Is Carlton the most successful all-time club?

[Sydneyfan]

I just found a website at http://members.nbci.com/scmods/aflatll
which has a ladder of the all-time records of every club to of participated in VFL/AFL between 1897 and now.

The ladder is calculated by percentage of matches won and has Carlton on top followed by Collingwood, then West Coast and Essendon.

Over the past few months many Carlton and Essendon supporters have argued which team is the more successful over the years since the VFL/AFL started in 1897.

This table would claim it to be Carlton.

[This message has been edited by Sydneyfan (edited 13 January 2001).]

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Well, considering the Blues have a winning record against all clubs bar Port(?), that table has to be correct. Still there is more than one way to measure success. I at least think our win/loss ratio entitles us to an equal share of the most successful club along with 16 flags and 0 wooden spoons.

------------------
mens sana in corpore sano - a sound mind in a sound body

 

[Mr Ripper]

It's just a matter of time...

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Ripper, you waiting for the red and black shoe to drop?

 

[Mr Ripper]

ODNs, whatever makes you think that?

 

[Dan26]

It's hard to argue against percentage wins. It's hard to argue therefore, against the Blues.

Carlton has won 62% (as has Collingwood), while Essendon is on 59%

Both Essendon and Carlton have won 16 flags, but Essendon has won theirs in 102 completed seasons (they didn't compete in 1916-17), while Carlton has taken 104 years to accumulate their 16 flags.

Meanwhile Collingwood on 14 flags, has made THIRTY SEVEN Grand Finals, which is 8 more than both Carlton and Essendon. Collingwood also have made the finals 72 times, which is 9 more times than the Blues.

It's so hard to differentiate betwen those three clubs. They are all so even historically. Even though Collingwood is back on 14 flags, their HUGE number of Grand Final appearance and overall finals appearances, lifts them up to nearly equal footing.

Essendon, also, has "WON" the most finals games. The Bombers have won 64 finals matches.......more than any other club. Carlton and Collingwood have both finished on top of the ladder 17 times, while the Bombers have finished on top 16 times.

So, really, you can state a case for any one of the three great clubs.

[This message has been edited by Dan24 (edited 13 January 2001).]

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I have a SICK sense about things like that

 

[SS11]

who cares??? U ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS YOUR LAST GAME (not over 100 years ago)


------------------
**Insert Wittiness**

 

[CrowsOK]

Originally posted by Dan24:
It's hard to argue against percentage wins. It's hard to argue therefore, against the Blues.

Carlton has won 62% (as has Collingwood), while Essendon is on 59%

Both Essendon and Carlton have won 16 flags, but Essendon has won theirs in 102 completed seasons (they didn't compete in 1916-17), while Carlton has taken 104 years to accumulate their 16 flags.

Meanwhile Collingwood on 14 flags, has made THIRTY SEVEN Grand Finals, which is 8 more than both Carlton and Essendon. Collingwood also have made the finals 72 times, which is 9 more times than the Blues.

It's so hard to differentiate betwen those three clubs. They are all so even historically. Even though Collingwood is back on 14 flags, their HUGE number of Grand Final appearance and overall finals appearances, lifts them up to nearly equal footing.

Essendon, also, has "WON" the most finals games. The Bombers have won 64 finals matches.......more than any other club. Carlton and Collingwood have both finished on top of the ladder 17 times, while the Bombers have finished on top 16 times.

So, really, you can state a case for any one of the three great clubs.

[This message has been edited by Dan24 (edited 13 January 2001).]

The records of Carlton, Essendon and Collingwood are great on the statistics considered. No doubt. Carlton are ahead in head-to-head matches. Collingwood until recently were best in percentage wins, overtaken by Carlton. Its good to argue by quoting percentages and ratios rather than absolute numbers, though, since ratios are the only way to compare apples with apples for teams which have played unequal numbers of seasons.

So your statistics of 16 flags and number of finals apperances are not quite as ideal for determining which clubs are strong clubs as are statistics based on ratios, such as premiership strike rate (number of seasons per flag, lowest number is best).

Crows are the leaders in premiership strike rate, I think, followed closely by WCE, Bombers and Carlton.

Other valid statistics could be considered as well:- rate of getting into finals is one that comes to mind. WCE are the leaders here. Then you could look at percentage of finals wins (Crows are leaders here).

In all, I think this possibly indicates that you need to expand your list of clubs that can be considered great clubs to more candidates than just the three you mention from Melbourne.

 

[dees01]

I think they are. Not only have they won 16 flags, but they have never won the wooden spoon. That's pretty good to me.

 

[Dan26]

Yeah, I think the nod has to go to Carlton.

Those that know me, know that I am a strong advocate of awarding the premiership to the team that finished at the head of the ladder. This is based on my belief that the 6 months of home and away games is more relevant in determining how good you are. It shows how good you actually are, and how prolific you are at winning games.

By saying that Carlton are not the most succesful, would be hypocritical of me, since I have always believed that the percentage of games you win, is the most relevant stat in showing how successful you actually are.

Putting aside premierships, finals appearances etc etc, Carlton has been the most successful at actually winning matches. When you add up H&A AND finals, they have won 62% which is more than anyone else. Forget Grand Finals wins. That's just ONE match. Carlton have played over 2000 matches, and the 16 Grand Finals wins are irrelevant in determining success, really. The fact that they have won 62% of matches over 104 years is good enough for me. Obviously, when you have won 62%, there are going to "inevitably" be a lot of Grand Finals wins to go along with it.

But I reckon, the actual percentage of games won, is the stat most relevant when showing how successful a team is. Premierships (Grand Finals wins) often don't go to the best team, so they can be misleading (eg the Crows, who have won 47% of games over 10 years and only made the finals 3 times)

I mean premierships are a "reasonable" guide to success, but if you just count premeirships as the true measure, then you are ignoring all the great teams that didn't win premierships. You are ignoring all the great teams that won heaps of matches, but didn;t win the Grand Final.

Overall percentage wins takes all that into account, which is why it is the best tool for measuring overall success. Finishing 2nd and 3rd is still successful, and should be acknowledged. Percentage wins (eg Carlton's 62%) takes all that into account.

 

[Dan26]

CrowsOK

Yeah, but Adelaide weren't the best team when they won their Grand Finals.
The Crows have won 47% of their games since entering the comp. This should be the measure of how we judge the Crows.

If we say the Crows have won 2 flags in 10 years, it makes them look better than they actually have been, or dserve to be. By saying the Crows won 2 flags, and ignorng everythign else, it means we ignore the fact, that they only finished 4th and 5th when they won the flags. It ignores the fact that they have NEVER done better than 13-9. And it ignores the fact that they have only made the finals 3 tiems in 10 years.

I mean, lets look at Adelaide and West Coast. The Crows have won 2 in 10 years. The Eagles have won 2 in 14 years. Going by that, the Crows have been more successful than the Eagles.

But, OBVIOUSLY the Eagles are more successful than the Crows. If you ONLY judge sucess by premierships, then you ignore all the consistent winning by teams that didn't win the Grand Final. That's very unfair. What about all those years that West Coast were a top team, but didnt win the Grand Final? They were always in the finals. The Eagles have made the fianals 11 times and won 59% of games all-time. The Crows don't eve come close to that !!

The Crows meanwhile have won 47% of games, made the finals 3 times, never finished higher than 4th, and never done better than 13-9. Yet you want me judge the Crows as a "great" team. In the same league as Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon ????????????

Puh-lease.

When measuring success, you simply have to take into account the years where you don;t win the premiership, yet were still successful. The Crows have the best strike rate at getting the ultimate success, but finishing 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th is successful too.

The Crows havn't been consistently successful. I mean, they have only won 47% of their games for christ sake. How can a team with a negative win-loss ratio be talked about in the same breath as Carlton?????????

There are a lot of people that think the Crows weren't the best team when they won their Grand Finals anwway. I've had this discussion with you before. The best team doesn't always win the GF. Usually, but not always. By only using premierships as the guide for success, means that we ignore the successful seasons of teams that didn't win the GF (like Essendon in 1999, Carlton in 2000)

Carlton have win 62% over 104 years, so that's good enough for me (even though I hate the bastards)

 

[jod23]

C'mon everyone knows its the Eagles.

 

[Port Adelaide 1870]

The most successful CLUB in the AFL is Port Adelaide

 

[JUBJUB]

PA 1870

Stop smoking those funny ****

------------------
"You will respect my Authoritah "

 

[Port Adelaide 1870]

The most successful CLUB in the AFL is Port Adelaide

 

[AlfAndrews]

Originally posted by Port Adelaide 1870:
The most successful CLUB in the AFL is Port Adelaide

You're usually right, PA 1870 ... but this time you're wrong, wrong, wrong ...

AFL premierships:

West Coast 2, runners-up 1.
Essendon 2, runners-up 1.
Adelaide 2.
Carlton 1, runners-up 2.
North Melbourne 1, runners-up 1.
Collingwood 1.
Hawthorn 1.
Kangaroos 1.
Geelong 0, runners-up 3.
Sydney 0, runners-up 1.
St.Kilda 0, runners-up 1.
Melbourne 0, runners-up 1.

everyone else (including Port Adelaide): ZILCH.

That would suggest that Essendon and West Coast are two most successful clubs in the AFL.

And, if you're trying to work out which club was the most succesful in the old VFL, you have to stop counting after 1989. (I think that would make Carlton the most successful)

Would everybody please stop rewriting history.




------------------
**floreat pica**

 

[Dan26]

Uh, Alf,

The VFL and the AFL are the SAME competition. I'm sick of this f*ckin debate. The VFL started in 1897. it changed it's name to the AFL in 1990, because the competition expanded. But it is still the same competition. All AFL records incorporate stats from 1897 onwards.

It's not like, in 1990 a whole new comp began. This wasn't the case. It was the same competition.


PA1870,

In this competition, Port Adelaide has done sweet F.A.

You can't count their 30-something SANFL flags. That would be like me counting Essendon 4 VFA flags in 1891-2-3-4. You can't count flags from a seperate competition. In the VFL/AFL, Port Adelaide has won nothing.......Essendon and Carlton have won 16.



[This message has been edited by Dan24 (edited 14 January 2001).]

 

[Port Adelaide 1870]

Originally posted by AlfAndrews:
You're usually right, PA 1870 ... but this time you're wrong, wrong, wrong ...

AFL premierships:

West Coast 2, runners-up 1.
Essendon 2, runners-up 1.
Adelaide 2.
Carlton 1, runners-up 2.
North Melbourne 1, runners-up 1.
Collingwood 1.
Hawthorn 1.
Kangaroos 1.
Geelong 0, runners-up 3.
Sydney 0, runners-up 1.
St.Kilda 0, runners-up 1.
Melbourne 0, runners-up 1.

everyone else (including Port Adelaide): who only managed
34 SANFL premierships
34 second places
24 third places
champions of Australia 1890, 1910, 1913, 1914.
20 Magarey medallists
Highest SANFL goalkicker 153
Most leading goalkickers.

etc. etc. etc.

Not the Highest achiever in the state based Melbourne comp...The VFL
or the National competition the AFL
But in the Adelaide based SANFL prior to joining the AFL.

Let me quote a verse from the Book" Dynasty"
'A Legend,A Family, and the Port Adelaide Football Club " by Fos Williams and Michael angelo Rucci.

"So strong is the Port Adelaide empire built by Williams and his family that it became irresistable to the Australian Football League."


Yes I admit not in the old state based VFL or new National AFL

but still the most successfull CLUB......
That would suggest that Essendon and West Coast are two most successful clubs in the AFL.

And, if you're trying to work out which club was the most succesful in the old VFL, you have to stop counting after 1989. (I think that would make Carlton the most successful)

Would everybody please stop rewriting history.

 

[Port Adelaide 1870]

Alf ....OOps sorry...

The most successful AFL club...

Not the most successful club in the AFL
( based on its history) oopps

PA1870

 

[chattys_slut]

The most successful CLUB in the AFL is Port Adelaide

I think you're referring to the SANFL. I don't see how people can even bring interstate teams into the equation, they haven't been around long enough. Now, can someone answer me this: has Essendon ever won a wooden spoon? That's a measure of failure. If they have, I think the answer is bloody clear then.

Plus, you can't argue with statistics.

------------------
No-one else even try to compete-you can never beat the best.
GO BLUES.
2001-Time to Deliver.

 

[Dan26]

Essendon has won 3 wooden spoons,.....tje last in the 1930's.

It is interesting to note that St.KIldas lost their first 48 games and "won" the first 7 wooden spoons from 1897 onwards.

Carlton always came "second-last" in this era.......every year. It was only the complete incompetence of St.Kilda, who LITERALLY couldn't win a game, that prevened Carlton from finishing last every year.

So, Carlton can consider themselves very lucky, that they didn;t win at least 4 or 5 wooden spoons. It's almost unfair to count St.Kilda in 1989-99-00-01-02 etc, because they were SO bad.

It was almost like it was a fact St.Kilda were going to finish last. So, of the 7 "normal" clubs, Carlton got the wooden spoon........if you get what I mean

 

[Port Adelaide 1870]

Originally posted by Dan24:
Uh, Alf,

The VFL and the AFL are the SAME competition. I'm sick of this f*ckin debate.


Well dont reply to it then !!!!!!!!!

PA1870,

In this competition, Port Adelaide has done sweet F.A.

Granted Dan 24

You can't count their 34 SANFL flags.

So they never achieved them ???????????

PA1870

 

[Dan26]

Yes, of course they achieved those 34 flags. But they were achieved in a SEPERATE competititon.

You don't se me claiming REssendon have won 20 flags. We have won 16 in the VFL/AFL. WE have won 4 in the VFA.

But, the competiton that Essendon is currently in, is the AFL (formerly called the VFL but still the same comp), and we have won 16.

Now, stop denying the obvious PA1870. The VFL and the AFL, (regardless of the standard of the VFL) are still the same competition. Did you not acknowledge or accept the 1996 centenary year, or something ?????

[This message has been edited by Dan24 (edited 14 January 2001).]

 

[chattys_slut]

It's not our fault that St.Kilda just happened to win the first 7 wooden spoons.

------------------
No-one else even try to compete-you can never beat the best.
GO BLUES.
2001-Time to Deliver.