Stats observations

[Procrastinator35]

Of the 14 players to have played over 300 games & never to have reached or play in a Grand Final, an amazing 9 of them played for Footscray....If Carlton don't make the Grand Final this year, then Kade Simpson is eligible to join them, assuming he plays 14 more games.

Most Games without a Grand Final

Player TM GM

Bernie Quinlan FO FI 366
Brad Johnson WB 364
Doug Hawkins FO FI 350
Chris Grant WB 341
Kevin Murray FI 333
Drew Petrie NM WC 332
Gary Dempsey FO NM 329
Barry Round FO SY 328
Ian Nankervis GE 325
Scott West WB 324
Robert Murphy WB 312
Scott Thompson ME AD 308
Sam Newman GE 300
Rohan Smith WB 300

Kade Simpson CA 286

 

[footyfan1978]

Of the 14 players to have played over 300 games & never to have reached or play in a Grand Final
Barry Round FO SY 328

 

[Procrastinator35]

Just imagine how good the Dogs would have been had they not had to part ways with these guns during the 70's, just in order to stay afloat financially.....2 of the best key forwards of the era & the 2 best pack-marks also.....Scary proposition.

Bernie Quinlan. Gary Dempsey, Kelvin Templeton, Barry Round,

Who'd want to be a Footscray supporter?

 

[Royals]

That's because Barney didn't have his kicking boots on (3.6) during the Second semi against Collingwood, where we lost by 4 points.....We should never have lost that day.

or he was hungry hehehe

 

[Gibbsy]

In 1924, the league introduced the convention whereby home teams would wear black shorts and away teams would wear white (a couple of clubs were a bit slow in making the conversion. Fitzroy was noted as wearing blue knicks in 1924, while Richmond still sported blue pants as late as 1928).

The allocation of black and white shorts in finals matches was decided by coin toss. Club secretaries would meet early in the week to toss the coin to decide which dressing rooms would be allocated to each side, and which club would wear the black shorts.

The winner of the toss did not automatically choose the black knicks for his team. For example, when Collingwood secretary Frank Wraith won the coin toss from his Carlton counterpart Harry Bell before the 1945 preliminary final, Wraith decided that Collingwood would wear white shorts in the match.

From 1924 to 1984, there were 276 finals matches played. All but two of these games featured one side wearing dark shorts and the other wearing white. The two exceptions were i) when a misunderstanding occurred that resulted in Geelong wearing black knicks in the 1934 second semi final against Richmond rather than white as the league had determined, and ii) Essendon wore black shorts and North Melbourne royal blue in the 1982 elimination final. The Bombers had received permission from the league to wear dark shorts (black or red) in away matches during 1982, and this was extended to its finals appearance that year.

Of the 274 finals where one team wore white shorts, 136 were won by the team in dark shorts and 132 by the team in white shorts. Six matches were drawn.

The first-named teams were allocated the dark shorts in 148 matches, while the second-named teams were allocated the dark shorts in 126 matches.

Geelong wore black shorts in 16 consecutive finals from 1956 to 1969. Similarly, Collingwood wore black shorts in 15 consecutive finals, starting from the 1953 grand final and ending when it wore white shorts against Geelong in the 1964 preliminary final. Essendon had the white shorts in 15 consecutive finals from the 1942 grand final until the 1949 first semi inclusive. Essendon then had another run of 11 consecutive finals in white shorts from 1951 to 1962. Stats like those make me question whether it was actually done randomly after all.

Carlton was allocated the dark shorts in 11 consecutive finals from the 1972 grand final until the run was broken in the 1979 grand final.

In the 1924-1984 era, Geelong played 56 finals and wore the dark shorts 44 times (including the mistaken time in 1934). That is about 79% of its finals in the dark shorts. The table below summarises shorts colour distribution from 1924 to 1984:

Club Dark White % dark
Geelong 44 12 78.6%
Melbourne 29 20 59.2%
Collingwood 58 44 56.9%
North Melb. 20 17 54.1%
Hawthorn 16 16 50.0%
Carlton 33 35 48.5%
South Melb. 9 11 45.0%
Richmond 28 35 44.4%
St. Kilda 9 12 42.9%
Fitzroy 8 13 38.1%
Essendon 20 46 30.3%
Footscray 4 13 23.5%

Three sides wore the same coloured shorts throughout a 4-match finals campaign. Carlton was the first, wearing white shorts in all 4 finals in 1962 (this included a replayed preliminary final against Geelong). Twenty years later, Carlton was again allocated white shorts for all four finals it played in winning the 1982 flag. And Collingwood was allocated white shorts in the 4 finals it played in 1980 as it progressed from the elimination final to the grand final.

No club in the 'random shorts' era (1924-1984) ever wore dark shorts in a 4 match finals campaign (under the Final Four system, a club playing 4 finals was a rarity as it required a draw and a replay), however several teams wore dark shorts throughout a 3-match series. Most recent was North Melbourne, which wore royal blue shorts in its 3 finals during 1978, while Carlton wore black shorts in its 3 finals in 1973.

Since winning the 1930 flag in white shorts, Collingwood has made 7 grand final appearances in white shorts for 6 losses and a draw. Collingwood's last 6 premierships have all been won in black shorts.

Essendon went into the 2001 grand final having never lost a decider in black shorts. The Bombers had won all 6 of the black-trousered grand finals it had played - 1950, 1962, 1965, 1985, 1993 and 2000. Brisbane beat the black-shorted Dons in 2001 to prompt the unprecedented sight of dejected black-trousered Bombers on grand final day. Essendon's grand final record in white pants is poor. The Same Old played 15 white pants GFs from 1941 to 1990 for just 4 wins and a draw.

Collingwood wore black shorts in all 18 finals it played against Fitzroy.

Collingwood and Melbourne played 16 finals from 1937 to 1989, with the Magpies being allocated the black shorts 14 times. The exceptions were the 1946 preliminary and the 1964 grand final.

Geelong wore dark shorts in every final it played against Essendon from 1897 to 1989 (12 matches). The two clubs have only met in one final since then - the 2004 first semi final. The Cats wore white shorts in that one.

Essendon played Melbourne in 10 finals from 1926 to 1959 and wore white shorts every time. The run was broken at the next finals meeting between the two in the 1991 first elimination final when Essendon wore black shorts. This was repeated nine years later in the 2000 grand final.

Geelong played in 16 first semi finals from 1926 to 1994 and wore dark shorts in every one of them. Since then, Geelong has played in first semi finals in 1997 and 2004 and wore white shorts in both.

Geelong also wore dark shorts in 15 of 16 second semi finals from 1927 to 2005. The odd one out was the 1951 game against Collingwood.

Sydney has worn red shorts in all 47 finals games since first it first made the finals in 1986. This beats the previous record, which was Collingwood's 43 consecutive finals in black shorts from 1897 to 1925. South Melbourne never wore red shorts in a finals match.

Geelong was allocated the black shorts in all 16 finals that it played from 1956 to 1969. The Cats wore navy blue shorts in 17 of the 20 finals it played between 1980 and 1994. Changing football fashions have dictated that since 1995, Geelong has played 38 finals and has worn white shorts 33 times.

From the 1972 grand final to the end of 1975, Richmond played in 10 finals and wore white shorts 9 times (the exception was the 1973 first semi final against St. Kilda). Of the next 10 finals Richmond played (from 1977 to 1995), 9 were in black shorts (white shorts were worn in the 1980 second semi against Geelong).

In the 21 first semi finals played from 1951 to 1971, the first-named (i.e. third-placed) side was allocated the black shorts 19 times. The two occasions where the first-named team wore white shorts in this era were Essendon against Collingwood in 1960 and Essendon against Geelong in 1964.

In contrast, over the 13 second semi finals played from 1962 to 1974, the first-named side (i.e. the team that finished on top of the ladder) was allocated white shorts 12 times. The one minor premier to wear the black shorts in the second semi during this period was Collingwood against St. Kilda in 1966.

In the 11 grand finals played from 1961 to 1971, the first-named teams (i.e. winners of the second semi finals) wore black shorts 9 times. The two exceptions were St. Kilda against Essendon in 1965, and Richmond against Geelong in 1967.

In 11 second semi finals from 1948 to 1958, the winning side wore white shorts 9 times. The two exceptions were Essendon against North in 1950, and Geelong against Collingwood in 1952.

Hawthorn had the white shorts in 5 consecutive second semi finals it played from 1976 to 1984. Since then, Hawthorn has played in 10 second semis for 9 brown shorts and 1 white (2001).

Carlton wore white shorts in all 13 finals it ever played against South Melbourne and St. Kilda.

Hawthorn never wore white shorts in the 13 finals it played against Melbourne, Fitzroy and Footscray.

After wearing black shorts in the 1958 first semi final against North Melbourne, Fitzroy's next nine finals were played in white shorts.

After appearing in black shorts in the 1953 first semi final against Essendon, Footscray never again wore black shorts in a final. Nine consecutive white-trousered finals from 1953 to 1974 were followed by the club's only final in red shorts - the 1976 elimination final loss to Geelong.

Footscray and North Melbourne never played a grand final in black shorts. Footscray only ever wore black shorts in three finals - the first semis of 1942, 1944 and 1953. All of the other 13 finals it played from 1925 to 1974 were in white shorts. North Melbourne never won any final in black shorts.

(note - from 1985, it became quite common for both sides to wear coloured shorts. The last league match featuring both teams in white shorts was the Essendon-Fitzroy grand final of 1923. In 1980, Collingwood made an administrative mistake that saw both teams wear white shorts in a night competition match against Essendon. Fitzroy was fined by the league for mistakenly wearing blue shorts in a night competition match against North Melbourne in 1977. North Melbourne deliberately wore blue shorts in a league match at South Melbourne in 1976 and received a fine for its trouble.)

This is awesome... the footy jumpers board will feast on this. Do you have a database of what shorts were worn in which game? How did you source it?

 

[Derby103]

This is awesome... the footy jumpers board will feast on this. Do you have a database of what shorts were worn in which game? How did you source it?

Thanks! Yes, I have it on an Excel spreadsheet if anyone wants to get hold of it.
The sources were the online versions of The Age, The Argus, The Football Record, Table Talk, Punch, The Australasian and The Weekly Times. Also Youtube. And the elusive Fitzroy-Richmond final of 1924 came from the microfilm of The Herald.

 

[Gibbsy]

Thanks! Yes, I have it on an Excel spreadsheet if anyone wants to get hold of it.
The sources were the online versions of The Age, The Argus, The Football Record, Table Talk, Punch, The Australasian and The Weekly Times. Also Youtube. And the elusive Fitzroy-Richmond final of 1924 came from the microfilm of The Herald.

Sweet! I'd love to see it. I bet you're looking forward to the Herald coming online to Trove.

You can easily upload it here to BF by clicking on the "Upload a File" next to "Post Reply"

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Sweet! I'd love to see it. I bet you're looking forward to the Herald coming online to Trove.

You can easily upload it here to BF by clicking on the "Upload a File" next to "Post Reply"

This information will also be beneficial, welcoming and informative for the list inaccuracies thread on here.

 

[Derby103]

Sweet! I'd love to see it. I bet you're looking forward to the Herald coming online to Trove.

You can easily upload it here to BF by clicking on the "Upload a File" next to "Post Reply"

Sadly, it won't allow me to upload the file, Gibbsy. It says:

The following error occurred
The uploaded file does not have an allowed extension

I tried it with .xlsx and .xls, but it won't allow Excel uploads at all.

 

[35Daicos]

Sadly, it won't allow me to upload the file, Gibbsy. It says:

The following error occurred
The uploaded file does not have an allowed extension

I tried it with .xlsx and .xls, but it won't allow Excel uploads at all.

If it's not against BigFooty rules, you should be able to just rename the file extension e.g. .txt and then upload it. Those who download it would only need to rename the extension and all should be okay for them to view the file.

 

[emuboy]

It took St. Kilda an amazing 53 years to register a 100-point victory, not winning by a century until the Saints thrashed the eventually winless Hawthorn by 109-points in Round 2 1950. And at the start of the 1991 season, the Saints had just 3 wins by 100-points or more to their credit, the Hawthorn game and two wins over Fitzroy by 102-points in 1963 and 110-points in 1970.

 

[Procrastinator35]

It took St. Kilda an amazing 53 years to register a 100-point victory, not winning by a century until the Saints thrashed the eventually winless Hawthorn by 109-points in Round 2 1950. And at the start of the 1991 season, the Saints had just 3 wins by 100-points or more to their credit, the Hawthorn game and two wins over Fitzroy by 102-points in 1963 and 110-points in 1970.

Must you bring up 1950.

Hows that saying go again?.....During the darkest hour the savior is born!....Enter John Kennedy Senior.

 

[35Daicos]

I see this topic has had a bit of a run around here in the past, but having given it a brief mention in a post in another thread thought I'd revisit it!

Many would argue that Fitzroy (last with just 2 wins and a draw at end of H&A) deserve to be classed as the 1916 Wooden Spoon "winner", and that for Richmond to be considered the wooden spooner is not fair. I always considered it football's best "fun fact" that Fitzroy were both wooden spooners and premiers in the same season, and it probably should not have been changed!!

Looking at the older AFL Record Season Guides (up to and including 2002) the AFL had Fitzroy as the 1916 Wooden Spoon team, and they included the comment "Only four clubs competed and Fitzroy finally won Premiership. Collingwood won only one match in the "Second Round" when all teams against played each other". In the 2003 book (and no doubt all of them since) Richmond is said to be the Wooden Spoon team for 1916, and no explanation is given regarding the change.

Curiously, there was an article on the AFL website (an edited version of a story published in the round-five edition of the AFL Record) as recently as 2016 which contradicts this:- http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-23/fitzroys-remarkable-1916-season

IT’S PROBABLY footy’s most quirky and scarcely believable trivia question. Which team won the wooden spoon and the premiership in the same season? To the uninitiated, it’s an impossible proposition. But we assure you it’s not a trick question.

Fitzroy’s 1916 triumph is the greatest anomaly in Grand Final history.

So for that change to have been made in the AFL Record Season Guide I assume that it was decided "officially" c. 2002 to 'strip' Fitzroy of the 1916 Wooden Spoon and 'award' it to Richmond. Yet if so, why was there that Football Record/AFL website article all those years later that doesn't go along with it?! Confusing!!

I'm also puzzled as to why they bothered to mention Collingwood (in the comment about Fitzroy's 1916 season) at all in the older Season Guides. Maybe I'm missing something but I just don't see that what they got up to is relevant here!

 

[Procrastinator35]

I see this topic has had a bit of a run around here in the past, but having given it a brief mention in a post in another thread thought I'd revisit it!

Many would argue that Fitzroy (last with just 2 wins and a draw at end of H&A) deserve to be classed as the 1916 Wooden Spoon "winner", and that for Richmond to be considered the wooden spooner is not fair. I always considered it football's best "fun fact" that Fitzroy were both wooden spooners and premiers in the same season, and it probably should not have been changed!!

Looking at the older AFL Record Season Guides (up to and including 2002) the AFL had Fitzroy as the 1916 Wooden Spoon team, and they included the comment "Only four clubs competed and Fitzroy finally won Premiership. Collingwood won only one match in the "Second Round" when all teams against played each other". In the 2003 book (and no doubt all of them since) Richmond is said to be the Wooden Spoon team for 1916, and no explanation is given regarding the change.

Curiously, there was an article on the AFL website (an edited version of a story published in the round-five edition of the AFL Record) as recently as 2016 which contradicts this:- http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-23/fitzroys-remarkable-1916-season

IT’S PROBABLY footy’s most quirky and scarcely believable trivia question. Which team won the wooden spoon and the premiership in the same season? To the uninitiated, it’s an impossible proposition. But we assure you it’s not a trick question.

Fitzroy’s 1916 triumph is the greatest anomaly in Grand Final history.

So for that change to have been made in the AFL Record Season Guide I assume that it was decided "officially" c. 2002 to 'strip' Fitzroy of the 1916 Wooden Spoon and 'award' it to Richmond. Yet if so, why was there that Football Record/AFL website article all those years later that doesn't go along with it?! Confusing!!

I'm also puzzled as to why they bothered to mention Collingwood (in the comment about Fitzroy's 1916 season) at all in the older Season Guides. Maybe I'm missing something but I just don't see that what they got up to is relevant here!

I don't see any inherent problem nor contradiction with Fitzroy being awarded both the Wooden Spoon & Premiership in the same year.....After all, that's what actually happened.

The anomoly that needs to be included so far as an asterisk of exclamation suffices......Is the fact that there were only 4 teams competing to begin with (Given the effects of the First World War).....So Fitzroy did win the wooden spoon during the H & A season, while managing to go undefeated during the finals, which included knocking off the minor Premiers in Carlton twice, in order to do so.

 

[35Daicos]

I don't see any inherent problem nor contradiction with Fitzroy being awarded both the Wooden Spoon & Premiership in the same year.....After all, that's what actually happened.

The anomoly that needs to be included so far as an asterisk of exclamation suffices......Is the fact that there were only 4 teams competing to begin with (Given the effects of the First World War).....So Fitzroy did win the wooden spoon during the H & A season, while managing to go undefeated during the finals, which included knocking off the minor Premiers in Carlton twice, in order to do so.

Much too late now, but (in the relevant section of the AFL's annual guide) they should have at least pointed out that a change had been made, and offered an explanation as to why it had been made. I did an online search of the Football Record to see if there was anything said about the matter back in 2002-03 and didn't find anything, so assume it's likely that no official comment has ever been made on that change.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Much too late now, but (in the relevant section of the AFL's annual guide) they should have at least pointed out that a change had been made, and offered an explanation as to why it had been made. I did an online search of the Football Record to see if there was anything said about the matter back in 2002-03 and didn't find anything, so assume it's likely that no official comment has ever been made on that change.

You'd reckon that if anyone of significance from the Richmond football club noticed it, then there'd be some form of protest.

Has the subtle change been enacted so far as overall wooden-spoon totals go?

 

[35Daicos]

You'd reckon that if anyone of significance from the Richmond football club noticed it, then there'd be some form of protest.

Has the subtle change been enacted so far as overall wooden-spoon totals go?

As far as the AFL guide is concerned? They now have both Fitzroy and Richmond on 7 Wooden Spoons. The change was made in time for the 2003 book, and the tally was changed to Fitzroy 7, Richmond 5 from Fitzroy 8, Richmond 4 (in the 2002 book). Richmond have 'won' two more 'spoons' since 2002, of course.

 

[Procrastinator35]

As far as the AFL guide is concerned? They now have both Fitzroy and Richmond on 7 Wooden Spoons. The change was made in time for the 2003 book, and the tally was changed to Fitzroy 7, Richmond 5 from Fitzroy 8, Richmond 4 (in the 2002 book). Richmond have 'won' two more 'spoons' since 2002, of course.

Surprised that the Tigers have accepted that, given they won 3 more games that year during the H & A.....Upon which the Wooden Spoon is surely awarded?

Of course, the real anomaly lies in the Roys being so terrible for all of that year, only to then pull 3 wins out of the bag when it mattered most.....I'd put a fair bit of money down on some very long odds & bets being collected upon that year....Bribes & match-fixing weren't uncommon in that era.

 

[35Daicos]

rbartlett can you shed any light on this discussion, in particular on how Richmond reacted back in 2002-03 (looks to have happened about then) when the AFL decided that your club, and not Fitzroy, were the 'official' Wooden Spoon 'winners' for 1916?

 

[clarkoscluster]

(note - from 1985, it became quite common for both sides to wear coloured shorts. The last league match featuring both teams in white shorts was the Essendon-Fitzroy grand final of 1923. In 1980, Collingwood made an administrative mistake that saw both teams wear white shorts in a night competition match against Essendon. Fitzroy was fined by the league for mistakenly wearing blue shorts in a night competition match against North Melbourne in 1977. North Melbourne deliberately wore blue shorts in a league match at South Melbourne in 1976 and received a fine for its trouble.)

FYI - Port v Haw Rd 5, 2000 - both sides wore white shorts.

 

[Gibbsy]

rbartlett can you shed any light on this discussion, in particular on how Richmond reacted back in 2002-03 (looks to have happened about then) when the AFL decided that your club, and not Fitzroy, were the 'official' Wooden Spoon 'winners' for 1916?

Or did they even realise at all?

 

[35Daicos]

Or did they even realise at all?

It's quite possible that the AFL "snuck that in" without making any kind of an announcement, so fair question I'd say! Nothing has been announced publically regarding the change made recently to the 1910 Leading Goalkicker (H&A) Award result, so perhaps certain stories are allowed to just show up in the record books without them hitting the headlines!

 

[Gibbsy]

It's quite possible that the AFL "snuck that in" without making any kind of an announcement, so fair question I'd say! Nothing has been announced publically regarding the change made recently to the 1910 Leading Goalkicker (H&A) Award result, so perhaps certain stories are allowed to just show up in the record books without them hitting the headlines!

It just doesn't surprise me that these changes get made so quietly. I've always thought that the AFL has a bigger duty to the sport (as its de facto gatekeeper - a discussion for another day...), in particular statistics and the preservation of history. I thought it was a great effort to get up a public stats database in 2008 for the 150 year celebrations but it was a better indication of the AFL's true priorities when they let it die.

It's unfortunate that the hard work is left to too few - the small number of dedicated and genuine people inside AFL House that care about the sort of stuff we do, as well as the independents like Blueseum, Demonwiki, etc.

When I saw that story the other day about the Bill James myth I was pleasantly surprised as you never usually see anything related to history pre-1990 on the AFL site. It just so happens that one of the Media team deemed it newsworthy but evidently that's not usually the case, hence what I think has happened here with the leading goalkicker change. Plus, the AFL would hardly want to highlight their own incompetence in record-keeping.

 

[35Daicos]

It just doesn't surprise me that these changes get made so quietly. I've always thought that the AFL has a bigger duty to the sport (as its de facto gatekeeper - a discussion for another day...), in particular statistics and the preservation of history. I thought it was a great effort to get up a public stats database in 2008 for the 150 year celebrations but it was a better indication of the AFL's true priorities when they let it die.

It's unfortunate that the hard work is left to too few - the small number of dedicated and genuine people inside AFL House that care about the sort of stuff we do, as well as the independents like Blueseum, Demonwiki, etc.

When I saw that story the other day about the Bill James myth I was pleasantly surprised as you never usually see anything related to history pre-1990 on the AFL site. It just so happens that one of the Media team deemed it newsworthy but evidently that's not usually the case, hence what I think has happened here with the leading goalkicker change. Plus, the AFL would hardly want to highlight their own incompetence in record-keeping.

Yes, I agree with pretty much all of that. I did say this on Footy History fairly recently, but there should be a page on the AFL website where confirmed changes to the official records can be shown, so people don't have to be unsure, or rely on others to pass on information about such things.

Nothing has been altered on this page regarding the 1910/Lee situation, why I don't really know!: http://www.afl.com.au/stats/awards/coleman-medal

It's not quite the same thing, but I'm glad they do at least have the AFL Season Guide updates page. At least with that they're prepared to admit there can be mistakes, and invite people to advise them of any errors they spot: http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/afl-season-guide-updates

 

[Procrastinator35]

Yes, I agree with pretty much all of that. I did say this on Footy History fairly recently, but there should be a page on the AFL website where confirmed changes to the official records can be shown, so people don't have to be unsure, or rely on others to pass on information about such things.

Nothing has been altered on this page regarding the 1910/Lee situation, why I don't really know!: http://www.afl.com.au/stats/awards/coleman-medal

It's not quite the same thing, but I'm glad they do at least have the AFL Season Guide updates page. At least with that they're prepared to admit there can be mistakes, and invite people to advise them of any errors they spot: http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/afl-season-guide-updates

Must have advised them half a dozen times now, that they continue to miss Rougheads' 75 goals 51 behinds kicked in 2008, in the Hawk leading goal-kickers section.....It's been 10 years since now & yet still no inclusion or alteration has occured. (Page 197 of the current 2018 edition).