The rankings (from best to worst) of the 125 VFL-AFL premiership teams

[Dan26]

How do you know the Essendon 2000 team was any better than the Essendon 2001 team?

Ummmm, because I watched all 25 games that both teams played. One of them won all games bar one (a loss which they should have won), had a percentage from all games over 160%, and won their 3 finals by the biggest aggregate in history. The other (the 2001 team) lost 6 games (they went 19-6), had the 2nd best win-loss record for the year, had a percentage of about 130% and lost the Grand Final by 5 goals.

To quote my 14 year old niece.... DUHHHH!

How do you know the Essendon 2000 team was any better than the Essendon 2001 team? How do you know it wasn’t simply a matter of things going well for them coinciding with things going wrong for would-be challengers in 2000, and the opposite occurring in 2001?

Because all years are of an identical standard - only the distribution of the talent changes. How do we know this? Because the combined ability of the 700 AFL players each season will obviously be identical with such a large sample. You mathematically cannot have such a huge sample of players with one year having the combined ability of 700 players being less. It's impossible.

How those players are distributed amongst the 16 clubs can change. So you can have "strong" years like 2000 and 2011 where the distribution of talent is centered amongst the top two teams, or you can have an even year like 1997 or 1993 where there are no outstanding teams, but the talent is more evenly distributed.

Either way, when you look at a teams for-and-against percentage, that percentage is accumulated against the entire league.

So when Essendon had a percentage of 163% in 2000, that percentage was accumulated over the course of 25 games versus the entire 700 players in the AFL. And the combined average talent level of those 700 players is no different year in year out.

Your method seems to assume that the opposition every Premiership team faces is equal, something that doesn’t stand to reason.

It doesn't assume that at all. In fact, the opposite. The quality of the opposition is irrelevant because that is something the premiership winning team cannot control. This list is a ranking of the ability of the premiership winning teams themselves, not their opponents. And as stated above, the combined average quality of the opposition clubs is always identical anyway.

Take 2007. Geelong was one of the most dominant teams of all time. They had no outstanding opponents, but that doesn't matter. The overall quality of the AFL that year was the same as any other year, the difference being that the talent was distributed quite evenly from 2nd through to 8th. Still the same talent - just an even distribution. Geelong's percentage of 160% in 2007 was accumulated versus that entire league - a league that has the same average talent level every single season. All that changes is the distribution.

This is where the likes of Essendon 2000 fall over, there is no sustained performance to prove they are indeed a truly great Premiership team,

LOL!

You mention, "The Essendon 2000" team in your post. You don't mention 2001. Or 2002, or 1999. You said, 2000 yourself. Your words.

So, lets look at sustained performance in 2000 shall we, because that's the year you mentioned yourself.: Including pre-season: 29 wins, 1 loss, 3 finals wins by 230 points, a percentage of 160%. That's sustained performance. They didn't have a flat spot for the entire season.

If you want to measure "success over an era", as opposed to the quality of premiership teams within a season, that is a different topic and has no relevance to this thread.

Also, your claim that the Brisbane 2000 team Essendon trounced was a similar side to 2001 is incorrect, there were 8 different Lions players compared to the 2001 Grand Final team. You have argued very poorly here, switching measuring devices as suits your position by on one hand describing that Brisbane team as similar to their 2001 Premiership team despite containing 8 different players, whilst in the same post trying to make out the two Essendon Grand Final teams with only 3 players different are somehow completely different teams.

This is one of the most stupid arguments I have heard. You've been around long enough surely to know that there are often HUGE difference in output between one year and the next from the same club even if the players are similar.

Take Collingwood of 2011 and 2012. In 2011 Collingwood was one of the best teams of all time. Went 20-2 in the H&A season with a percentage of nearly 170%

The next year, with almost the same playing list, they went 16-6 with a percentage of 116% and were soundly beaten in the Preliminary Final by Sydney.

Here's how you would argue that:

"Collingwood in 2012 proved that 2011 was a soft year. Sydney of 2012 beat this so called "best team of all time" easily in the Preliminary Final and Sydney then won the premiership. This proves that Collingwood were not any good in 2011. They just were okay in a weak year. Sydney beat the same team easily the next year. This proves that Sydney 2012 would easily beat Collingwood of 2011"


Everything in italics above is total crap of course, but that's exactly the imbecilic argument you and others push forward.

 

[NoobPie]

My god the obtuseness is at a level that this guy should be in a room being observed by a dozen people in white lab coats with clipboards

 

[Back One Out]

Okay, let's nip this stupid argument in the bud immediately. Just because a team is one year removed from another team doesn't make them the same. Players are at different ages and different stages of their careers. The delicate chemistry can change dramatically from one year to another.

Essendon of 2001 were good, but not great. They were a run-of-the-mill 17-5 side with a percentage of around 130%. Nothing special by minor-premiership standards. The fact they were one year removed from 2000 is irrelevant, because there are dozens of examples from all clubs of teams being far better from one year to the next. Brisbane of 2000 were not great either despite being one year removed from 2001.

I think the reason why the Essendon 2000 team ended up being one-season wonders is because a number of their players were juicing.

My abiding memory of those Bombers was how angry they were every week. Aggressive like a pack of dogs... picking fights and starting melees whenever their opponents celebrated a goal. Huuuuge levels of testosterone. They played out of their skins that year. Bullet proof. Career best seasons from a number of Essendon players.

We know that James Hird received special "dietary advice" from his mate, Shane Charters throughout the 2000 season. Dr Ageless helped Hirdy return to career best form after three seasons marred by injuries post-'96 Brownlow

Hirdy's close association with Dr Ageless is the reason why the Bombers became embroiled in the federal police's sting operation which eventually led to the WADA bans. When the so-called "rogue sports scientists' needed someone to import the gear from China, Hirdy knew just the man to call... The man who helped him though the last half of his career... The same guy who'd been lining his pockets by smuggling steroids into Australia and selling it to gym junkies.

 

[Dan26]

My god the obtuseness is at a level that this guy should be in a room being observed by a dozen people in white lab coats with clipboards

You contribute nothing. Nothing. You're a cheerleading beta-male lemming with no coherant arguments. You're an irrelevance.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

won their 3 finals by the biggest aggregate in history

Equal biggest

 

[Dan26]

Equal biggest

True. Geelong of 2007 the same amount.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You contribute nothing. Nothing. You're a cheerleading beta-male lemming with no coherant arguments. You're an irrelevance.

So you care enough to spend a near lifetime working out an order of merit for the 125 VFL/AFL Premiers, but you don’t care enough to accept scrutiny and criticism over methods and assessments?

 

[Dan26]

So you care enough to spend a near lifetime working out an order of merit for the 125 VFL/AFL Premiers, but you don’t care enough to accept scrutiny and criticism over methods and assessments?

I'm happy for people to disagree. That's the whole point of an opinion. And I'll defend my opinion, if I believe the person making the criticism is misinformed or is using flawed arguments. That's why I went to town on your flawed views with my previous post.

 

[WilloTree]

29. Melbourne 2021
30. Essendon 1901
31. Geelong 1925
32. Port Adelaide 2004
33. West Coast 1992

How much weighting do you put on the overall strength of the competition?

It's an interesting time for the comp. People who have been following for some time see patterns as clubs rise and fall (some people call them Premiership windows).

In the last 6 years Fremantle, Sydney, Hawthorn, Collingwood, West Coast and Richmond have all experienced a significant 'fall' from being very strong teams to outside the 8. This has created a vacuum.

Someone had to fill the vacuum and well done to Melbourne for taking the opportunity. But, the competition isn't as strong as it was even 12 months ago.

It's a bit like recording a number 1 single the year after the Beatles broke up. It's still a heck of an achievement, but the overall competition just isn't as strong.

I also think you're vastly underrating the enormity of what West Coast achieved in 92 and 94.

 

[Dan26]

How much weighting do you put on the overall strength of the competition?

It's an interesting time for the comp. People who have been following for some time see patterns as clubs rise and fall (some people call them Premiership windows).

In the last 6 years Fremantle, Sydney, Hawthorn, Collingwood, West Coast and Richmond have all experienced a significant 'fall' from being very strong teams to outside the 8. This has created a vacuum.

Someone had to fill the vacuum and well done to Melbourne for taking the opportunity. But, the competition isn't as strong as it was even 12 months ago.

It's a bit like recording a number 1 single the year after the Beatles broke up. It's still a heck of an achievement, but the overall competition just isn't as strong.

I also think you're vastly underrating the enormity of what West Coast achieved in 92 and 94.

See my post above as to how every year is the same quality (it's just how that quality is distributed amongst the clubs that changes)

The strength of one particular opponent in one finals match has zero relevance to the discussion. This is a measure of the dominance and ability of premiership teams, not their opponents. You can't "rank down" premiership teams because of things they have no control over, like the ability of a single opponent in a single knockout match.

This list ranks premiership teams, NOT their opponents.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Let’s have a look at your post #126 Dan. Tbh it is sh1thouse. Your words are bolded, my responses are not.

Ummmm, because I watched all 25 games that both teams played. One of them won all games bar one (a loss which they should have won), had a percentage from all games over 160%, and won their 3 finals by the biggest aggregate in history. The other (the 2001 team) lost 6 games (they went 19-6), had the 2nd best win-loss record for the year, had a percentage of about 130% and lost the Grand Final by 5 goals.

To quote my 14 year old niece.... DUHHHH!

So you watched all the games imbued with the magical power to know exactly how well the opposition was playing in each of these 25 matches? Thankfully you gave us an insight into what this magical power is based on as you went deeper into your post….

Because all years are of an identical standard - only the distribution of the talent changes. How do we know this? Because the combined ability of the 700 AFL players each season will obviously be identical with such a large sample. You mathematically cannot have such a huge sample of players with one year having the combined ability of 700 players being less. It's impossible.

What? You are now telling us that the players who make up the AFL are of a precisely identical standard when comparing any given year to any other given year. This is as ludicrous a proposition as I have seen put on this forum, congratulations, that takes some doing. I hope what you mean is we have no reliable way of knowing which years the competition is stronger or weaker so you have assumed the competition is always equal.

How those players are distributed amongst the 16 clubs can change. So you can have "strong" years like 2000 and 2011 where the distribution of talent is centered amongst the top two teams, or you can have an even year like 1997 or 1993 where there are no outstanding teams, but the talent is more evenly distributed.

Either way, when you look at a teams for-and-against percentage, that percentage is accumulated against the entire league.

So when Essendon had a percentage of 163% in 2000, that percentage was accumulated over the course of 25 games versus the entire 700 players in the AFL. And the combined average talent level of those 700 players is no different year in year out.

A teams winning record and percentage in a given year is maybe as good a guide as we can readily lay our hands upon, but it remains potentially flawed. Essendon in 2000(or any other Premier with a high %) could for example have met a lot of their opponents in a weakened state due to injuries or other issues. Another Premier with say 17 wins and 135% could have met almost every team at or near their best. The two Premiers could play to a similar standard and end up with vastly different results.

It doesn't assume that at all. In fact, the opposite. The quality of the opposition is irrelevant because that is something the premiership winning team cannot control. This list is a ranking of the ability of the premiership winning teams themselves, not their opponents. And as stated above, the combined average quality of the opposition clubs is always identical anyway.

So you are now switching inside the one post from the quality of the opposition being exactly identical in standard each season to it being irrelevant because the Premier cannot control the quality of the opposition. When you say this is a list of the ability of the Premiership teams, not their opponents……you are using the performance against those opponents as the sole measure of how good the premiership team is. Then you are trying to get around the obvious flaw in that method by the simple expedient of declaring the opposition is of exactly the same standard one year to the next. That is a preposterous assumption.

LOL!

You mention, "The Essendon 2000" team in your post. You don't mention 2001. Or 2002, or 1999. You said, 2000 yourself. Your words.

So, lets look at sustained performance in 2000 shall we, because that's the year you mentioned yourself.: Including pre-season: 29 wins, 1 loss, 3 finals wins by 230 points, a percentage of 160%. That's sustained performance. They didn't have a flat spot for the entire season.

If you want to measure "success over an era", as opposed to the quality of premiership teams within a season, that is a different topic and has no relevance to this thread.

What you are arguing is that a team who performed no better than an average top 4 team in finals in the preceding and following seasons, and had the same coach, and almost all the same players, was suddenly in one season alone, the best team to have ever played the sport. What you do have is some indicators to suggest you are right. What you don’t have is anything to confirm it is right. Especially since you are basing your assessment on the clearly flawed belief that the opposition every Premier faces is of precisely the same standard.

This is one of the most stupid arguments I have heard. You've been around long enough surely to know that there are often HUGE difference in output between one year and the next from the same club even if the players are similar.

Take Collingwood of 2011 and 2012. In 2011 Collingwood was one of the best teams of all time. Went 20-2 in the H&A season with a percentage of nearly 170%

The next year, with almost the same playing list, they went 16-6 with a percentage of 116% and were soundly beaten in the Preliminary Final by Sydney.

Here is the part of my post you describe as “one of the most stupid arguments” you have heard:

Meteoric Rise said:
Also, your claim that the Brisbane 2000 team Essendon trounced was a similar side to 2001 is incorrect, there were 8 different Lions players compared to the 2001 Grand Final team. You have argued very poorly here, switching measuring devices as suits your position by on one hand describing that Brisbane team as similar to their 2001 Premiership team despite containing 8 different players, whilst in the same post trying to make out the two Essendon Grand Final teams with only 3 players different are somehow completely different teams.

I just listed that for the record. No more needs to be said. Your statement is foolish, I was merely pointing out clear errors and inconsistencies in the claims you were making.

Here's how you would argue that:

"Collingwood in 2012 proved that 2011 was a soft year. Sydney of 2012 beat this so called "best team of all time" easily in the Preliminary Final and Sydney then won the premiership. This proves that Collingwood were not any good in 2011. They just were okay in a weak year. Sydney beat the same team easily the next year. This proves that Sydney 2012 would easily beat Collingwood of 2011"


Everything in italics above is total crap of course, but that's exactly the imbecilic argument you and others push forward.

Everything in italics is crap I agree. But to be clear, it is your crap, not mine.[/QUOTE]

 

[WilloTree]

See my post above as to how every year is the same quality (it's just how that quality is distributed amongst the clubs that changes)

The strength of one particular opponent in one finals match has zero relevance to the discussion. This is a measure of the dominance and ability of premiership teams, not their opponents. You can't "rank down" premiership teams because of things they have no control over, like the ability of a single opponent in a single knockout match.

This list ranks premiership teams, NOT their opponents.

Fair enough. That's the criteria you're using. I think maybe something in the OP to clarify?

It's not really a ranking of the 'best' though is it? You're not comparing the strengths of teams across years - just results and statistics of the winner.

Put it this way - would you rather play the Western Bulldogs team of 2021 or the Geelong team of 92? Clearly, a Premiership against good opposition should rank higher than a cake-walk.

Anyway, good effort on the list. Interesting exercise.

 

[NoobPie]

How much weighting do you put on the overall strength of the competition?

It's an interesting time for the comp. People who have been following for some time see patterns as clubs rise and fall (some people call them Premiership windows).

In the last 6 years Fremantle, Sydney, Hawthorn, Collingwood, West Coast and Richmond have all experienced a significant 'fall' from being very strong teams to outside the 8. This has created a vacuum.

Someone had to fill the vacuum and well done to Melbourne for taking the opportunity. But, the competition isn't as strong as it was even 12 months ago.

It's a bit like recording a number 1 single the year after the Beatles broke up. It's still a heck of an achievement, but the overall competition just isn't as strong.

I also think you're vastly underrating the enormity of what West Coast achieved in 92 and 94.

I think this is the key implied point that the smart people have made in this thread. You can't really judge the relative "greatness" of Melbourne 2021 until you have the context of the years afterwards

This year you have 3 of the 4 strongest performers over the last 3 years all falling from the finals. If Melbourne fall back into a rising pack next year then that greatly increases the claim that they were a good team that clicked at the right time rather than one of the great premiership teams.

Brisbane were 4 wins 5 losses in 2001 begore going on the win 16 games and the premiership. The greatness of that team, rather than a good team where things clicked during a lull, was that they went on to win the next two flags and make the GF in the fourth year.

In terms of "How much weighting (does the OP) put on the overall strength of the competition?" from the above you will discover to your amusement that he puts no weighting or, metaphorically more accurately, he puts the full weighting of all the rocks in his head

 

[Dan26]

So you watched all the games imbued with the magical power to know exactly how well the opposition was playing in each of these 25 matches? Thankfully you gave us an insight into what this magical power is based on as you went deeper into your post….

Yes I watched all 50 games (25 from the Essendon 2000 side and 25 from the Essendon 2001 side) and I can tell you that the Essendon 2000 side played to a level of dominance and ability that I have yet to see matched. it was astonishing. Hence they are number1. Statistics justify that on their own, but observationally is even more persuasive. They played at a level no one has ever matched.

What? You are now telling us that the players who make up the AFL are of a precisely identical standard when comparing any given year to any other given year.

Yes that's exactly what I am saying, which should be totally obvious to anyone with a brain.

This is as ludicrous a proposition as I have seen put on this forum

Oh shut up. It's not ludicrous. It's an almost mathematical certainty. If you know anything about numbers you will know that with an enormous sample size of 700 players, if you rate the average ability of those 700 players, they will basically be identical every year. The sample size is too big for any other conclusion.

I hope what you mean is we have no reliable way of knowing which years the competition is stronger or weaker so you have assumed the competition is always equal.

The competition on average is always equal, if you rate the ability of the entire league. Always. The only thing that changes is how the talent is distributed. Hence you can have strong teams, or you could have all teams equal with all 18 teams all having 11-11 records. The overall talent level of the entire league is still the same every year and always will be.

So, when a team like Essendon of 2000 achieves a percentage of 163% this is done against the entire league of 700 players, who on average must be equal in ability every year due to the large sample size. To argue otherwise would be like arguing that you could toss a coin 700 time and come up with 65% heads. Yeah its possible, but it would be one in a million.

A teams winning record and percentage in a given year is maybe as good a guide as we can readily lay our hands upon, but it remains potentially flawed. Essendon in 2000(or any other Premier with a high %) could for example have met a lot of their opponents in a weakened state due to injuries or other issues. Another Premier with say 17 wins and 135% could have met almost every team at or near their best. The two Premiers could play to a similar standard and end up with vastly different results.

Garbage.

There is no evidence or logic, that over the course of 22 games, one premiership team happened to always meet opponents in a weakened state week after week, every week for 22 weeks on end. Once again, this is so unlikely as to be virtually mathematically impossible

What you are arguing is that a team who performed no better than an average top 4 team in finals in the preceding and following seasons...

Irrelevant. Just as Melbourne's 2020 season is irrelevant to the quality of how they played in 2021

Just like Geelong's 2007 season is irrelevant to how they played in 2006.

and had the same coach, and almost all the same players, was suddenly in one season alone, the best team to have ever played the sport.

It's not unusual for teams with the same coach and similar players to have dramatic jumps from one season to the next. Richmond went from 13th to 1st. There are not just dozens of examples, there are hundreds. We are not judging the ability of teams in the years BEFORE they won a premiership. We are judging the ability and dominance of premiership teams.

What you don’t have is anything to confirm it is right.

best win-loss record ever
best percentage versus the finalists of all time.
best aggregate finals series winning margin of all time.
The one loss that did happen was due to "bodyline-ing" the Bombers, which means legally, but immorally altering the tactics of how the sport is played to gain a legal but immoral advantage over your opponent.

No other team ticks every box like that. None.

Especially since you are basing your assessment on the clearly flawed belief that the opposition every Premier faces is of precisely the same standard.

Over the course of the year, the collective average ability of the 700 players in the AFL is all but identical every single year. There is no mathematical reason to suggest that the collective ability of the players in one year would be different to any other season. As i've said, all that changes is how that talent is distributed amongst the clubs.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Yes I watched all 50 games (25 from the Essendon 2000 side and 25 from the Essendon 2001 side) and I can tell you that the Essendon 2000 side played to a level of dominance and ability that I have yet to see matched. it was astonishing. Hence they are number1. Statistics justify that on their own, but observationally is even more persuasive. They played at a level no one has ever matched.



Yes that's exactly what I am saying, which should be totally obvious to anyone with a brain.



Oh shut up. It's not ludicrous. It's an almost mathematical certainty. If you know anything about numbers you will know that with an enormous sample size of 700 players, if you rate the average ability of those 700 players, they will basically be identical every year. The sample size is too big for any other conclusion.



The competition on average is always equal, if you rate the ability of the entire league. Always. The only thing that changes is how the talent is distributed. Hence you can have strong teams, or you could have all teams equal with all 18 teams all having 11-11 records. The overall talent level of the entire league is still the same every year and always will be.

So, when a team like Essendon of 2000 achieves a percentage of 163% this is done against the entire league of 700 players, who on average must be equal in ability every year due to the large sample size. To argue otherwise would be like arguing that you could toss a coin 700 time and come up with 65% heads. Yeah its possible, but it would be one in a million.




Garbage.

There is no evidence or logic, that over the course of 22 games, one premiership team happened to always meet opponents in a weakened state week after week, every week for 22 weeks on end. Once again, this is so unlikely as to be virtually mathematically impossible




Irrelevant. Just as Melbourne's 2020 season is irrelevant to the quality of how they played in 2021

Just like Geelong's 2007 season is irrelevant to how they played in 2006.



It's not unusual for teams with the same coach and similar players to have dramatic jumps from one season to the next. Richmond went from 13th to 1st. There are not just dozens of examples, there are hundreds. We are not judging the ability of teams in the years BEFORE they won a premiership. We are judging the ability and dominance of premiership teams.



best win-loss record ever
best percentage versus the finalists of all time.
best aggregate finals series winning margin of all time.
The one loss that did happen was due to "bodyline-ing" the Bombers, which means legally, but immorally altering the tactics of how the sport is played to gain a legal but immoral advantage over your opponent.

No other team ticks every box like that. None.



Over the course of the year, the collective average ability of the 700 players in the AFL is all but identical every single year. There is no mathematical reason to suggest that the collective ability of the players in one year would be different to any other season. As i've said, all that changes is how that talent is distributed amongst the clubs.

 

[Dan26]

That's the best you can do? Seriously. I make a well thought out post, based on facts, evidence and logic. You give up arguing and post nothing in response but silly memes.

I'm up for a reasoned argument. I love discussion. But If you make foolish arguments based on illogical premises, I will utterly destroy you. I'm assuming you have conceded do your predictable lack of a response.

I'll give you another go, here, because it's clear from your lack of response that you have given up. Explain to me, with some sort of mathematical reasoning why the collective ability of large sample of 700 players would by any different from one season to the next? While you're at it, explain to me how tossing a coin 700 times will come up 65% on heads.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

That's the best you can do? Seriously. I make a well thought out post, based on facts, evidence and logic. You give up arguing and post nothing in response but silly memes.

I'm up for a reasoned argument. I love discussion. But If you make foolish arguments based on illogical premises, I will utterly destroy you. I'm assuming you have conceded do your predictable lack of a response.

I'll give you another go, here, because it's clear from your lack of response that you have given up. Explain to me, with some sort of mathematical reasoning why the collective ability of large sample of 700 players would by any different from one season to the next? While you're at it, explain to me how tossing a coin 700 times will come up 65% on heads.

Friend, please stop. You are confirming the meme.

I will give you a little clue though. Look at objectively measured sports, like high jump, pole vault, 100m sprint etc and see how well your “exactly the same standard of competition every year” theory stands up.

 

[Dan26]

Friend, please stop. You are confirming the meme.

Whatever.

 

[NoobPie]

OK, so the locus of stupidity has built its new defence on the idea that the overall quality of players is identical year to year and so we can assume the relative performance of teams from year to year can be attested without considering the quality of opponents that year

Lets put aside this rather daft application of statistical property of sampling he probably learnt in first year uni before going on to a career in petty suburban finance or something of that ilk and accept that this assertion that aggregate quality of players are "identical" year to year

This would only have any relevance if Australian football was an individual sport (and yet tennis shows why that doesn't hold up). But it aint, it's a team sport. Teams play other teams of which there were just 16 in 2000. The implications of this off the top of the head include:

-the sum is rarely equal to its parts - the performance of teams has far more to do with the coherency of how they play together, effectiveness and buy in of game plans etc
-teams develop over years and in cycles - it is very likely that you will have some periods with several great teams (eg 2008 to 2012) and others where the competition is far weaker (eg 1997 to 2000)
-the distribution of talent is critical to the ability of one team to dominate
-the distribution of injuries to top players are critical to the ability of one team to dominate

It is just so profoundly dumb!

 

[Dan26]

Friend, please stop. You are confirming the meme.

I will give you a little clue though. Look at objectively measured sports, like high jump, pole vault, 100m sprint etc and see how well your “exactly the same standard of competition every year” theory stands up.

LOL! Oh give me a break. We are not talking about a handful of competitors at the highest level of sprinting, where you may get a strong era where you have 3 or 4 sprinters all capable of running under 9.85 seconds.

We are talking about the collective ability of 700 players, not 3 or 4.

700 players, on average every year will be of roughly the same collective ability. Only how that talent is dispersed amongst the clubs changes

It's not rocket science. Jesus Christ.

 

[BuddyHawk]

FWIW, I really like these rankings - I don't agree with all of them, but heck, that's part of the fun!

I have no issue, either, with Essendon's 2000 side being ranked top. In my time of watching footy, they're the one side that had an aura of invincibility from round 1 until the Grand Final. The Cats in 2007 were similarly impressive, but in an exercise such as this have to be marked down slightly for their slow (2-3) start.

Dan26 - correct me if I'm wrong, but it does appear as though you place a lot of emphasis on a team's percentage when determining these rankings? I assume that's why Carlton's 20-2 team is ranked lower than a number of sides with inferior win-loss records.

I don't necessarily disagree, either, as a side with a great (say 150+) percentage is usually recording a heap big wins, and, when it loses, is tending to lose by narrow margins. But I feel that Carlton side is undersold a touch, as from memory they were remarkably adept at producing a burst of goals at exactly the time they were most needed. And they also won every game against fellow finalists, which can't have happened too many times in the competition's history.

By the same token, I feel the 2015 Hawks team is too high. You rank them as the best of the Clarkson-era premierships, presumably because of their impressive 158.4 percentage (as their win-loss record was inferior to the other three). But as someone who watched that team week in, week out, I'd describe them as brilliant but a touch erratic, prone to the occasional off week such as the qualifying final loss to the Eagles and the H&A losses to Essendon, GWS and Richmond. I'd certainly put them below this year's Demons team, which won more games and was close to perfection in the finals.

But these are minor quibbles. Overall, it's a great list and good food for thought.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

LOL! Oh give me a break. We are not talking about a handful of competitors at the highest level of sprinting, where you may get a strong era where you have 3 or 4 sprinters all capable of running under 9.85 seconds.

We are talking about the collective ability of 700 players, not 3 or 4.

700 players, on average every year will be of roughly the same collective ability. Only how that talent is dispersed amongst the clubs changes

It's not rocket science. Jesus Christ.

Have a read of your own words.

I didn’t mention 3 or 4 sprinters, you did. Compare if you will the top 17 other sprinters in every season, or high jumpers or pole vaulters or long jumpers or whatever. Or the top 700. Then see if you can prove the opposition the best performer faces is constant each year.

You are seriously positing that in the AFL every year only the standard of the Premier changes, but the sum total of all of their opposition remains constant. Despite their direct opponents being made of of 17 clubs x 45 players, 100 staff and sundry other variable items, such as development cycles, injuries, motivation etc etc etc.

But even if you did the impossible and proved the total of the VFL/AFL outside of the Premier is precisely equal each season, this still does not achieve what you want it to achieve. It does not prove that the DIRECT opposition faced by each Premier each season is equal. For a start an obvious issue is uneven fixturing, which has been a part of the VFL/AFL for many more years than not. You cannot possibly get around that issue if trying to claim each Premier has faced equal opposition. That alone renders that assumption impossible.

Then let’s consider this little beauty by you:

"There is no evidence or logic, that over the course of 22 games, one premiership team happened to always meet opponents in a weakened state week after week, every week for 22 weeks on end. Once again, this is so unlikely as to be virtually mathematically impossible”

Let’s look at the sequence of this part of the argument.

1. You base your assumptions upon every Premier facing equal opposition each year.

2. It is pointed out to you this is flawed, that the opposition a Premier faces is variable from one season to the next. A proposition I doubt any sane person would question.

3. You then shift it to the sum total of the ability of all opposition clubs each year is magically precisely constant as if this would somehow establish that the actual 25 or so assignments faced by the Premier each season are equal in degree of difficulty.

4. It is further pointed out to you that the actual 25 or so assignments a Premier faces each season are variable in degree of difficulty due to issues like opposition injuries etc.

5. You insanely respond by saying the above bolded, where you totally misrepresent what has been pointed out to you and even then barely manage to defeat your own straw man argument.

You are not too brilliant, nor too sane.

 

[Dan26]

FWIW, I really like these rankings - I don't agree with all of them, but heck, that's part of the fun!

I have no issue, either, with Essendon's 2000 side being ranked top. In my time of watching footy, they're the one side that had an aura of invincibility from round 1 until the Grand Final. The Cats in 2007 were similarly impressive, but in an exercise such as this have to be marked down slightly for their slow (2-3) start.

Dan26 - correct me if I'm wrong, but it does appear as though you place a lot of emphasis on a team's percentage when determining these rankings? I assume that's why Carlton's 20-2 team is ranked lower than a number of sides with inferior win-loss records.

I don't necessarily disagree, either, as a side with a great (say 150+) percentage is usually recording a heap big wins, and, when it loses, is tending to lose by narrow margins. But I feel that Carlton side is undersold a touch, as from memory they were remarkably adept at producing a burst of goals at exactly the time they were most needed. And they also won every game against fellow finalists, which can't have happened too many times in the competition's history.

By the same token, I feel the 2015 Hawks team is too high. You rank them as the best of the Clarkson-era premierships, presumably because of their impressive 158.4 percentage (as their win-loss record was inferior to the other three). But as someone who watched that team week in, week out, I'd describe them as brilliant but a touch erratic, prone to the occasional off week such as the qualifying final loss to the Eagles and the H&A losses to Essendon, GWS and Richmond. I'd certainly put them below this year's Demons team, which won more games and was close to perfection in the finals.

But these are minor quibbles. Overall, it's a great list and good food for thought.

Thanks for your feedback. You'd know more about the Hawthorn 2015 side than I would, but I think the 3 or 4 close losses give their season a somewhat mediocre win-loss record (for a premiership team) that belies their true ability. I thought they were far better than a 15-6-1 win-loss record would indicate. I felt that season, they were always the best team, regardless of where they were on the ladder, and could easily have won 19 or 20 Home and Away games.

 

[TP86]

Michael Long alone should discredit the 2000 team. Any Grand Final you win where one of your players intentionally knocks out an opposition player is tainted. It's absurd that it happened in the year 2000 and we're not talking about something from the 1960s. It's one of the reasons Essendon of 2000 is talked about with zero reverence other than in this annual thread. They've been forgotten and discarded by history for being hugely advantaged by league HQ, Docklands Stadium administration, umpiring and salary cap policing.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

Interesting exercise and not one I'd touch with a 10 foot barge pole myself, so well done.

Challenging because I see certain sides down further on the list than I would like to see them - but then of course have to remember EVERY side on this list is a premiership side.

I do slightly disagree with one assertion, that being that the standard is statistically likely to be equal from year to year. A couple of rationales or examples behind that - we often talk about strong or weak drafts. If there is a stronger injection of talent in Year A vs Year B, it stands to reason that there will be years where the strong talent pool from a draft or two are at the height of their careers. Whilst a very different sport with a different make up, think back to when Leicester City won the Premier League. Can't take it away from them, they could only beat who was there and they ended up winning it convincingly, but all the traditional top six were for varying reasons down on their normal output that year.

Re the emphasis on percentage, again not sure about that. We have seen some sides who are incredible at kicking cricket scores against bottom half clubs but actually pretty evenly matched against teams around them. Geelong in the early 90's (not that they are represented in this list of course) a classic example as they were set up to play attacking football.

Ultimately, with 125 positions up for grabs, there are hundreds of possible debates and like anyone else I look at a couple of them and scratch my head. The '06 Eagles seem undersold being at the tail of the third quarter of teams. Finished a game clear on top losing 5, dropped their first final by a point to an evenly matched and excellent Sydney won their semi by 74 and won in Adelaide to make the GF.

Similarly and yes with Eagles glasses on, the 2007 Cats seem a tad high. 230 point differential in the finals campaign bolstered by an awful Port in the GF after being 5 points away from being knocked out in the Prelim, by a Collingwood side who needed extra time to get past the Eagles minus Judd, Kerr and Cousins. Easy to try and rewrite history now, but if Cousins doesn't do his hammy against Port and see them win by 3 points late, that entire finals series changes. Again, they DID win the flag and that Geelong side were fantastic, all credit to them. However, the circumstances of that finals series were a huge slice of luck for them and 6th best side EVER seems generous.