It's the time of the year that Carlton and Essendon supporters will use any excuse they can think of to remind all other supporters that 'their' club has won more VFL/AFL flags than any other.
And Collingwood supporters will then quickly remind everyone that they have 'almost' won the same number of flags.
While Hawthorn supporters will happily ignore all such discussions, 'knowing' that their team has comfortably won the most number of flags in the 'modern' era (whatever that is).
But the rest of us know that the whole idea of simply counting flags to demonstrate superiority is bogus.
The reason is obvious.
Only eight clubs have had a chance to win every flag since the league commenced its first season in 1897.
Even our club didn't get a go until 1908.
And the Hawks, Dogs and Roos didn't enter till 1925.
As for the expansion teams...
So, what is a fairer way to count flags?
(I apologise in advance if this has been proposed before.)
I nominate a 'head-to-head' flag table.
The idea is counting the number of flags each team has won compared to each other of the 17 other sides in the time that both teams have played in the league. (Brisbane is a special case. More of that later.)
The resulting totals will mean that a club has either won more flags than a rival, fewer, or the same number.
Critically, then a flag 'table' can be calculated using 'wins', 'losses', and draws to allocate a place on the flag ladder.
It's important to note that individual flag totals are not added, only one point for a head-to-head win, loss or draw against another team.
(Otherwise the same bogus advantage applies.)
For example,
Carlton entered the comp in 1987.
Since that time, according to my calculations, it has won more flags than its opponent (in the joint playing period) 10 times, lost 4, and drawn 3 times.
Interestingly, that places it only fifth on the 'head-to-head' table.
Essendon also entered in 1897, winning 10, losing 3, and drawing four against all comers - placing it fourth.
Collingwood (1897) is sixth (10 wins, 5 losses, 2 draws.)
Number one is a no brainer.
Hawthorn (1925) rules with 17 wins, 0 losses and 0 draws.
But number two might surprise.
It's WCE (1987) with 16 wins, 1 loss (yes, Hawthorn) and 0 draws.
(But has bugger all chance of overtaking Hawthorn for several years.)
Poor old St. Kilda is stone motherless last, yes, last, because it has won no flags since the expansion teams emerged (and has a worse loss record than even Fremantle).
But the truly gratifying thing as a Richmond supporter, was that (contrary to my expectations when I first thought about the system) was that the Tigers are THIRD with 11 wins, 5 losses and 1 draw.
Okay, a couple of caveats.
Firstly, my arithmetic can be crap.
I've triple checked my calculations, but that is no guarantee that I have got them right.
Secondly, my formulation assumes that Brisbane is a relocated side (as Sydney actually is), when in fact it's a merger of the Bears and Fitzoy. However, since neither club won a flag in the period they both competed in the league (and the Brisbane Lions emphasize their descent from Fitzroy, 7 flags), it seems a harmless assumption to me. (Others might disagree, especially Swans supporters.)
Thirdly, before Tiger fans get too high and mighty, remember that the system is highly fluid.
One flag can change things completely for us.
For example, Essendon sit on 4 draws.
One flag this year and they shoot up to 15 wins!
(We sit on 1 draw only.)
And if GWS (12 draws) win this year (much more likely) they shoot up to 13 wins (third place)!
So, is it fairer?
I'd argue it is takes into account the key factor, the opportunity to win flags.
And let's face it, the Hawks and Eagles have been powerhouses for a very long time, including the franchise era, which the system recognises.
But I'm sure that there are Carlton supporters who are going to take umbrage...(good).
ps. I've done all the calcs for all the teams, but don't have a clue how to do a spreadsheet. If anyone is especially interested I will post the full results when I get the time (it won't look pretty).
And Collingwood supporters will then quickly remind everyone that they have 'almost' won the same number of flags.
While Hawthorn supporters will happily ignore all such discussions, 'knowing' that their team has comfortably won the most number of flags in the 'modern' era (whatever that is).
But the rest of us know that the whole idea of simply counting flags to demonstrate superiority is bogus.
The reason is obvious.
Only eight clubs have had a chance to win every flag since the league commenced its first season in 1897.
Even our club didn't get a go until 1908.
And the Hawks, Dogs and Roos didn't enter till 1925.
As for the expansion teams...
So, what is a fairer way to count flags?
(I apologise in advance if this has been proposed before.)
I nominate a 'head-to-head' flag table.
The idea is counting the number of flags each team has won compared to each other of the 17 other sides in the time that both teams have played in the league. (Brisbane is a special case. More of that later.)
The resulting totals will mean that a club has either won more flags than a rival, fewer, or the same number.
Critically, then a flag 'table' can be calculated using 'wins', 'losses', and draws to allocate a place on the flag ladder.
It's important to note that individual flag totals are not added, only one point for a head-to-head win, loss or draw against another team.
(Otherwise the same bogus advantage applies.)
For example,
Carlton entered the comp in 1987.
Since that time, according to my calculations, it has won more flags than its opponent (in the joint playing period) 10 times, lost 4, and drawn 3 times.
Interestingly, that places it only fifth on the 'head-to-head' table.
Essendon also entered in 1897, winning 10, losing 3, and drawing four against all comers - placing it fourth.
Collingwood (1897) is sixth (10 wins, 5 losses, 2 draws.)
Number one is a no brainer.
Hawthorn (1925) rules with 17 wins, 0 losses and 0 draws.
But number two might surprise.
It's WCE (1987) with 16 wins, 1 loss (yes, Hawthorn) and 0 draws.
(But has bugger all chance of overtaking Hawthorn for several years.)
Poor old St. Kilda is stone motherless last, yes, last, because it has won no flags since the expansion teams emerged (and has a worse loss record than even Fremantle).
But the truly gratifying thing as a Richmond supporter, was that (contrary to my expectations when I first thought about the system) was that the Tigers are THIRD with 11 wins, 5 losses and 1 draw.
Okay, a couple of caveats.
Firstly, my arithmetic can be crap.
I've triple checked my calculations, but that is no guarantee that I have got them right.
Secondly, my formulation assumes that Brisbane is a relocated side (as Sydney actually is), when in fact it's a merger of the Bears and Fitzoy. However, since neither club won a flag in the period they both competed in the league (and the Brisbane Lions emphasize their descent from Fitzroy, 7 flags), it seems a harmless assumption to me. (Others might disagree, especially Swans supporters.)
Thirdly, before Tiger fans get too high and mighty, remember that the system is highly fluid.
One flag can change things completely for us.
For example, Essendon sit on 4 draws.
One flag this year and they shoot up to 15 wins!
(We sit on 1 draw only.)
And if GWS (12 draws) win this year (much more likely) they shoot up to 13 wins (third place)!
So, is it fairer?
I'd argue it is takes into account the key factor, the opportunity to win flags.
And let's face it, the Hawks and Eagles have been powerhouses for a very long time, including the franchise era, which the system recognises.
But I'm sure that there are Carlton supporters who are going to take umbrage...(good).
ps. I've done all the calcs for all the teams, but don't have a clue how to do a spreadsheet. If anyone is especially interested I will post the full results when I get the time (it won't look pretty).
.
