see who really is the most sucessful team in history so far

[True_Fact_Stat_Man]

here is a list of stats I created from a book called "THE CLUBS" taking into account the year every team joined the VFL/AFL (not the year established)

my theory is this: divide number of premierships into the number of years they have been in competition to see the average amount of years for each flag !!


Adelaide 1 premiership every 5 years
Carlton " " 6.43 "
West Coast " " 6.5 "
Collingwood " 7.35 "
Hawthorn " " 8.33 "
Melbourne " " 8.58 "
Richmond " " 9.2 "
Bris-Fitzroy " 12.87 "
Geelong " 17.16 "
Nth Melbourne " 18.75 "
Sydney-Sth Melb " 51.5 "
Footscray-Wst Bull " 75 "
St Kilda " 103 "
Port Adelaide 0 - 4
Fremantle 0 - 5
University 0 - 8


Please note these are my figures worked out on my theory not official stats but they are interesting stats that stand now but in 10 years can alter dramatically

 

[chev1977]

Yet again I am true_fact_stat_man as it is the only way I can get replys to this

Great theory I rekon

try working out the one for Port Adelaide Magpies in the SANFL now that is successful !!!

and another point PORT POWER and PORT MAGPIES are seperate clubs the power doesn't run on the success of the Magpies end of story !!


cheers !

 

[Pessimistic]

Did you miss essendon on purpose ?

 

[Dan26]

The only problem with that theory is that THEORETICALLY you could have a team which has won 17 Grand Finals.

But that teams could have missed the finals 86 times.

They could have made the finals LESS than any other team in the competition, and they could have had 86 wooden spoons in their 103 year history. They COULD have an all time winning percentage of 25%.

So, even if they had won 17 Grand Final, does that make them the most successful team in history ??

Take Melbourne, for instance. They have won 12 Grand Finals. Geelong has won 6. Yet Geelong has made the finals many, many more times than the Demons. Geelong have been a far more consistent finalist. Not just recently, but over their whole history.

Melboure have won 12 of the 16 Grand Finals they have contested, so they have a very good strike rate. But Geelong is regarded as an historically successful club. The Demons, (except for one good era in the 1950's-60's) are NOT.

I certianly regard the Catsas a more sucessful club than the Demons. I think most people do.

The only true way to find out who is TRULY been the best team of all time is have a look at the ALL-TIME winning percentages. This takes into acount every game ever played (including finals), but obvioulsy doesn't include pre-season or anything.

Here are the results after the end of the 1999 season :

1.) Carlton 1265 767 30 62.02%
2.) Collingwood 1280 781 24 61.97%
3.) West Coast 187 121 2 60.65%
4.) Essendon 1164 828 30 58.31%
5.) Richmond 949 860 17 52.44%
6.) Geelong 1027 934 18 52.34%
7.) Adelaide 101 105 1 49.03%
8.) Bris. Lions 33 35 2 48.57%
9.) Port Adelaide 31 34 2 47.76%
10.)Melbourne 918 1033 18 47.08%
11.)Hawthorn 707 811 9 46.59%
12.)Fitzroy(gone) 869 1034 25 45.72%
13.)Sth.Melb/Syd 888 1068 19 45.44%
14.)W.Bulldogs 669 816 18 45.11%
15.)Kangaroos 657 858 14 43.43%
16.)St.Kilda 720 1198 19 37.66%
17.)Fremantle 37 73 0 33.64%
18.)B.Bears(gone) 72 148 2 32.88%
19.)U'sity(gone) 27 97 2 22.22%


Congratulations Blues !

 

[Dan26]

Sorry, the above post is a little bit confusing with all the figures. The three figures are wins losses and Draws, followed by overall winning percentage.

Here it is again.

..................W....L....D..%

1.) Carlton...... 1265 767. 30 62.02%
2.) Collingwood.. 1280 781. 24 61.97%
3.) West Coast... 187. 121. 2. 60.65%
4.) Essendon..... 1164 828. 30 58.31%
5.) Richmond..... 949. 860. 17 52.44%
6.) Geelong...... 1027 934. 18 52.34%
7.) Adelaide..... 101. 105. 1. 49.03%
8.) Bris. Lions.. 33.. 35.. 2. 48.57%
9.) Port Adelaide 31.. 34.. 2. 47.76%
10.)Melbourne.... 918. 1033 18 47.08%
11.)Hawthorn..... 707. 811. 9. 46.59%
12.)Fitzroy(gone) 869. 1034 25 45.72%
13.)Sth.Melb/Syd. 888. 1068 19 45.44%
14.)W.Bulldogs... 669. 816. 18 45.11%
15.)Kangaroos.... 657. 858. 14 43.43%
16.)St.Kilda..... 720. 1198 19 37.66%
17.)Fremantle.... 37.. 73.. 0. 33.64%
18.)B.Bears(gone) 72.. 148. 2. 32.88%
19.)U'sity(gone). 27.. 97.. 2. 22.22%

You can draw a number of conclusions about these stats :

1.) St.Kilda are, and have always been terrible. If you look at this years strong playing list, it is as much to do with the culture as anything. They will always be unsuccessful. They'll make the finals every now and then, but on the whole, they will ALWAYS be unsuccessful.

2.) Carlton have, and always will be successful. Obvioulsy, they have strong teams, but they have a winning culture.

3.) Collingwood led the all time winning percentages, for ever and ever. Right up until late in the 1999 season, where, due to their wooden spoon, they fell below the Blues for the first time. Rotten luck for the Pies.

3.) It is now obvious why North Melbourne have very little suport.

4.) Adelaide have not been all that successful, really. It's just that 2 wins out of their 101 wins, happen to have been Grand Finals. They have still won less than 50% of their games.

5.) Amazingly, only 5 of the 19 different clubs have won more than 50% of their games. Not suprisingly, these 5 clubs have the five biggest supporter bases, with Essendon having the most (of the Victorian based clubs)

 

[True_Fact_Stat_Man]

a.k.a chev1977 !


Sorry about Essendon they are 1 premiership every 6.86 years

also if a team had 10 wooden spoons and 2 premierships vs a team who has been in finals for 12 years straight but has only won one premiership the one with 2 premierships is more successful as coming second or third does'nt meen squat !!

cheers !

 

[servo]

Well done Stat Man.

The object of the game is to win premierships. To use Dan24's Adelaide example they have won less than 50% of their overall games.

They have won 2 premierships in 10 years. In Dan24's theory then they are unsuccessful.

Given that the object is to win premierships then Adelaide has only achieved 20% of their goals in their 10 years. His example of a club winning 17 premierships in 103 years is 16.5%.

Whichever way you look at it Adelaide at this stage is the most successful club to have played in the VFL/AFL. On top of this they have the largest membership.

I know the Adelaide situation is advantageous as against the Melbourne based clubs situations in that there are only 2 clubs in Adelaide. All the more reason to cull some clubs in Melbourne to allow the remainder the same chance of success.


Sorry if I may appear a lttle anti Dan24 today but his arrogant attitude to all things non Dan24 is bloody annoying.

 

[Dan26]

Servo,

There are different measures of success.

Coming 2nd or third, you say doesn't mean anything.

Sorry, but that's wrong. Obviously, every clubs aim is to finish first. But a club which has come 2nd or 3rd has had a successful season.

Brisbane had a successful season last year, for example.

Going by your theory, 2nd is as good as 16th. That's a stupid theory.

Why then do all clubs strive to AVOID the wooden spoon ?

Look at it this way. 1st is better than 2nd. 2nd is better than 3rd. 3rd is better than fourth. 4th is beter than 5th etc etc.

The way to work out how successful you have been is take a teams finishing positions, and divide them by how many years they have been in the competition.

For example, a team which has finished :

2,3,6,4,3,2,2,4

Is MORE successful than a team which has finished :

15,14,12,1,15,16,16.

Even though the second team has finished first once, the first team is obviously more successful.

Finishing 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 4th etc, is STILL successful. Sure finishing 2nd is not AS successful as finishing 1st, but their AVERAGE is more successful.

Take the VFL/AFL since 1989. Geelong has played in 4 Grand Finals, and numerous other finals series. Collingwood has only made the finals 3 times in that period, winning the flag in 1990, and getting a wooden spoon last year.

Now only a fool would suggest Collingwood has been more successful than Geelong over that period. Do you think a Collingwood supporter would claim they have been more successful than Geelong since 1989 ? I don't think so. I'm sure every Magpie supporter would rather have Geelongs success than the Magpies since 1989. Collingwood have been poor for about 8 years now.

Actually, for many years, Collingwood was always talked about as the most successful club, even though Carlton and Essendon had won more premierships. While their success in the last few years has dented that theory, anything 1990 backwards is all Collingwood.

Pre 1990, they may not have won the most flags, but they had played in WAY more Grand Finals than any other team, and have played in the finals an amazing 72 times. 10 ahead of their nearest rival, Carlton, who have made it 62 times.

You can make a strong argument therefore, that the Magpies OVERALL are still the most successful club. At least in terms of competitiveness each and every year.

If a team makes the finals 17 times in 103 years and wins 17 premierships but gets 86 wooden spoons, this is bad. They are UNCOMPETITIVE for nearly 90% of their time. Being a consistently good team and always being successful (i.e being around the finals, whether you win it or not) is the true measure of success.

Please servo, use some common-sense. You can see that I make sense. Why would I type it unless I made sense ?

 

[Jaffa]

Just on your comparison between Collingwood and Geelong there Dan, I agree entirely that since 1989 Geelong have had more successful seasons than Collingwood. Well that's obvious.

However, if I was asked in 1989 whether I would take Geelong over the next 10 years or Collingwood I would've taken Collingwood.

This is coming purely from a Collingwood viewpoint. After 32 years without a flag, if someone had told me in 1989 you can win a premiership in 1990 however by the end of the decade you'll get the wooden spoon I would've taken it in a second. As oposed to 3 GF losses and many finals appearances that Geelong had through the 90's.

I don't know what supporters of other sides would prefer, but I reckon if you asked those of sides that have gone years without a flag they'd probably agree.

 

[Bomber]

I see where your coming from Dan, but I dont agree. The aim in football is to win a flag, not necessarily to win every game, but to peak at the right time and win the flag.
(I would much rather lose 4 or 5, finish second but win the flag, rather than go thru undefeated, finish top, but get rolled in the big one! - any right-minded person would agree)

As they say, second place is the first loser!

At the end of the day, only sides who win the flag are remembered. Who remembers (or who cares) who finished 4th or 5th in 1990 - its irrelevant! It was Collingwoods year. As aan Essendon supporter, I look back at that year as a failure - we shoulda won it that year. End of story.

 

[sainter]

Originally posted by Dan24:
You can draw a number of conclusions about these stats :

1.) St.Kilda are, and have always been terrible. If you look at this years strong playing list, it is as much to do with the culture as anything. They will always be unsuccessful. They'll make the finals every now and then, but on the whole, they will ALWAYS be unsuccessful.

3.) It is now obvious why North Melbourne have very little suport.

5.) Amazingly, only 5 of the 19 different clubs have won more than 50% of their games. Not suprisingly, these 5 clubs have the five biggest supporter bases, with Essendon having the most (of the Victorian based clubs)

Dan, I have debated as to whether or not I would bother replying to your crap, mainly because much of what I would like to say would have to be censored.

Anyway, here it goes.

Firstly you would not know the first thing about the St Kilda 2000 team list. In between writing posts here, watching Essendon play and burying your head in stats books, you quite clearly do not have the time. Have a look at the St Kilda list. We are very young and undermanned. How many young players are Essendon and other top teams playing. I distictly remember Adam Ramanauskas (sp) make his debut against us last year. He was dropped the next week and didn't play too many games. The year in the reserves has been invaluable to him and he is now a great player. We have not been in the position to do this. Therefore we have had to play first year players on a consistent basis. Moyle, Davis, Blake, Beetham and Schwarze while our second year players such as Hayes, Carr, Walton, Begley and Campbell have had to take more important roles. Have a look at our list on paper, despite having Harvey and Burke, our talent at this stage quite clearly does not measure up. In the future, it may very well.

It surprises me that someone of your football knowledge would take so much out of past statistics. The fact is, I do not barrack for my football side because we have won a set amount of premierships. I barrack for my team because I love the St Kilda Football Club. I went to my first footy match as a 4 year old at Moorabbin and loved it. It did not matter that it was in the early 80's and was a 140 point thumping to Carlton. People grow an affinity with their football club and we are basically immune to people like you that feel compelled to have to flaunt their sides history to all that will listen. I think what I have to say goes for a club like the Kangaroos too. We don't need to barrack for a club that has won the most premierships or have the most success because it the club that we support and always will.

I also didn't think someone like you would be so prone to be influenced by the media so much. St Kilda will always be unsuccessful because of our culture. Please! Are you telling me that every new player that comes to our team will suddenly be infected with the dreaded 'bad culture' disease and not succeed for that reason?

And personally, it does not worry me in the slightest which team has the most supporters. All I read into that is that it demonstrates the loyalty of some supporters and I for one am proud of the history of our club.

Shame I didn't split this message up, I could have been nearing the 300 too.

 

[servo]

Dan24!!!!! I REST MY CASE

 

[Dan26]

Jaffa,

Good to see you agree that Geelong have been more successful than Collingwood, even though the Pies have won a Grand Final since 1989.

But I do see your point. If you swap Collingwood's success for Geelong's in the last 11 years, it would mean ANOTHER 4 Grand Finals losses for the Pies, and more than 40 years without a flag.

So, perhaps, it was a bad example. But obviously, Geelong have been more successful since 1989. That's was my main point.

BOMBER,

From your logic, 1st is the only thing that counts, and 2nd through to 16th are all the same. You also say that no one remembers the Grand Final loser. 2ns is NOT the same as 16th. What a stpuid comment. 2nd is NOT AS successful as first (boviously), but it is still more successful than anyone blow it.

I remember the Grand Final loser. So do you. So does everyone. We all remember who was runners-up in certain years.

You're correct, 1st is the ultimate success. But 2nd and 3rd is still successful. Sure, it's not AS successful as finishing first, but 2nd, 3rd, and 4th is still successful.

Brisbane had a successful season last year, for example.

Put it this way, finishing 2nd for 10 years in a row, is WAY MORE SUCCESSFUL than finising 1st once and then getting the wooden spoon for 9 years.

Just because you havn't had the ULTIMATE success, doesn't mean you aren't successful. You can still have degrees of success.

 

[Dan26]

Sainter,

Obviously, I've struck a chord. So, I'll go easy on you.

How can you say I know nothing about the St.Kilda team list ? I watch a heap of football. St.Kilda is on TV every f*cking five minutes on dleayed telecast from Colonial Stadium. We've all probably seen more of St.Kilda this year than any other team.

You say St.Kilda is young and undermanned. That's a cop-out.

Yeah, they're young. They are also a team which finished on top in 1997, 6th in 1998, and had 10 wins last year. With at least 4 great players, and some very promising youngsters, they should NOT be 16th with one win. It's pathetic.

OK, maybe their list isn't as strong a lot of us thought. But it isn't the worst list in the competition. Not by a long way. Port, Freo, Collingwood all have weaker lists.

Richmond had less wins than the Saints last year. Even the Crows did. Perhaps the Saints list should be good enough for a 6-9 win loss record after 15 matches. But 1 win is terrible.

Do you think if the St,Kilda list was representing Carlton, they would have one win ? We'll never know, but I would suggest they would be doing a lot better.

And Sainter. Why in the hell, do you spend one paragraph telling me why you barrack for St.Kilda ? You spend time teling me that you don't need to barrack for a club that has won a lot of premierships.

Why are you telling me this ? I think it's great that St.Kilda supporters get behind their side even though they've been bad for 100 years. I'm not telling everyone you have to barrack for Essendon, Collingwood, or Carlton. Barack for whoever you want. That's great. I don't barrack for the Bombers because they have been winners. When I was about 6, I liked the clours. Believe it or not.

My first post wasn't "gloating". It was just a guide to who the most successful clubs have been. You will notice that the club I hate the most is at the top of the list. I just think it's interesting to look at.

And I don't care who has the most supporters either. But it is still worth it to comment on. St.Kilda supporters have often talked about their large support, even though they have been un-successful.

Oh, and I'm not influenced by the media. St.Kilda have a losing cultue, plain and simple. You don't need to be sarcastic. Obvioulsy every player that comes to the club is not going to be infected with the "bad-culture" disease.

But club culture is a funny thing, Sainter. If it was easy to create a winning culture, all clubs would be doing it. A winning or (losing) culture can't be measured. You can't quantify it. It's one of those intangible things. I'm sure St.Kilda are very professional, and leave no stone unturned in their preparation. But culture goes deeper than that. it encompasses the whole club. Can we explain it ? Probably not.

Suffice to say, St.Kilda is no target for their 26th wooden spoon (I think). Carlton have never won one. This is in a day and age, where the salary cap gives no clubs a significant advantage over others.

Hey, maybe the Saints will prove me wrong, and win the next 10 premeirships. I can't see it happening. I can't see St.Kilda EVER becoming a consistently successful side. I hope they do. I (and just about everyone else)likes St.Kilda. It's up to them.

I think the reason you are so pasionate about my post is that you are optimistic about the future. All supporters of all clubs are. So, when a cocky Bombers fan (I'm not cocky, but that is what you'd be thinking) comes on here and says St.KIlda will always be bad, you think : "Hey, I'm optimistic about the Saints. We're gonna get better. How dare he say that"

I understand. You believe in your heart the Saints will be successful.

But let me ask you again, if they current St.Kilda list was playing for Carlton, would they be doing better ? I think they would be.

 

[sainter]

Dan, you have made some good points.

I don't apologise for my posts being from a saints supporters perspective but I do acknowledge that it probably does effect my ability to write impartially.

Anyway, I still think that the strength of our list is poor. And you are right, 1 win is terrible. I think we have far too many passengers, many of whom were at the club in 1997 and subsequently rewarded with lucrative contracts. I won't go specifically into who I think we should trade/delist but I have a few strong thoughts. Forget about the fact that we made the Grand Final in 1997, some of those players in 2000 are not up to it NOW.

Why did I spend a paragraph telling you why I am a saints supporter? Partly because it angers me that you would just stereotype our club as always going to be one that wlll struggle. I don't subscribe at all to our club having a bad culture. Our last wooden spoon was in 1988. The only players at the club then were Burke, Loewe and Harvey. Practically all of the board and staff are different too. The only constant is the supporters and I would not think that the attitude of a supporter would contribute to a clubs ability to achieve. Plain and simply, it is our poor performaces on the field.

And secondly I was referring to a previous post of yours when you wondering why supporters choose to barrack for a specific team. ie Carlton - Success. You overlooked one of the most significant reasons and that it is supporting a team is in many cases heriditary. I would assume that this would be similar for supporters of most clubs but I know for a fact that thousands of St Kilda supporters support their club just like the previous generations have. I think that explains the large junior supporter base which we have.

Dan, it is not just my hope or belief that we will be successful that has prompted me to reply to you. In his current era, with the salary cap and the national draft, the competition is designed to be even and you would expect that most clubs would have periods of highs and lows. We have certainly had more lows than highs, but I think for you to say that we will always be unsuccessful is a little unfair. Besides, it is much easier for you to come up with a statement like that when the side you are talking about are having such a bad year.

 

[Dan26]

Sainter.

As usual, you make some good points.

I will say something about support though. Obviously, there is a strong correlation between success and supporters. I heard Tim Lane on 774 say that about 50% of supporters barrack for the same team as their parents. It's about winning over the "other" 50% that becomes difficult.

Why then, do the Saints have a following which is so "out of sync" with their success ? I think one of the reasons, is that they are the only club south of the Yarra. Moorabbin, is a long way away from the city centre, where Princes park, Victoria Park, Junction Oval were all located in their time.

If you look at Melbourne geographically, the Mornington Peninsula goes all the way down to Sorrento for about 80, or 90 kilometres. Most of the people in this region (which is a very large region) barrack for St.Kilda.

St.Kilda have been fortunate geographically. if St.Kilda were called "Fitzroy" and they won 26 wooden spoons while being based as an inner city club, they'd probably be extinct by now, as they would have struggled for support.

Fortunatley, the Saints can call on the support of a lot of people who live down the Mornington Peninsula.

And about "culture" : It's difficult for me to comment on, because, as I said earlier, it's not something you can quantify, or measure. You said hardly anyone remains at the Saints from their last wooden spoon team of 1998, so why would culture play a factor ?

That's a good point, but I still believe culture can play a factor. I know for a fact, that at Essendon, ALL new player have the history of the club explained to them. It's a proud history too. It's more or less explained that if you play at Essendon, you will be expected to play in a premiership at some point in your career.

Now it's impossible to measure what kind of effect that has on a player, but "perhaps" (and I'm guessing here), that at clubs like Carlton and Essendon, there is more of a willingness for players to improve and be the "best they can be". I'm not talking about individual players, here, or specific examples. I'm talking about GENERALLY.

If it's drilled into the players that unless you win a premiership you are NOT living up to what other players have achieved at the club, you'd think it would create an environment where success would prevail.

Have you ever heard the term "success breeds success" ?

Occasionally, a club can turn it around. North had achieved nothing up until 1975, but they have basically been a success for the last 25 years. They have done a great job down at that club. From now on, all players who come to the Roos will be expected to play in a premiership. Same with Hawthorn, a club with limited success in it's early years.

I'm sure the Saints can turn it around, but their supporters have been waiting a long time. I hop, for their sake that they can.

 

[Drakey]

I understand your logic Dan but what would you rather have. A 60% winning ratio & 5 flags or a 40% winning ratio & 10 flags.

I think success should be measured by the size of your trophy cabinet.

 

[Bomber]

Dan
I understand what your saying, and yes, of course 2nd is better than 3rd blah blah - but what I am saying is - WHO CARES??? At the end of the year, the premier is the victor and rest are all losers.
Success is premierships - if you finish 2nd, 5th or 16th you all get the same thing - nothing! [except better draft picks of course

]

 

[Joel]

I actually agree with DAn24 on alot of his points however people would rather be unsuccessful for say 10 years and win 1 flag than be so called successful and win none and maybe make it to the GF 4 times.

On the point of lists, I'm nor so sure about St.Kilda having a stronger list than Collingwood. Another thin is, does anyone believe that Collingwood's list is going to be good in a few years? (and no stupid replies please).

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 22 June 2000).]

 

[dons_r_tops]

OK,
My Turn
I BLAME Peter Sumich for essendon not winning the 1990 grand final
if he had have kicked a goal instead of that point to draw the preliminary final we would have probably been able to kick west coasts a$$ in the GF, however with essendon having an extra week off collingwood gained match practice and essendon lost match fitness. Also I was on holidays in 1990 in melbourne and had to come back to wa b4 the GF instead of after it however history shows that in the 1990 GF essendon kicked 4 or 5 goals and lost and in the end this is ALL That COUNTS NOT THE MINOR PREMIERSHIP. Sorry dan24 while i have backed you up in the past i can't any more, I have come to my senses

 

[Jaffa]

The drawn final was the Qualifying final, not the preliminary final. We belted you by 10 goals in the 2nd semi and then by 8 in the GF. Essendon belted WCE by 10 goals in the Prelim.

 

[Dan26]

Dons are tops.

I've said all this before. You're right, the "minor premiership" currently means nothing. I KNOW. (why did you say that). I'm talking about how it SHOULD be, not how it is.

Anyone with half a brain can come on here and tell me how it IS. How it IS, doesn't necessarily make it right.

Now, about success,

Take a team, over a 10 year span, who has won 1 flag and 9 wooden spoons. Now, take a team, over that same 10 year span, who has NOT won a flag, but has been in the top 4 ever year.

Who has been more successful ? Obviously, the second team has.

Finishing 2nd is successful. Sure, it's not AS successful as finishing first, but it is still successful.

In the scenario I presented above, which team has given more enjoyment to their supporters ? Obvioulsy the second team has, because they have been in the finals EVERY year.

As a supporter, you will get MUCH more enjoyment in finishing in the top 4 every year (60% win rate), even if you don't win a Grand Final, that a team who wins one Grand Final, but get 9 wooden spoons.(say, 30% success rate)

I guarantee, that Geelong has given their suporters far more enjoyment than Collingwood since 1989. They have had more wins, they have had better teams, they have had better playrs, and they have been involved in bigger matches. Geelong, has still been successful since 1989. They havn't had the ultimate success, but they have still been successsful.

I havn't met anyone ANYWHERE who said that Brisbane 1999 season was a failure. It was a resounding success. Sure, it sould have been more successful, but it was till successful as it was. Same with Essendon. They'd be disappointed it couldn't have been MORE successful, but it was still a successful season.

How much enjoyment did Geelong supporters get from the 1989 season ? I'm guessing heaps. Only Hawthorn supporters would get more enjoyment out of that year, becasue the Hawks were MORE successful. But Geelong were still successful.

2nd is NOT the same as 16th. That is a ridiculous comment. Almost beyond belief.

Take Melboure and Geelong. The Dees have won 12 Grand finals, and Geelong 6. Melboure, however, have had a lot of bad years. They have only won 47% of their games (all time), while Geelong has won 52%. Geelong has made the final many more times than Melbourne and has been a much more consistent finalist over their entire history.

I guarantee, that a Geelong supporter for 103 years would have got more enyoment out of their team than a Demons supporter for 103 years. A Demons supporter would have the highest degree of enjoyment more often than a Geelong supporter, bit overall, Geelong have won more games, and been more consistent.

Calton are the leagyes most successful club. No dispute. They have won 62% of their games over 103 years. This is phenomenal. They have maintained that strike rate for more than 100 years. Now that's an achievement.

Many people don't realise how good that is.

 

[Dan26]

Let me tell you a little story.

It involves one of the most successful clubs of the last 25 years, North Melbourne.

Now, up until 1973, North Melboure had not done much. No Grand Final wins. Only a Grand Final appearance in 1950, and top spot in 1949. Nothing else.

Now, when they appointed Ron Barassi, and eventually made the Grand Final in 1974, and won it in 1975, they adopted a very importnat line of thinking.

The people in charge basically said this (more or less) :

"We want to build a side that can win a premiership. However that is not JUST what success is about. There is NO point winning a premiership, then going into the wilderness for 20 years. WE want to be a consistently successful side. Obviously you can't win the premiership EVERY year. It's stupid to think you can. It's impossible. So, even if we don't win it, we want to be club that is "up there" ever year. We want to be a successful side, year in year out. Even if we don't win the premiership, we still want to be a successful side."

North Melbourne became a consistent finalist, and a consistently successful side. There is no point being a "one year" wonder (eg Collingwood in 1990). You've got to be sucessful every year. Obvioulsy you can't win it every year. No one can. But to be a successful club you've got to keep on presenting yourself.

Terry Wallace has done that with the Bulldogs recently. He knows if you keep on making the finals year in year out, your time will come sooner or later. He doesn't want to be a one year wonder. A "one-year" wonder only gives fleeting enjoyment to your supporter. You want to give them continued and sustained enjoyment by winning the majority of your games.

I think that says it all, really.

 

[chev1977]

Your a fagot!!!

 

[Dan26]

Chev,

Only 3 words, yet you spelled two of them wrong.

That's only a 33.33% success rate.