Predicting premierships for teams - who can actually win a flag?

[CarnTheScray]

Is that you Damo?

Don’t tell em.

 

[ferrisb]

Is that you Damo?

IF...

CarnTheScray is Damo

THEN...

I am glad I am not CarnTheScray

 

[CarnTheScray]

IF...

CarnTheScray is Damo

THEN...

I am glad I am not CarnTheScray

Thanks Lingy

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Richmond looked like they were building towards it from 2010-2015. The Cotchin, Martin, Deledio, Riewoldt, Rance core was a great foundation and they improved year on year. People were only caught by surprise due to their terrible 2016.

If it wasn’t for 2016 Richmond would’ve been one of the most predictable premiers.

 

[Fadge]

When they were young and terrible or just average you could still see the makings of a future flag for some squads and often they then go on to win premierships. The Lions in 1999 were predictable, so was Port Adelaide in 2000, Geelong and St Kilda* in 2002-3, Hawthorn 2005-6.

I think Richmond, WC and WB of recent premiers were less predictable, I didn't see them coming.

Do you have the same instinct about certain teams? And if yes, should the unlikely teams change course now?


The teams I think could win a flag one day on their current trajectory:
Gold Coast
Fremantle (maybe)
Sydney
Port Adelaide (could pinch one this year, but I think it is in their future)
Brisbane (could pinch one this year, but I think it is in their future)


The teams/squads I think are unlikely to ever get there:
GWS
Carlton
WB
Essendon
Melbourne
St Kilda

The two I really like at the moment are Port and Gold Coast.

Port have a great mix of experience and youth with proven talent.

I can't believe they are still better than $7 for this season when thet have a top 2 spot locked up. I loaded up on them 2 weeks ago at $8.4.

Reckon they'll have opportunities for the next couple of years after hopefully snagging one this year.

Gold Coast could be unbelievable in 3 or 4 years for a handful of seasons. What great players to build your team around - Rowell, Rankine, B. King, Lukocious and likely this year's Rising Star winner Anderson.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

So you cannot completely transform a team in 3 years.

1999 to 2002 Collingwood and 1998 to 2001 Brisbane both say otherwise

 

[Sweet Jesus]

1999 to 2002 Collingwood and 1998 to 2001 Brisbane both say otherwise

How so?

When did Nathan Buckley and Michael Voss arrive?

 

[Tarkyn_24]

How so?

When did Nathan Buckley and Michael Voss arrive?

Are you really trying to justify this on the basis of a couple of players? Half of the 2002 Grand Final team Collingwood fielded were listed at the club in 1999. Of those listed, three were yet to debut.

I would certainly say that a club can be rebuilt to go from (literally) bottom of the table to contender in that period of time. Trying to invalidate a side turning the table because some of the blokes were listed previously is stupid. Rebuilding isn’t the same as building from ground zero.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Are you really trying to justify this on the basis of a couple of players? Half of the 2002 Grand Final team Collingwood fielded were listed at the club in 1999. Of those listed, three were yet to debut.

I would certainly say that a club can be rebuilt to go from (literally) bottom of the table to contender in that period of time. Trying to invalidate a side turning the table because some of the blokes were listed previously is stupid. Rebuilding isn’t the same as building from ground zero.

Consider who was already on the list.

It's not a "complete transformation" if you already had Buckley/Voss and others.

As you note, half the 2002 Collingwood side were already on the list.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Consider who was already on the list.

Buckley (1994), Freeborn (1999), Licuria (1999), Prestigiacomo (1995), Burns (1993), Rocca (1997), Tarrant (1998).

Betheras, N Davis, Scotland, Lockyer were the ones yet to debut (my apologies, there were 4, not 3. Only 7 Collingwood players had played pre-1999)

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Buckley, Freeborn, Licuria, Prestigiacomo, Burns, Rocca, Tarrant.

Betheras, N Davis, Scotland, Lockyer were the ones yet to debut (my apologies, there were 4, not 3. Only 7 Collingwood players had played for the club pre-1999)

So it's not a "complete transformation".

You've basically got the starting midfield and 3 of the 4 KPPs already on the list.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

So it's not a "complete transformation".

I’ve included their first year at Collingwood in brackets. Of the eleven that played in 2002, only five has played for Collingwood before 1999. If you’re gonna nitpick, sure, it dates back to Burns debuting but I’d argue then you’re referring to building a team rather than rebuilding a team.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I’ve included their first year at Collingwood in brackets. Of the eleven that played in 2002, only five has played for Collingwood before 1999. If you’re gonna nitpick, sure, it dates back to Burns debuting but I’d argue then you’re referring to building a team rather than rebuilding a team.

I'm discussing "complete transformation". You haven't described that. There was already plenty in place.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

I'm discussing "complete transformation". You haven't described that. There was already plenty in place.

Plenty in place?

The plenty in place led them to 16th in 1999 and 15th in 2000. I’d say that that is demonstrative that a rebuild occurred.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Plenty in place?

The plenty in place led them to 16th in 1999 and 15th in 2000. I’d say that that is demonstrative that a rebuild occurred.

Now you're arguing something different. It wasn't a "complete transformation" when you consider what was already on the list.

Simply pointing to ladder position doesn't make that case.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Now you're arguing something different. It wasn't a "complete transformation" when you consider what was already on the list.

Show me a side that has ever in history delisted every single listed player within the space of three years?

What you are describing is not rebuilding, it is building. Which is what I’ve already said to you multiple times

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Show me a side that has ever in history delisted every single listed player within the space of three years?

What you are describing is not rebuilding, it is building. Which is what I’ve already said to you multiple times

I'm discussing "complete transformation". If you want to make a different argument, that's well and good.

But you initially chimed in to say Collingwood were "completely transformed" within three years. It's now clear that's not the case so you pivot to making a different claim.

 

[The Goon]

I'm discussing "complete transformation". If you want to make a different argument, that's well and good.

You initially chimed in to say Collingwood were "completely transformed" within three years. It's now clear that's not the case so you pivot to making a different claim.

All this depends on your definition of 'complete transformation'. If you mean every single player is replaced you are right. But you could take a more nuanced view that pretty much every AFL team would have 6-10 premiership standard players on the list, and that the term 'complete transformation' refers to on-field results bought about by filling the gaps around them.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

All this depends on your definition of 'complete transformation'.

Well, surely it doesn't mean half the team was already on the list.

That's a funny kind of "complete".

 

[The Goon]

Well, surely it doesn't mean half the team was already on the list.

That's a funny kind of "complete".

Depends. If you accept that half of a premiership team is already on every AFL list then that could easily be argued to be the baseline for a 'complete' transformation. A similar example is you could 'completely transform' a house. That doesn't mean you have to replace the roof or all of the walls. If you'd like to be more literal fine, but personally I think the word 'transform' implies you are not necessarily starting from scratch.

That poster was right ... this is a discussion about semantics. Enough from me.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Depends. If you accept that half of a premiership team is already on every AFL list then that could easily be argued to be the baseline for a 'complete' transformation. A similar example is you could 'completely transform' a house. That doesn't mean you have to replace the roof or all of the walls. If you'd like to be more literal fine, but personally I think the word 'transform' implies you are not necessarily starting from scratch.

That poster was right ... this is a discussion about semantics. Enough from me.

So you're arguing that "complete" means something it doesn't mean?

It actually means "half".

That's a new one.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Is this really the hill you want to die on SJ?

By your definition the best performances are West Coast 92 taking six years, followed by Adelaide 97 taking seven years and Port 04 taking eight. Almost everyone else would likely still have players from their list eight+ years ago.

On a technicality, fine, but I think most would say a complete transformation would be one where the side has substantially changed, not every single person associated with the club has moved. As an extreme example - is the 2006 Eagles premiership not completely transformed by virtue of Drew Banfield having played in the 1994 Grand Final? Because that’s what your argument essentially amounts to.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Is this really the hill you want to die on SJ?

Who's dying?

I'm making a very straightforward point and you guys are trying to argue something different.

It takes more than three years to "completely transform" a team. Do you disagree? The examples you presented don't make the case.

By your definition the best performances are West Coast 92 taking six years, followed by Adelaide 97 taking seven years and Port 04 taking eight. Almost everyone else would likely still have players from their list eight+ years ago.

My definition? You mean pointing out that "complete" doesn't mean "half"?

On a technicality, fine, but I think most would say a complete transformation would be one where the side has substantially changed, not every single person associated with the club has moved. As an extreme example - is the 2006 Eagles premiership not completely transformed by virtue of Drew Banfield having played in the 1994 Grand Final? Because that’s what your argument essentially amounts to.

The examples offered so far are far beyond one player remaining so maybe you should address those before delving into parallel arguments.

How is it a "technicality" to point out that having half the team already on the list stops short of a "complete transformation"?

If you want to make a different argument, you're most welcome. But don't tell me that's a "complete transformation".

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Who's dying?

I'm making a very straightforward point and you guys are trying to argue something different.

It takes more than three years to "completely transform" a team. Do you disagree? The examples you presented don't make the case.

My definition? You mean pointing out that "complete" doesn't mean "half"?

The examples offered so far are far beyond one player remaining so maybe you should address those before delving into parallel arguments.

How is it a "technicality" to point out that having half the team already on the list stops short of a "complete transformation"?

If you want to make a different argument, you're most welcome. But don't tell me that's a "complete transformation".

So what constitutes a complete transformation? Less than 25% o Collingwood’s 2002 GF team being listed in 1998?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So what constitutes a complete transformation?

It's not half the side being on the list already, that's for sure. Particularly when you consider the importance of those players.

There's no question that Malthouse turned over the list aggressively. But was it a complete transformation within three years? No.