively based on how far you hit the ball. It works by players in the 6 capital cities teeing it up and smashing it as far as they can.

Every player on the mainland can use a standard spec driver.

But you run this competition and you want everyone to have a fair chance to compete, right? It will make the comp more even, it will make things more exciting for the fans.

Poor old Hobart spends 99 per cent of the year battling gale force winds and their driving range is facing right into the teeth of the general wind direction.

Now if you’re the competition organiser, do you offer the Hobart franchise a concession so they can use oversized clubs that are outside the design specs of the other franchises?

Or do you just say ‘too bad, deal with it.’

I only talk in equality for all. If it’s such a disadvantage to be a non Victorian team then as long as WA and SA are not getting them same academy concessions that NSW and QLD do then it’s all a load of bullshit.

I’d agree for Tasmania to have the same thing.

 

[blitzer]

Let me ask you something mate.

Let’s say you run a golf competition that is exclusively based on how far you hit the ball. It works by players in the 6 capital cities teeing it up and smashing it as far as they can.

Every player on the mainland can use a standard spec driver.

But you run this competition and you want everyone to have a fair chance to compete, right? It will make the comp more even, it will make things more exciting for the fans.

Poor old Hobart spends 99 per cent of the year battling gale force winds and their driving range is facing right into the teeth of the general wind direction.

Now if you’re the competition organiser, do you offer the Hobart franchise a concession so they can use oversized clubs that are outside the design specs of the other franchises?

Or do you just say ‘too bad, deal with it.’

Gotta respect someone whose willing to create an imaginary sporting competition all for the sake of their analogy.

Its also not particularly apt given that players can perform far above or below the amount they are paid. Salary payments don't determine performance. Every year there are blokes on rookie contracts that star and blokes on 800K+ that are doing bugger all.
There's nothing physically stopping lower paid players from performing at a high level.

 

[PhatBoy]

I only talk in equality for all. If it’s such a disadvantage to be a non Victorian team then as long as WA and SA are not getting them same academy concessions that NSW and QLD do then it’s all a load of bullshit.

I’d agree for Tasmania to have the same thing.

Well for starters, only 1 premiership has been won by a side with an academy.

The other concessions afforded the northern clubs were for Cost of Living allowances in Sydney and Brisbane. As it was proven beyond dispute that there was a 15 per cent on average difference in the cost of living in Sydney compared to the southern states (can’t remember what the Brisbane disparity was) I don’t see why it would be an unfair advantage to give what worked out to be about $25k extra per player in Sydney and $12k extra per player in Brisbane.


The SA and WA clubs aren’t at a disadvantage as far as recruitment goes. They have huge local pools of talent to scout and follow, two strong local leagues to peruse.

OUR club has plucked two AA squad members in the last 5-6 years straight out of the WAFL, Fremantle and WCE could have picked them up at any time and brought them into their AFL side (Fremantle had Menegola on their list at one point from memory without playing him). Both the WAFL and SANFL would be littered with players ready to make the jump.

Now obviously geography doesn’t equal exclusivity - anyone can draft these guys, not just the local clubs, but they are certainly at a significant advantage to follow and scout them.

The disadvantage the SA and WA clubs suffer compared to the NSW and Qld who CAN have exclusive access to their local talent is offset by suffering less from go-home factor.

Sydney in particular probably have a strong enough culture that they don’t lose nearly as many players to go-home as they once did BUT they would still have to pay overs to avoid it being an issue.

 

[PhatBoy]

Gotta respect someone whose willing to create an imaginary sporting competition all for the sake of their analogy.

Its also not particularly apt given that players can perform far above or below the amount they are paid. Salary payments don't determine performance. Every year there are blokes on rookie contracts that star and blokes on 800K+ that are doing bugger all.
There's nothing physically stopping lower paid players from performing at a high level.

Of course their output isn’t going to be reflective of their salary as a rule.

However giving each club the equal ability to employ the same theoretical standard of squad is fundamental to an equalised competition and where something is unavoidable as geography has an influence on retention it is even more important

 

[Sky]

Well for starters, only 1 premiership has been won by a side with an academy.

The other concessions afforded the northern clubs were for Cost of Living allowances in Sydney and Brisbane. As it was proven beyond dispute that there was a 15 per cent on average difference in the cost of living in Sydney compared to the southern states (can’t remember what the Brisbane disparity was) I don’t see why it would be an unfair advantage to give what worked out to be about $25k extra per player in Sydney and $12k extra per player in Brisbane.


The SA and WA clubs aren’t at a disadvantage as far as recruitment goes. They have huge local pools of talent to scout and follow, two strong local leagues to peruse.

OUR club has plucked two AA squad members in the last 5-6 years straight out of the WAFL, Fremantle and WCE could have picked them up at any time and brought them into their AFL side (Fremantle had Menegola on their list at one point from memory without playing him). Both the WAFL and SANFL would be littered with players ready to make the jump.

Now obviously geography doesn’t equal exclusivity - anyone can draft these guys, not just the local clubs, but they are certainly at a significant advantage to follow and scout them.

The disadvantage the SA and WA clubs suffer compared to the NSW and Qld who CAN have exclusive access to their local talent is offset by suffering less from go-home factor.

Sydney in particular probably have a strong enough culture that they don’t lose nearly as many players to go-home as they once did BUT they would still have to pay overs to avoid it being an issue.

I understand your points but it doesn’t mean I’m going to agree that it’s fair. It’s not an unpopular opinion that a NSW state side would currently beat a SA team. Can’t have rules for 4 non Victorians and not the other 4.

I think we need to change the topic back now

 

[footyfan1978]

I've seen five premierships in my life.
I value them all.
Some I think were tougher to win like 1982 seemed like we had three or four sides to beat to win the flag and 1995 seemed easy like the second side was nowhere near us , but a grand final win I will always value the same, as the premier team in a proper season.
Don't think it matters we won three in four years as a little kid and a single one in the later 80's, they still the same value as premierships. Just means you experience more of those brilliant days more often if they bunched together.
But you can devalue a generation of players if you do not win a flag in an era. Saints era of Harvey, Burke, Winmar, Lockett and Loewe never got them a premiership which a shame for them as a club that they never made the most of that early 90's period where flags were going to different clubs, left right and centre from 1990 onwards.

 

[PhatBoy]

I understand your points but it doesn’t mean I’m going to agree that it’s fair. It’s not an unpopular opinion that a NSW state side would currently beat a SA team. Can’t have rules for 4 non Victorians and not the other 4.

I think we need to change the topic back now

And that may be true.

Who would win between an SA second, third and fourth team and a NSW equivalent though?

Fair enough, agree to disagree.

 

[Coach_Required]

I think all premierships are devalued. A team wins the flag and everyone moves on pretty quickly afterwards. AFL trade period starts almost instantly then the draft. By the time the new season starts everyone is talking about that season.
I also think teams who win multiple flags quickly get devalued or compared with past eras so I don't believe it's just a single flag issue, that's the way it is.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Maybe. It probably depends on the circumstance of the club.

After a lifetime of suffering as a Richmond supporter it would've been a little unsatisfying if we faded back to nothingness after 2017. After everything we'd put up with we finally got to enjoy an extended period of being the benchmark of the competition. After the 2020 flag I was OK if that was the end of the era. Plus the 2017 flag didn't seem to get much respect until Richmond proved it wasn't flash in the pan.

I think Melbourne fans might feel the same if they don't get another one. Teams that are constantly around the mark like Sydney, West Coast and Geelong would be happy to win individual flags without needing to turn it into a dynasty.

 

[Bluelegs]

Maybe. It probably depends on the circumstance of the club.

After a lifetime of suffering as a Richmond supporter it would've been a little unsatisfying if we faded back to nothingness after 2017. After everything we'd put up with we finally got to enjoy an extended period of being the benchmark of the competition. After the 2020 flag I was OK if that was the end of the era. Plus the 2017 flag didn't seem to get much respect until Richmond proved it wasn't flash in the pan.

I think Melbourne fans might feel the same if they don't get another one. Teams that are constantly around the mark like Sydney, West Coast and Geelong would be happy to win individual flags without needing to turn it into a dynasty.

Reckon it would be a more enjoyable existence to win one every decade or so but be consistently in the mix, than to be crap for ages, have a dynasty and fall as quickly as you rose.

 

[kreuze_missile]

Free agency has rendered the draft irrelevant in supporting equalisation.

The AFL is approaching NBA territory where half the teams are completely irrelevant, the draft doesn't matter, and all the free agents go to the same handful of clubs.

 

[Vikingnz]

I think all premierships are devalued. A team wins the flag and everyone moves on pretty quickly afterwards. AFL trade period starts almost instantly then the draft. By the time the new season starts everyone is talking about that season.
Also I also think teams who win multiple flags quickly get devalued or compared with past eras so I don't believe it's just a single flag side issue, that's the way it is.

All sports are a continuum, but it does seem to me like the AFL is especially quick to move on to the next season after a GF.

 

[Wojcinski]

Free agency has rendered the draft irrelevant in supporting equalisation.

The AFL is approaching NBA territory where half the teams are completely irrelevant, the draft doesn't matter, and all the free agents go to the same handful of clubs.

This is also partly the clubs themselves doing. St Kilda isn't considered a successful or big club but they seem to be able to attract free agents. Carlton is a successful big club, but has been out of the upper echelon for a couple of decades now and they also attract players. North is a club who had plenty of success picking up players during the Brad Scott era but due to a rebuild mindset now don't actively pursue free agents.

The biggest losers of free agency are the expansion clubs. People look at Geelong or now Brisbane as the 'rich getting richer' when we recruit players like Isaac Smith or Jack Gunston - and they'll say it isn't fair but then in the next breath they'll call our list management strategy dumb because our average list age is way older than other clubs. Expansion clubs don't have the luxuries of existing clubs because players don't have connections to these clubs or reasons to play there, so they have to pony up large contracts to get deals done. Free agency just highlights the lack of effort on the AFL's behalf to integrate new teams into the league.

 

[GeelongFTW]

All sports are a continuum, but it does seem to me like the AFL is especially quick to move on to the next season after a GF.

other clubs not in the GF have had a min of 1 week but lots more than a month of looking forward to the trade period so i can why they move on quick. BUt then again why do opposition supporters need to focus on the GF result long after the result? just because Im stilling looking at replays of the GF doesn't mean i expect others to be doing the same

 

[Randall Stevens]

Quite rightly, all premierships are treasured by fans of the winning teams.
However, I also think it is natural that history generally judges multiple premiership winners ahead of stand alone flags, and considers some single flag teams to have under achieved relative to the talent on a list at the time.
To use the OP's example, Essendon's 2000 season was so dominant that while acknowledging the excellence of that year in isolation, the Club is generally seen to have missed an opportunity to win at least one more premiership in that era. Indeed, Essendon supporters as a collective and many involved in the Club at the time insist they were the best team in the competition in 1999 at least.

Also, if you define multiple premierships as two instead of three the stats change a bit.
By that measure, in the past fifty years there are thirteen 'stand alone' flags, if stand alone is defined as the Club not winning at least one more premiership within a three year window. And that window is expanded from two years to three only to include two teams. Hawthorn won flags in 1983 and '86 but lost the two grand finals between, and North won flags in 1996 and '99 with losing GF's and prelims in the two non-flag years.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Maybe. It probably depends on the circumstance of the club.

After a lifetime of suffering as a Richmond supporter it would've been a little unsatisfying if we faded back to nothingness after 2017. After everything we'.

I think Melbourne fans might feel the same if they don't get another one. Teams that are constantly around the mark like Sydney, West Coast and Geelong would be happy to win individual flags without needing to turn it into a dynasty.

I think the point that really emphasize that is they annihilated both WB and Geel in the GF and PF - in last years finals

If Melb in the GF had scrambled home against the WB by say a goal - i think their supporters would look at it differently - theyd say beauty we have got a flag - but it was the domination in last years finals that virtually says well we should win more than 1 - and we wont be satisfied if we dont win more than 1

It will be interesting how Melb respond next year - they started this season well - i thought they were an absolute certainty - but there last five or six weeks ( bar the odd game ) theyd get out to an early lead - then just get overun - by basically everyone

 

[CharacterFirst]

The "era of multi premierships".

It has never been different.

What a weak troll.

 

[twhowler]

I believe in showing respect to every premiership team throughout history except for the 5 acquired by clubs with extra salary.

Not interested in having this argument with any Brisbane or Sydney fans because you can’t change how I feel.

Make sure you never read up about the side deals mainly Vic clubs have done to help prop up the pay-packets of marquee players over the years. Your disrespect will know no bounds!

 

[Sky]

Make sure you never read up about the side deals mainly Vic clubs have done to help prop up the pay-packets of marquee players over the years. Your disrespect will know no bounds!

I have no beef with your club, specifically Sydney who pantsed us in multiple finals in my short life. I was 7 when you beat us in 04.

This years grand final will never be topped for mine. Retribution. It’s why in 2012 when Hawthorn lost, I was supporting the enemy.

 

[Vikingnz]

other clubs not in the GF have had a min of 1 week but lots more than a month of looking forward to the trade period so i can why they move on quick. BUt then again why do opposition supporters need to focus on the GF result long after the result? just because Im stilling looking at replays of the GF doesn't mean i expect others to be doing the same

Yeah turns out it was more a perception thing on my end looking in to it more - the scouting combine for the NFL is just 2 weeks after the Super Bowl.

 

[Kwality]

I only talk in equality for all. If it’s such a disadvantage to be a non Victorian team then as long as WA and SA are not getting them same academy concessions that NSW and QLD do then it’s all a load of bullshit.

I’d agree for Tasmania to have the same thing.

Whats equality ?
Applying a State based template on a national comp as if nothing changed ???

IF we want to take the game national, denying the advantages of heartland States is not equality.