The best side in history is ????????

[Carey=Queen]

Information from the AFL FINALS Book – Official finals statistical history of the AFL

The point system is 3 point for Premiership, 2 points for runner up… - did not

Bother with third place

Collingwood 14 total 22 86

Essendon 16 13 74

Carlton 16 12 72

Richmond 10 12 54

Melbourne 12 5 46

Hawthorn 9 5 37

Fitzroy 8 5 34

Geelong 6 8 34

South Melbourne 3 9 27

Kangaroos 3 5 19

St’kilda 1 4 11

West Coast 2 1 8

Adelaide 2 0 6

Western Bulldogs 1 1 5

Brisbane 0 0 0

Port Power 0 0 0

NOW YOU CAN ALL START TO MAKE UP YOUR
BULLSHIT EXCUSES..

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Yeah but anyone can allocate points for anything they like. Doesn't make it right now does it? Should flags only be worth one point more than 2nd place? It's all a matter of opinion. If others are saying there are other factors involved and three clubs could lay claim to being the best, wouldn't you think that it was a close thing? Get over yourself!

 

[Carey=Queen]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's:
Yeah but anyone can allocate points for anything they like. Doesn't make it right now does it? Should flags only be worth one point more than 2nd place? It's all a matter of opinion. If others are saying there are other factors involved and three clubs could lay claim to being the best, wouldn't you think that it was a close thing? Get over yourself!

Get out of your horizontal postion,go get the stats and work them out to your favour including third cos I cant be farked ???

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Some of the best things in life are done horizontally. I couldn't be buggered either. I'll leave it as a close run thing.

 

[QT]

Multiply adelaides score by 10 coz weve only been in for like 10 yrs

and then youll get a true indiciation!

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Let's not and say we did!

 

[Dan26]

Yeah, but Adelaide weren't the best team when they won their Grand Finals.
The Crows have won 47% of their games since entering the comp. This should be the measure of how we judge the Crows.

If we say the Crows have won 2 flags in 10 years, it makes them look better than they actually have been. By saying the Crows won 2 flags, and ignorng everythign else, it mean we ignre the fact, that they only finished 4th and 5th when they won the flags. it ignores the fact, they NEVER done better than 13-9. And it ignores the fact that they have only made the finals 3 tiems in 10 years.

 

[AlfAndrews]

You're all barking up the wrong tree.

The only way to determine which Club is the best of them all is to add up the total number of Brownlow Medal votes received by each team and divide by the number of players that have represented each club. You then have to offset any possible umpire bias by drawing an inversely parralel relationship between the Brownlow votes per player and the total number of free kicks awarded to the team ... I suppose the best option here would be a simple ratio: i.e. Brownlow votes per player divided by total free kicks awarded to to the team. Lets call the result "q". Now the square root of q should be a direct function of an ability factor tailored to weather conditions ... because, as we know, adverse conditions affect the skill levels of all players. But how do we define "weather". Is mere temperature enough? I think not. So the weather factor needs to expressed as a measure of inclemency which should then be added to q to ensure that any club disadvantaged by having to play all their matches in inclement weather conditions will have this factor taken into account in assessing their over-all ability. But how should the elements of temperature and rainfall be combined to produce an effective weather figure for our purposes. Is a mere hard figure enough? I think not. The weather factor must be considered relative to a defined "average" weather condition for the Club in question. For example, a windy day at Western Oval should not be considered as "inclement" as the same conditions experienced at Colonial Stadium, since a windy day would really be the norm for Western Oval. So the conditions, with regard to rainfall and wind, on any given day would need to be expressed as a function of the conditions present on a theoretical "normal" day at the venue under question. So, we have now factored in the abilities of every player to represent each club, making allowances for the weather factors that each player had to play in ... but acknowledging that an individual player who is used to playing in particular conditions will not be at as much of a disadvantage in those conditions as a player not used to playing in those conditions. So, the weather factor, which we'll call "w", needs to be expressed as a ratio between the combined rainfall and wind condition factors at each game played and the theoretical combined weather factor.

So, with our q factor offset by our w factor ... we are beginning to see the truth emerge. But, as we know, football is a team game ... not a game for individuals. So the individually offset q factors are meaningless without the cohesion element. Radical dispersion of outcomes would indicate a lack of social cohesion. So the mean outcome for all players to represent a club in any given season needs to be compared to the maximum and minimum outcomes. The greater the difference between the extremities and the mean, the less the cohesion of the team in any given year. So to arrive at a figure which would indicate "cohesiveness" it would be best to substract the difference between the extremities and the mean from a pre-ordained theoretic maximum ... say 100. This gives us an effective measure of cohesiveness which we can call "c". So, as you can see, a formula is taking shape. q offset against w to give the overall ability of the players that have represented the club, multiplied by c to give a measure of the actual effectiveness of the combined individual brilliances of all the players within the "team game" context. This would need to calculated on a week-to-week basis, backdated to 1897 ... with other formulae incorporate to take account of those clubs that didn't exist in 1897. I would then suggest a point system from 1 to 16, or 1 to 12, whatever, allocated on a round-by-round basis to determine a "premier" each season. The winning club shall be the one whose q times c over w factor, calculated each week and totalled at the end of each season, is enough to put it at the top of more "q times c over w tables" than any other.

------------------
**floreat pica**

[This message has been edited by AlfAndrews (edited 14 January 2001).]

 

[walshy1993]

ok, what do all teams play for

premierships

who has the most
essendon and carlton equal

then split that by finals victories,

then essendon is infront

 

[Fred]

Whaddaloadarubbish.

Ask the players what they play for. It's not points for second,or top spot at end of home and away, or winning games percentage - they play for the flag.
Meaningless to try and compare teams from different eras. You can only beat the opposition played on the day.
As for Adelaide not being the best side in their flag years Dan, have a look at Premiership list. That shows the best team.

 

[Port Adelaide 1870]

WWWWHHHHHHOOOOOOOAAAAAHJHHHHHHH.......


What we have here is a very special case !!!!!!!!


Dont Howl me down.....allow me some grace...

Most of the clubs mentioned won the bulk of those premierships in a a local state based league........the VFL

The AFL represents an entirely new chapter to Australian Football on a National level, the premierships these clubs won in the local state based comp were worthy, however they cannot meet the level matched when played against city teams from thousands of miles away.

one premiership won in Victoria... doesnt equal one premiership won in a league that covers the rest of Australia...

My thrust is not to put down those clubs..just to show balance, fairnessand a sense of perspective that acknowledges the reality of achievement from a state based comp....to what is achieved at a NATIONAL level.


At the same time as the old VFL metamorphasised into what is now a New National competition....the AFL... and the core clubs of the New National competition are the old VFL clubs and the administration of the AFL remained essentially the same...We wouldexpect the hierachy to as Non Victorian members of that league to accept records won in a local league to equal..well those won in a national competition....

The rest of Australia humbly accepts these conditions to be able to play in the new AFL.


The one stick in the mud is......... the Port Adelaide Football club......

Formed in 1870 it

had won 34 state based premierships up until 1996
runner up 35 times
third 24 times

" Champions of Australia" 1890 , 1910 , 1913 , 1914.

!914 side went thru the season undefeated, invited into the end of season Champions of Australia title by East Fremantle and Carlton.
beat them both.
Played the combined SA state side.....beat them

Has supplied the highest goalkicker in one season in SA history :153

supplied the most leAding Goal kickers since 1870 : 33

All Australians :John Abley 1956, 58 , 1961
John Cahill :1969
Greg Phillips : 1980
Mark Williams : 1980
Tony Giles : 1983
Craig Bradley : 1983 and 1985
Stephen Curtis : 1983
Greg Anderson :1987
Martin Leslie : 1988

Adam Heuskes : 1997

most Magarey Medallists : 20 The first in 1899
The Brownlow and Sandover medals were modelled on the Magarey medal...

Their CLUB has missed the major round only fifteen times since 1877, in whatever competition it has found itself in.

PA1870

 

[Dan26]

PA1870,

God I am f*ckin sick of you.

You disgust me.

Whether you like ot or not, the VFL was always the biggest league. We've talked about this before......how can the WAFL and the SANFL with only one-third the population of Victoria produce a stronger competiton on AVERAGE ?? It's impossible.

Anyway, even if the VFL wasnt strong (obviously it was), it doesn't really matter anyway, because OFFICIALLY the VFL and the AFL are the same competition........whether you like it or not. You seem to be in denial.

Do you think that when the "name change" to AFL took place in 1990, that a whole new comp started, or something? It was still the same comp, just with a name change.

If it was a brand new competition, then all the players would lose their clubs, and they would go into a draft, where 16 brand new teams would pick up the players.

Your ignorance is astounding. OFFICIALLY, the AFL has been running for 104 years. You can't argue that. The standard of the VFL was irrelevant. It could have been the worst comp in the world. The fact is, that regardles of standard, the VFL and AFL are STILL the same competition. This means, that Essendon has won 16 flags in the VFL/AFL.

Overall, the EFC has won 20 flags. 4 of these were in the VFA. But I am smart enough to realise that the VFA is a sepearte conmpetiton to the VFL/AFL, so these flags don't count in VFL/AFL history.

Just remember, West Coast, Freo, Port Adelaide etc etc JOINED the VFL and forced the name change. You didn't "take-over" the competiton. You JOINED the VFL and the VFL BECAME national. Since it became national, a name change was needed, so it became the AFL.

YES, YOU JOINED AN ALREADY EXISTING COMPETITON. YOU CAN'T START HISTORY FROM 1990, JUST BECAUSE 2 TEAMS JOINED. GOING BY THAT LOGIC, A NEW COMP STARTS EVERY TIME A NEW TEAM JOINS.

GET IT IN YOUR HEAD PA1870.......WEST COAST AND BRISBANE "JOINED" AN ALREADY EXISTING COMPETITION, FORCING A NAME CHANGE. IT IS STILL THE SAME COMP, THAT HAS BEEN GOING FOR 104 YEARS.

Like I said, the standard of the VFL (which was the highest standard in the country anyway) is irrelevant, because even if it wasn't a strong comp, it is still OFFICIALLY the same competition. Therefore, all records from 1897 onwards are included. Port Adelaide are an old club, but they only joined the AFL in 1997, so their "AFL" reords only start from 1997.

Similarly, Essendon Football Club started in 1872, but their "VFL/AFL" records start in 1897.

Now, get outta your fishbowl, and start living in the real world, you dill

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

While not attempting to go anywhere near the abuse dished out my over excitable old foe above me, I want to again point out that the standard between VFL and AFL has only risen ever so slightly. Before the transformation, Victorian clubs used to 'rape and pillage' interstate clubs of a lot of their playing talent (so to speak). The National comp has brought about the salary cap and draft as well as a supposedly higher standard of play due to the involvement of 'strong' interstate clubs. How then are the likes of Essendon and Carlton able to maintain high standards just like their pre-AFL standard despite having their 'raping and pillaging' privileges taken away??? The answer? (a) we adapted because of our professionalism (b) We are able to entice players to our club because of our rich history and (c) The standard did not rise anywhere near as much as some interstate supporters would have us believe.

Did players that crossed both eras (VFL and AFL) suddenly find that the game was harder because of the interstate teams involvement? I haven't heard that. The game does evolve and go through different stages. Great skill eras, tough, hard eras, prodigious goalkicking eras. It has done so since footy began. Human beings are becoming taller and stronger as time passes. Modern medicine allows this. To suggest that any lift in play from the VFL to the AFL is purely because of the National comp would not be totally accurate. The standard of play in every sporting competition world wide constantly evolves and improves. As human beings we thrive to better ourselves and set new boundaries. World records athletics or swimming times do not go backwards. Generally you will not find too many areas where times in the present are far worse than they were years before.

I assure you, there wouldn't have been too many VFL players pre-1987 that suddenly couldn't swim because their pond became larger!

The VFL was overall (allowing for fleeting aberrations)a higher standard than other state based comps. The claim that we asked interstate teams to join to prop up our 'ailing comp' may or may not be true. Doesn't matter, the fact is they wanted to join, they didn't have to! They accepted all of the terms and conditions including the fact that it was still an evolved VFL comp and all history and records were to be maintained.

End of argument. Slice it any way you want. It still amounts to the same thing.

------------------
mens sana in corpore sano - a sound mind in a sound body

 

[Hawkforce.]

Alf Andrews,

Have you factored in that chaotic butterfly on the other side of the world that is so blithly flapping its wings?!?!?!

Dan24,

I know it is a long way down, but it would help if you climbed down from your soap box. This is the 5th time you have replied to one of PA1870's pro-Port posts with exactly the same arguments.

PA1870,

How many of those All-Australians were playing for Port when selected?

Did someone mention that Collingwood LOST 22 Grand Finals?

BLOODY CHOKERS!

 

[AlfAndrews]

Originally posted by Hawkforce.:
PA1870,
How many of those All-Australians were playing for Port when selected?

I'm sure my Port supporting friend won't mind if I answer this on his behalf.

ANSWER: All of them!!!

**cheer, cheer the black and the white**

 

[Dan26]

ODN's.

Exactly right. Nearly all the best players in the country were playing in the VFL anyway. It's not as if, the comp suddenly became of a magically higher standard in 1987.