Is the team that wins the Grand Final ALWAYS the best team over the whole year?

[Dan26]

Is the team that wins the Grand Final ALWAYS the best team over the whole year, without exception each and every year?

 

[Dan26]

Makes you wonder who would vote "yes", doesn't it?

 

[Stegelator]

lol i voted yes!! nah just kidding!!!

 

[Indian in the Cupboard]

But what is an upset Dan?

You refer to upsets all the time - in fact, the occurence of upsets seem to be the basis for your argument against a 'winner takes all' finals series.

Your seem to imply that an upset is something that should not have happened, when in fact an upset is merely something that was not expected to happen. Can you see the difference?

An upset is an assumption that turned out to be incorrent. And that is all it is. Just because something turned out differently to what you expected doesn't make it wrong. Nor is it reason to discount the actual result. The result is really the only thing that matters in the end.

 

[mantis]

Originally posted by Dan25
Makes you wonder who would vote "yes", doesn't it?

Maybe just to show you they are sick of this topic.

 

[Dan26]

Indian in the cupboard,

You're dead right. But this is not about my 'top spot" thing. The team that wins the Grand Final itself fully deserves it. I'm not questioning that. The question is: "who is the best team of the year?"

North deserved to win the Grand Final in 1999. I never said they didn't. But that is not what we are asking. We are asking who is the best team of the year? Is it ALWAYS the Grand Final winning team? Obviously the answer is "NO", whether you like me or not. In 1999, for exampleEssendon were a better team than North Melbourne as Denis Pagan himself even said.

A team might perform better than a well-credentialled opponent on the day, but that doesn't mean that they were better over the course of the entire season, which is what the poll refers to.

 

[dunstall19]

WHO WOULD VOTE NO' ??? UNLESS THEIR CLUB MAY HAVE CHOKED A TIME OR TWO AND NOT WON THE FLAG!!!

IF YOU WIN A FLAG YOUR THE BEST TEAM THAT YEAR!! FINISH.

I SEE 61 71 76 78 83 86 88 89 91 AS HAWTHORN BEING THE BEST SIDE IN THE LEAGUE THAT YEAR.

NO ONE CARES 20 YEARS DOWN THE TRACK WHO PLAYED THE BEST OR WHO WAS FAVOURITE TO TAKE IT OUT.

YOU HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS.

#19 DIEGO BATA @1986

 

[Dan26]

I didn't say anyone would rememebr who was the best. That's irrelvant. The question was :"Who is the best team of the year? Is it always the Grand Final winner?"

Obviously everyone wants to win the GF (duh!). But that's not the issue. I am simply asking are they always without any doubt the best team of every season?

Just because the public might not rememebr that "so-and-so" was the best team, is irrelevant. I'm not asking what peope, would rather win (ie top spot or the GF). I'm not asking that. Reading the question is important.

 

[dunstall19]

Originally posted by Dan25
I didn't say anyone would rememebr who was the best. That's irrelvant. The question was :"Who is the best team of the year? Is it always the Grand Final winner?"

Obviously everyone wants to win the GF (duh!). But that's not the issue. I am simply asking are they always without any doubt the best team of every season?

Just because the public might not rememebr that "so-and-so" was the best team, is irrelevant. I'm not asking what peope, would rather win (ie top spot or the GF). I'm not asking that. Reading the question is important.

I COULD ARGUE THIS ALL DAY WITH YOUR LOGIC. THE BEST TEAM OF THE YEAR IS THE WINNER OF THE GRAND FINAL. NO SIDE CAN BE LABELLED THE BEST TEAM OF THE YEAR UNTIL THEY HAVE WON THE GF. ALL H&A MATCHES ARE WARM UP GAMES, USED TO QUALIFY FOR THE FINALS SERIES AND ESTABLISH A WINNING FORMULA. FROM THE FINALS SERIES THE BEST SIDE OF THE YEAR IS ESTABLISHED BY A SERIES OF KNOCKOUT/QUALIFYING PRELIM AND THEN GRAND FINAL.

CAN YOU ANSWER 1 QUESTION? " HOW DO YOU OR ANYONE DECIDE THE BEST TEAM OF THE YEAR" ???

IT IS ALL SUBJECTIVE, JUST OPINION.

ESPECIALLY WITH A LOB SIDED DRAW WIN-LOSS RATIO MEANS JACK **** AND WITH INTERSTATE SIDES HAVING GREATER ADVANTAGES % ALSO MEANS JACK. CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION OR ELSE YOUR FAIRYTALE SYSTEM IS ****ED FOR GOOD!

#19 HAND OF GOD 1986@

 

[SydneyBomber]

Originally posted by dunstall,19


ESPECIALLY WITH A LOB SIDED DRAW #19 HAND OF GOD 1986@

How exactly does one 'side with a lob'?

I like a side of steak & veges with my lob(ster).... does that count?

 

[dunstall19]

Originally posted by SydneyBomber


How exactly does one 'side with a lob'?

I like a side of steak & veges with my lob(ster).... does that count?

THATS SO FUNNY I COULD ****. WAS THAT SPOSED TO BE FUNNY OR CAN YOU ONLY THINK ABOUT FOOD YOU FAT FARM PRICK.

#19

 

[SydneyBomber]

Originally posted by dunstall,19

FAT FARM PRICK.

#19

hehe

Actually, i'm quite lean, and I live in the city, so that doesn't really apply...

Try again D1cklips19!!!

 

[dunstall19]

Originally posted by SydneyBomber


hehe

Actually, i'm quite lean, and I live in the city, so that doesn't really apply...

Try again D1cklips19!!!

why are you laughing - your not funny you fat bitch.

 

[SS11]

WHO
REALLY
CARES??????

 

[SydneyBomber]

Originally posted by dunstall,19


why are you laughing - your not funny you fat bitch.

I never thought I was....

But YOU certainly are.... you're a deadset laugh a minute!

hehehehe

 

[Indian in the Cupboard]

The only fair way to determine the best team is by performance - that is my point. Any other measure is very subjective.

For instance, I noticed a thread where people stated who they perceived to be the best team of the year versus the actual premier. Each person had different opinions, but whose is more valid? We can't say.

All that we do know is that one team (the premier) performed when it counted and deservedly are recognised as the years best team. You say that any side can lose a one-off match, that is true. But just as true is that any side - no matter how well regarded - can lose 22 one-off matches.

There is a famous saying: you're only as good as your last game. I could go even further and say that you're only good as your current game. Performance means everything, so yes Dan, no matter what you think, it can be legitimately said that the premier of every year of the VFL/AFL was the best team for that year.

Anyway what is the point of this survey if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Dan26]

Indain in the Cupboard,

You miss my point. Obviously, under the currenyt system, the team that wins the GF is the premiers. If they manage to win the GF, then they deserve to be premiers, because that is the system we currently play under. But it still doesn't mean, that they are the best team of the year. If Denis Pagan himself even admitted this, why would you deny it?

Are you trying to tell me that if Melbourne had beaten Essendon in the GF last year, that it would magically mean they were a better side than the Bombers? Of course not! There is a difference between being the best on the day and being the best over the whole year.

If Melbourne had beaten Essendon last year, they would have deserved to win the GF match itself, and they would have played betetr on the day. That's what you have to do to win the Grand Fnal. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT. IT IS NOT THE QUESTION BEING ASKED

In 1958, Collingwood knew they weren't as good as Melboure, and they admit it to the present day. Melbourne were more skilled, stronger and better. Collingwood roughed them up, caused an upet and beat them. Collingwood deserved to win that match "on the day" in 1958, but by NO MEANS were they the best team of the year. They will tell you that themselves.

The results of this poll speaks for themsleves. There are obviously years where the years best team loses a knockout finasl atc, and therefore, the second, or third best team of the year gets to be called premiers. You are being guilty of using the Grand Final results to "justify" your opinions. If you actually use a bit of common-sense, it becomes obvious that there are many, many years, where the years best team doesn't win the Grand Final match itself.

 

[Indian in the Cupboard]

Orinally posted by Dan25:

"You are being guilty of using the Grand Final results to "justify" your opinions."

I'm guilty of using facts to justify my opinions huh?

Hmmmmmmm you've got me there.

I'm just wondering why using facts isn't a legitimate method of proving a point?

Also, you should actually take time to consider someone's reply before re-posting your generic spiel because you constantly miss the point entirely.

 

[aggels]

*sigh* so tired, so very very tired.

No the team to win the grand final is not always the best team of the year.
But is the team that finishes at the top of the ladder at the end of the year always the best team of the year?
I don't think so. Like you say, a team can lose one game that they shouldn't, or get a tough draw, and end up second on the ladder, even though they have generally been the best team.

hmmm, maybe we should have a vote at the end of the year, and then announce the team with the most votes the best team.

Honestly, no system is flawless.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Indian in the Cupboard
Originally posted by Dan25:

"You are being guilty of using the Grand Final results to "justify" your opinions."

I'm guilty of using facts to justify my opinions huh?

Hmmmmmmm you've got me there.

I'm just wondering why using facts isn't a legitimate method of proving a point?

Also, you should actually take time to consider someone's reply before re-posting your generic spiel because you constantly miss the point entirely.

Well, you are out voted on this one, because the majority of people believe that the best team doesn't always win the Grand Final.

You are confusing yourself withyour facts. Yes it's a fact that the Grand Final winning team is called Premiers. But that doens't mean that they are magically the best team of the year.

It was obvious on Grand Final morning 2000, that Essendon were by fear the best team of the year, but Melbourne could still win the premiership if they beat the Bombers in an upset.

I thought it was common-knowledge that the best team of the year doesn't always win the Grand Final. Look at the survey. I'm not disputing the right of the GF winner to call themselves premiers. I'm simply saying that the are not the best team of the year each and every year.

 

[Indian in the Cupboard]

Originally posted by Dan25:

"I thought it was common-knowledge that the best team of the year doesn't always win the Grand Final. Look at the survey."

No, you are getting opinion confused with fact.

The poll indicates that in 19 people's opinions the Grand final winner is not always the best team of the year whilst 10 people beleive that the Grand Final winner is always the best team.

The poll shows the opinions of 29 people. It does not prove that the Grand final winner is not always the best team, nor can it.

In MY OPINION the Grand Final winner indicates the years best team. I am not stating it as fact, unlike you.

In my opinion the Kangaroos were the best team in 1999 you cannot make me change that view.

In Collingwood's OPINION the Melbourne FC was the best team in 1958. Great. They are entitled to that.

Similarly, David Parkin beleives that Adeliade were the best team in 1997 and 1998. He is entitled to his opinion, though many would disagree.

You think that the years best team is not always the Grand final winner, like in 1999. Fantastic, you can say that all you want, but remember that does not make it FACT. 65% of the poll does not make it FACT either. That is my point.

 

[Dan26]

Indian,

But if it is considered a FACT that upsets happen in a football season (you wouldn't dispute that would you), then surely we must consider it a fact that the best team doesn't always win the Grand Final.

No one would dispue that upsets are a part of football. An upset can be defined as : "When a more talented team gets beaten by a less credentialled opponent"

Now, if such an occurance was to happen on Grand Final day, then logically, it must be considered a fact that there are years where the best team of the season does not win the Grand Final. In other words, the best team was beaten by a less-credentialled opponent.

If you disagree with that, then you must be of the opinion that an upset has never occured in any finals match in the history of football.

 

[Indian in the Cupboard]

As I've said before, 'upsets' are nothing more predictions proved wrong.

You proffer the explanation for an upset as:
"When a more talented team gets beaten by a less credentialled opponent"

Firstly 'talent' cannot be measured. But I will ignore that.

Since when has talent been the sole determinent for the best team? What about courage? teamwork? tactics?

All I'm saying is that performance is the only fair way to measure who is the best team. If Melourne had beaten Essendon in the Gand Final then in MY OPINION they would have proved themselves to be the best team.

To appease you: In the final say, 14 weeks of the season they would have had a record which basicaly matched Essendon, and had beaten them in a contest.

The season is structured to determine the best team. And so far I have agreed with each of the results.

We can agree to disagree I suppose.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Indian in the Cupboard
If Melbourne had beaten Essendon in the Grand Final, then in MY OPINION they would have proved themselves to be the best team.

Yes. The best team on the day

Originally posted by Indian in the Cupboard
The season is structured to determine the best team. And so far I have agreed with each of the results.

Rubbish. If the season was structured to determine the best team, they would award the premiership to the team that finished on top of the ladder. The season is structured to award the premiership to the team that wins the 4 week finals series, in what is more or less a knockout tournament.

I'm not denigrating the right of the Grand Final winner to be called premiers. That is the system we play under. But often the best performed team over the whole year is not the winning Grand Finalist and I would have thought this was reasonably clear to any neutral observer.

20 to 10 now

 

[BomberBoy]

i voted no because as Dan said, if a team is injury stricken or something, even though they have done good all season, and they dont win the GF, doesnt mean they arent the best of the year

Thats why i think that they should use a best of 3 game grand final series, but ill probably get flamed for saying that