North Melbourne achieved the distinction of being undefeated champions in 1915 and 1918 and won 49 consecutive Premiership matches between 1914 and 1919. Neither of these feats has been repeated by a League or Association side.
-
AFLW Draft - Tonight at 7PM
The livestream will be available on womens.afl & the AFLW app. Join our live chat!
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
How good were they
- Thread starter Rooboy 96
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
kevin sooky
Senior List
You're beginning to sound like a Port Adelaide supporter. No one else has won 36 or whatever number it is premierships either but then none of the VFL teams were playing in the Mickey Mouse SANFL or VFA competitions.
You have won 4 flags in 75 completed seasons in the big time. That is very successful.
You have won 4 flags in 75 completed seasons in the big time. That is very successful.
Rooboy 96,
And in that era, top spot was the way the premiership was decided. So North were undisputably the best. It was great because it wasn't if a team could win ONE match against them and then "claim" that they were the YEAR'S best team, due to that ONE match.
No, North were un-disputably the best back then. Week in week out, agaisnt all opponents over the whole season. Yes, they were the best. Good post.
And in that era, top spot was the way the premiership was decided. So North were undisputably the best. It was great because it wasn't if a team could win ONE match against them and then "claim" that they were the YEAR'S best team, due to that ONE match.
No, North were un-disputably the best back then. Week in week out, agaisnt all opponents over the whole season. Yes, they were the best. Good post.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Daniel
Senior List
Dan, just something to consider. Are Grand Final winners even claiming to be the year's best team? Occasionally you make it seem as if teams who win the Grand Final from a position other than first are burglars who are making a false claim. But I think most premiers aren't really concerned with being seen as the year's overall best.
Again, I know that you are arguing for how you think it should be and not how it is, but just keep in mind that being considered the year's best team isn't necessarily something teams want to prove, as it stands now.
Again, I know that you are arguing for how you think it should be and not how it is, but just keep in mind that being considered the year's best team isn't necessarily something teams want to prove, as it stands now.
Daniel,
Yeah, you're right. Denis Pagan admitted last year that he didn't think his Kangas were the years best.
And I think you'd find that most Crows fans would admit that they weren't the best team by far in either 97 or 98 (as great as their performances were)
But some people on here seem to think that the winning Grand Fnalists are ALWAYS the best. I'm simply telling them in no uncertain terms that they are wrong. There are plenty of times where the years best team doesn't win the flag.
The winning Grand Finalists don't care. They are just happy they won the Grand Final.
As you know, all I am saying is to recognise them as well as the year's "top of the ladder team".
Then the "top of the ladder" team can be happy for their achievements as well.
Yeah, you're right. Denis Pagan admitted last year that he didn't think his Kangas were the years best.
And I think you'd find that most Crows fans would admit that they weren't the best team by far in either 97 or 98 (as great as their performances were)
But some people on here seem to think that the winning Grand Fnalists are ALWAYS the best. I'm simply telling them in no uncertain terms that they are wrong. There are plenty of times where the years best team doesn't win the flag.
The winning Grand Finalists don't care. They are just happy they won the Grand Final.
As you know, all I am saying is to recognise them as well as the year's "top of the ladder team".
Then the "top of the ladder" team can be happy for their achievements as well.
The Minor Premiers are recognised Dan. They do receive a Minor Premiers Pennant or flag or whatever you want to call it.
And please lets not change even more of the traditional things in the game. Pretty soon it will have no resemblance to the game we all grew up with.
And please lets not change even more of the traditional things in the game. Pretty soon it will have no resemblance to the game we all grew up with.
Servo.
That's rubbish. The top team get's the McClelland trophy. It's not even publicly presented. No prizemoney. No ceremony. Nothing.
If you think that is appropriate for the team which finishes above all other, then you are wrong.
It is not appropriate at all.
It needs to get a hell of a lot more recognition than that.
That's rubbish. The top team get's the McClelland trophy. It's not even publicly presented. No prizemoney. No ceremony. Nothing.
If you think that is appropriate for the team which finishes above all other, then you are wrong.
It is not appropriate at all.
It needs to get a hell of a lot more recognition than that.
J
Jaffa
Guest
Now Dan, I've been reading your posts since Feb on this topic and while what you say is true, it isn't up to the AFL to give it more recognition.
It's up to us, the public. We will decide what is worth what. The majority think the premiership is all that matters. I agree that the team that finishes on top is the best team, however only when every team plays each other twice. I agree that sometimes the best team doesn't win the flag.
Just to highlight what the Essendon Football Club thinks of coming first, you only have to read that article in todays Herald-Sun. They have the McClelland trophy sitting in the foyer as a source of humiliation to spur the club on. If the Essendon Football Club think of it as a failure then how do you expect the rest of the football world to think of it as some kind of achievement.
It's up to us, the public. We will decide what is worth what. The majority think the premiership is all that matters. I agree that the team that finishes on top is the best team, however only when every team plays each other twice. I agree that sometimes the best team doesn't win the flag.
Just to highlight what the Essendon Football Club thinks of coming first, you only have to read that article in todays Herald-Sun. They have the McClelland trophy sitting in the foyer as a source of humiliation to spur the club on. If the Essendon Football Club think of it as a failure then how do you expect the rest of the football world to think of it as some kind of achievement.
sainter
ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE
Excellent point Jaffa!
It is a joke to call the team that finished on top of the ladder the best team when the draw is so clearly unfair.
Certain teams are guaranteed their twice yearly 'blockbusters' while the amount of games played interstate vary immeasureably (both VIC and interstate).
After four weeks of finals, the team that wins the Grand Final deserves to be known as the best team. Denis Pagan has a good record of getting his side to peak at the right end of the season. I know you will argue Dan that the Grand Final would still be played along with recognising the top team as the league champions. Let's just leave it.
Having said that, I am not disputing that Essendon are clearly the best this year, and by a considerable margin at this stage. However, there have been many times where top spot has been decided by percentage.
[This message has been edited by sainter (edited 04 June 2000).]
It is a joke to call the team that finished on top of the ladder the best team when the draw is so clearly unfair.
Certain teams are guaranteed their twice yearly 'blockbusters' while the amount of games played interstate vary immeasureably (both VIC and interstate).
After four weeks of finals, the team that wins the Grand Final deserves to be known as the best team. Denis Pagan has a good record of getting his side to peak at the right end of the season. I know you will argue Dan that the Grand Final would still be played along with recognising the top team as the league champions. Let's just leave it.
Having said that, I am not disputing that Essendon are clearly the best this year, and by a considerable margin at this stage. However, there have been many times where top spot has been decided by percentage.
[This message has been edited by sainter (edited 04 June 2000).]
Jaffa.
That's an interesting post, and one which I have covered too.
You see, it IS up to the AFL.
Before 1897, top spot WAS the premiers. There was NO Grand Final. The public accepted this.
THEN (and here's the important bit), the VFL decided to have a "final series", culminating with a Grand Final. This would be the "new" way of deciding the premier.
The public accepted this drastic "change" straight away. The accepted whatever the VFL decided to give recognition too.
Hell, we all believe the Brownlow medal is the ultimate individual award because it gets all the recognition, right ? But we all know that the Brownlow doesn't always go to the best player.
"The Age" and "Herald-Sun" media votes are a more appropriate way of finding the years best player. Was Wanaganeen the best in 1993 ? Not by a long shot.
It just goes to show you, that the public will accept whatever the AFL gives recognition too.
Do you honestly think the public, (i.e you and me), wouldn't wan to see the years best team rewarded, instead of ignored ? Of course we would. Who wouldn't want that, while at the same time, retaining the Grand Final as something to aspire to in its own right.
And, while I accept the draw is uneven, I have covered this too. Yes, it is uneven BUT it is more even than the finals series which you are defending. A final series where you only have to play 3 of the other 7 finalists.
Mark my words. 22 weeks of football is a better way of finding the years best team than 3 matches in September. Un-even draw or not. Hell, even if you win the "home and away" flag, but fail to win the GF, you have only won ONE of the two trophys, so your season isn't perfect anyway. The ultimate aim should always be to win both.
But as I have said many times, I am after recognition for BOTH. Meaning that you can win BOTH the GF and the "home and away" championship.
That's an interesting post, and one which I have covered too.
You see, it IS up to the AFL.
Before 1897, top spot WAS the premiers. There was NO Grand Final. The public accepted this.
THEN (and here's the important bit), the VFL decided to have a "final series", culminating with a Grand Final. This would be the "new" way of deciding the premier.
The public accepted this drastic "change" straight away. The accepted whatever the VFL decided to give recognition too.
Hell, we all believe the Brownlow medal is the ultimate individual award because it gets all the recognition, right ? But we all know that the Brownlow doesn't always go to the best player.
"The Age" and "Herald-Sun" media votes are a more appropriate way of finding the years best player. Was Wanaganeen the best in 1993 ? Not by a long shot.
It just goes to show you, that the public will accept whatever the AFL gives recognition too.
Do you honestly think the public, (i.e you and me), wouldn't wan to see the years best team rewarded, instead of ignored ? Of course we would. Who wouldn't want that, while at the same time, retaining the Grand Final as something to aspire to in its own right.
And, while I accept the draw is uneven, I have covered this too. Yes, it is uneven BUT it is more even than the finals series which you are defending. A final series where you only have to play 3 of the other 7 finalists.
Mark my words. 22 weeks of football is a better way of finding the years best team than 3 matches in September. Un-even draw or not. Hell, even if you win the "home and away" flag, but fail to win the GF, you have only won ONE of the two trophys, so your season isn't perfect anyway. The ultimate aim should always be to win both.
But as I have said many times, I am after recognition for BOTH. Meaning that you can win BOTH the GF and the "home and away" championship.
And also,
No the McClelland trophy is not a source of "humiliation:" for Essendon last year.
This is a trophy we would have been presented with even if we had WON the Grand Final. Remember that.
We could have had BOTH.
Anyway, it's that kind of attitude, displayed by Graham McMahon that the AFL needs to change and the way to do it, is give it more recognition. As I said above, the public accepts whatever is given recognition.
Not at the expense of the Grand Final. But in ADDITION to it.
Hell, don't you want all these matches we are going to, to mean something ? I don't want them to be a waste of my time. I want these wins to count towards something. I'm sure the public would love the top team to be rewarded too. In addition to those same people wanting to win the Grand Final.
Don't you want to see top spot rewarded ?
No the McClelland trophy is not a source of "humiliation:" for Essendon last year.
This is a trophy we would have been presented with even if we had WON the Grand Final. Remember that.
We could have had BOTH.
Anyway, it's that kind of attitude, displayed by Graham McMahon that the AFL needs to change and the way to do it, is give it more recognition. As I said above, the public accepts whatever is given recognition.
Not at the expense of the Grand Final. But in ADDITION to it.
Hell, don't you want all these matches we are going to, to mean something ? I don't want them to be a waste of my time. I want these wins to count towards something. I'm sure the public would love the top team to be rewarded too. In addition to those same people wanting to win the Grand Final.
Don't you want to see top spot rewarded ?
J
Jaffa
Guest
I don't want the competition split into two seperate parts. I want it one way or the other. Either have 30 rounds and give the top team the premiership and leave it at that. Or leave it as is, with 22 rounds and the finals, my preferred method.
I don't think we can have a competition where there are two teams winning something. If the the top team also won the flag it would be fine. However that can't be guaranteed.
The problem is, that if the top team was awarded the premiership, I feel the finals series (a seperate competition under your method) would be treated like some kind of joke. It would become a farce. It would seem to be just like some kind of contrived money making scheme. The FA Cup is 125 years old and means something. This finals tournament you're proposing would mean nothing to anybody if it didn't carry the ultimate prize.
I don't think we can have a competition where there are two teams winning something. If the the top team also won the flag it would be fine. However that can't be guaranteed.
The problem is, that if the top team was awarded the premiership, I feel the finals series (a seperate competition under your method) would be treated like some kind of joke. It would become a farce. It would seem to be just like some kind of contrived money making scheme. The FA Cup is 125 years old and means something. This finals tournament you're proposing would mean nothing to anybody if it didn't carry the ultimate prize.
Jaffa,
You said this :
"I don't think we can have a competition where there are two teams winning something. If the the top team also won the flag it would be fine. However that can't be guaranteed.
The problem is, that if the top team was awarded the premiership, I feel the finals series (a seperate competition under your method) would be treated like some kind of joke. It would become a farce. It would seem to be just like some kind of contrived money making scheme. The FA Cup is 125 years old and means something. This finals tournament you're proposing would mean nothing to anybody if it didn't carry the ultimate prize."
That's what you said.
What you need to understand is that there ARE two things to win. The McCellend trophy DOES exist. It's official. I'm just saying it should be given more recognition. That's all. Teams can also win the Ansett Cup. Overall, there are THREE team trophys to win in any given year. All with differing amounts of recognition.
Farce ? What the hell are you talking about ? You mention the FA Cup. Sure, it's been around for a long time. I don't know what that's got to do with anything. We all love the Grand Final and the FA Cup, NOT BECAUSE OF TRADITION, but because they are the last matches of the season, and are remembered and celebrated as the conclusion of a season.
There is a good reason why they accept the structure of the season in England. Because it makes sens. Common-sense.
The FA Cup is the LAST match of the season in England. It is held AFTER top spot has been decided. It is un-canny, therefore, the similarity that exists with it, and our Grand final. Very similar.
The FA Cup is the bigest individual ONE-OFF match of the season. By far. But the FA Cup tournament as a whole is not as big as the premiership.
Now mark my words, the Grand Final, being the last match of the year will ALWAYS be the biggest match of the year. Even if eventually top spot, was regarded by the public as the better achievement, Grand Final day would always be the biggest DAY. It's actually my favourite day of the year.
Remember, it's not about bringing down the finals. It's about bring "UP" the recognigtion given to top spot.
It all comes down to this question, really Jaffa :
"Does the team that wins a one-off match against a one-of opponent over 2 hours deserve to be called champions of the whole season" ?
With the obvious answer being "NO", I don't understand what all your fuss is about given that Ginal day would still be there !!
Trust me, Grand Final day would never lack anything. Please, mate.....trust me.
You said this :
"I don't think we can have a competition where there are two teams winning something. If the the top team also won the flag it would be fine. However that can't be guaranteed.
The problem is, that if the top team was awarded the premiership, I feel the finals series (a seperate competition under your method) would be treated like some kind of joke. It would become a farce. It would seem to be just like some kind of contrived money making scheme. The FA Cup is 125 years old and means something. This finals tournament you're proposing would mean nothing to anybody if it didn't carry the ultimate prize."
That's what you said.
What you need to understand is that there ARE two things to win. The McCellend trophy DOES exist. It's official. I'm just saying it should be given more recognition. That's all. Teams can also win the Ansett Cup. Overall, there are THREE team trophys to win in any given year. All with differing amounts of recognition.
Farce ? What the hell are you talking about ? You mention the FA Cup. Sure, it's been around for a long time. I don't know what that's got to do with anything. We all love the Grand Final and the FA Cup, NOT BECAUSE OF TRADITION, but because they are the last matches of the season, and are remembered and celebrated as the conclusion of a season.
There is a good reason why they accept the structure of the season in England. Because it makes sens. Common-sense.
The FA Cup is the LAST match of the season in England. It is held AFTER top spot has been decided. It is un-canny, therefore, the similarity that exists with it, and our Grand final. Very similar.
The FA Cup is the bigest individual ONE-OFF match of the season. By far. But the FA Cup tournament as a whole is not as big as the premiership.
Now mark my words, the Grand Final, being the last match of the year will ALWAYS be the biggest match of the year. Even if eventually top spot, was regarded by the public as the better achievement, Grand Final day would always be the biggest DAY. It's actually my favourite day of the year.
Remember, it's not about bringing down the finals. It's about bring "UP" the recognigtion given to top spot.
It all comes down to this question, really Jaffa :
"Does the team that wins a one-off match against a one-of opponent over 2 hours deserve to be called champions of the whole season" ?
With the obvious answer being "NO", I don't understand what all your fuss is about given that Ginal day would still be there !!
Trust me, Grand Final day would never lack anything. Please, mate.....trust me.
- Thread starter
- #16
Thanks Dan24,
For totally changing the thread, by the way Finals were played in the VFA in those years, if you are going to change the threads at least get your facts right.
If the early years of the VFA don't count well then sorry, but the VFL wont count one day, aand you know what you can all do with those premierships.
Rooboys have 2 AFL Premierships, and the gold one.
See you in September, maybe.
For totally changing the thread, by the way Finals were played in the VFA in those years, if you are going to change the threads at least get your facts right.
If the early years of the VFA don't count well then sorry, but the VFL wont count one day, aand you know what you can all do with those premierships.
Rooboys have 2 AFL Premierships, and the gold one.
See you in September, maybe.
Daniel
Senior List
Just a query on the subject of "best team winning the premiership":
Who was it that said the best team often does not win the premiership? I think it was David Parkin. However, he named Adelaide as one of the teams who won it in the year when they were the best (can't remember whether it was '97 or '98).
I'm not sure what he was basing his judgement on, but is worth mentioning. He may have been talking in terms of pure talent or a team living up to its fullest potential. Can anyone else remember?
I also think he might have left out his Carlton side of '95, which raised some eyebrows...
Who was it that said the best team often does not win the premiership? I think it was David Parkin. However, he named Adelaide as one of the teams who won it in the year when they were the best (can't remember whether it was '97 or '98).
I'm not sure what he was basing his judgement on, but is worth mentioning. He may have been talking in terms of pure talent or a team living up to its fullest potential. Can anyone else remember?
I also think he might have left out his Carlton side of '95, which raised some eyebrows...
J
Jaffa
Guest
I remember what you're talking about.
I think it had something to do with injuries.
I think it had something to do with injuries.
I vaguley remember what Parkin said.
It was something about his Blues not being the best in 1995. Now, with all due respect, a 20-2 record and an easy Grand Final victory, leads us to believe he is just being modest. The Blues were awesome that year.
Parkin actually thought Adelaide were the best team in 1993. Why ???
I suppose there could be years, where injuries prevent the years best team from finishing top (eg Adelaide in 1997). But there are also years, where injuries may prevent the years best team from winning the Grand Final.
Luck will always play in part. But it will play more of a part in the finals, with the cut-throat nature of the finals series, and the fact you are only up against one specific opponent(eg in the Grand Final)
It was something about his Blues not being the best in 1995. Now, with all due respect, a 20-2 record and an easy Grand Final victory, leads us to believe he is just being modest. The Blues were awesome that year.
Parkin actually thought Adelaide were the best team in 1993. Why ???
I suppose there could be years, where injuries prevent the years best team from finishing top (eg Adelaide in 1997). But there are also years, where injuries may prevent the years best team from winning the Grand Final.
Luck will always play in part. But it will play more of a part in the finals, with the cut-throat nature of the finals series, and the fact you are only up against one specific opponent(eg in the Grand Final)
