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

[footyfan1978]

Spot on. Digging his way to China.

 

[Blackas87]

This list is not ranked purely based on numbers, although numbers are obviously a big factor. The reason Hawthorn of 2015 is so high is because I watched them play! This was a team that lost a number of close games during the year and probably should have won 19 or 20 H&A games. They had a percentage of over 150%. From the teams I saw play, I use my own knowledge based on what I saw and Hawthorn of 2015, with their ennormous percentage were far more dominant than their 3rd placed finish after 22 games would indicate.

Fair enough your list.

Melbourne also didn’t win a few close games.

Comparing percentages year from year isn’t always a great indicator. 2015 there was 6 real uncompetitive teams, 6 teams with percentages below 80, 2 of them below 70, hence West Coast that year also had a huge percentage. This year only 2 teams below 80.

If you noticed Melbourne this year they played their best in big games and seemed to take the foot off the pedal against low teams. Big win over Richmond then scraped across the line over North Melbourne the following week. Lose to Adelaide then Easily beat the bulldogs and Brisbane before losing to Collingwood.

Sure Hawthorn looked dominate against the wooden spooners winning by 138 points compared to Melbourne where the game still looked in the balance during the last quarter.

But if you don’t count the bottom 6 easy beats and count the top 12 teams these are their records including finals.

Hawthorn 2015: 12 wins 6 losses 136.2%
Melbourne 2021: 15 wins 2 losses 138.2%

Melbourne beat all top 8 teams unlike Hawthorn that failed to beat 2 of them

Don’t need to base it on numbers though, Reality is dominate Hawthorn couldn’t secure a home qualifying final and then lost their qualifying final. They finished lower than West Coast and got hammered by West Coast in a final. Flaw in the finals system that Hawthorn got to rematch West Coast in the Grand Final on Hawthorns home deck.

I’d have Melbourne 2021 above Hawthorn 2015

 

[The hands of stone]

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.

To use your own logic against you:

Essendon of 2000 beat Brisbane of 2000 (yes 12 months earlier for brisbane, but a similar side to 2001), and beat them by 60 points in the wet at the Gabba.

Are Geelong of 2006 the same as Geelong of 2007 because they had mostly the same players? Of course not.

Are Richmond of 2016 the same as Richmond of 2017 because they had mostly the same players? Of course not.

Are Brisbane of 2000 the same as Brisbane of 2001 because they had mostly the same players? Of course not.

Are Melbourne of 2020 the same as Melbourne of 2021 because they had mostly the same players? Of course not.

Are Collingwood of 2011 the same as Collingwood of 2012 because they had mostly the same players? Of course not.

Are Carlton of 1996 the same as Carlton of 1995 because they had mostly the same players? Of course not.

It's such a stupid argument. 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.

Brisbane of 2001 are mid-ranked at number 62 because that is where 17-5 teams with a percentage of 127% who finished 2nd on the ladder tend to get ranked in this exercise.

Well we can argree to disagree and thats fine . You say you've seen the sides play , well I have too probably like most on this site.

I dont think Essendon 2000 is even the best Essendon side Ive seen , that would be 85.
Essendon 2000 were an excellent side that dominated a weak season with really no opposition of high quality against them.
Obviously you can only beat who you play.

They are defintely top 10 maybe pushing top 5 , but a gap of 60 between a premier one season to the the team that beat them the next GF is just too much IMO.
Either 2000 Bombers are too high or 2001 Lions are too low and I feel its probably a bit of both .

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

This thread makes me want to go find my model from about a decade ago which ranks every team based on their performance every round for 100+ years based on the quality of the opposition each round.

Hence you can see sustained excellence spanning years, impact of difficult draws, travel, winning margins, finals opponent strength, etc.

The thing that renewed my interest was this discussion on strong and weak years. After many many resets I eventually came to the same conclusion as the OP, that the important focus is on the relative strength of teams rather than any attempt to ascertain the absolute strength of teams and the competition between years.

 

[brutus76]

As Bruce says on the commentary of 2000.........

"You can argue forever who is the greatest team of all - but as Jason (Dunstall) said earlier.....this is the greatest season we've ever seen"

If you include the pre-season cup (that Essendon won also - 5 matches) it's 29 wins 1 loss in a season

 

[Engimal v3]

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.

If you love Essendon so much, why don't you marry them?

 

[NoobPie]

As Bruce says on the commentary of 2000.........

"You can argue forever who is the greatest team of all - but as Jason (Dunstall) said earlier.....this is the greatest season we've ever seen"

If you include the pre-season cup (that Essendon won also - 5 matches) it's 29 wins 1 loss in a season

Which is fine if that was the claim being made by the OP

 

[NoobPie]

This thread makes me want to go find my model from about a decade ago which ranks every team based on their performance every round for 100+ years based on the quality of the opposition each round.

Hence you can see sustained excellence spanning years, impact of difficult draws, travel, winning margins, finals opponent strength, etc.

The thing that renewed my interest was this discussion on strong and weak years. After many many resets I eventually came to the same conclusion as the OP, that the important focus is on the relative strength of teams rather than any attempt to ascertain the absolute strength of teams and the competition between years.

I reckon your actual basis for that conclusion would add a lot more to the debate than describing the process - given that process seems to be purely quantitative as you've described it.

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

I reckon your actual basis for that conclusion would add a lot more to the debate than describing the process - given that process seems to be purely quantitative as you've described it.

I spent a lot of time trying to prove it wrong, to figure out a quantitative way of measuring and comparing between seasons as distinct to within a season.

The two usual metrics - wins, percentage - are the cumulative same year by year - 50% win ratio not incl draws, and 100 point percentage.
Indeed, the same argument can be used round-by-round within a year as well. Is Round 17 a stronger round then Round 12 for example? No one ever says that, they'll sometimes say a round is more competitive or more evenly matched, but never a commentary on the absolute strength of a whole round.

The only ones I thought could possibly factor objectively into an analysis are
- Injuries. Seasons with relatively high injury counts to higher quality players means the season is diminished somewhat. Good luck compiling that list historically, Champion Data do it now.
- Spread of wins on the ladder. Is it a stronger competition in 2-3 teams stand out (my preference) or one where there are 5-6-7 genuine contenders (which could be argued is harder to win)? Could have metrics on season form and see where multiple teams are performance peaking at the same time. What if the finals were basically set 4 weeks out? Hard one that. Which led to
- "Meaningful" games, by which I was looking at whether games should have lower weighting if one of the teams had "nothing to play for". Wins against teams who have put the cue in the rack in Round 19, vs playing a team on their last chance to make finals. Similarly beating a Ross Lyon Freo resting players in the final round.

All interesting stuff, and ultimately time poor. Sorry no answers.

 

[Johnny Karate]

I wonder if non-Essendon supporters would have greater reverence for that 2000 side if they did win the additional 1 or 2 flags that they should’ve in 99 and 2001?

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

I wonder if non-Essendon supporters would have greater reverence for that 2000 side if they did win the additional 1 or 2 flags that they should’ve in 99 and 2001?

Of course they would. Best team I've seen.

Similar vein to Port Adelaide 2002-4. 53W-13L H&A for one flag is just a depressing lost opportunity.

 

[Johnny Karate]

Of course they would. Best team I've seen.

Similar vein to Port Adelaide 2002-4. 53W-13L H&A for one flag is just a depressing lost opportunity.

It shows that the essence of the sport is quite cruel. You can have an otherwise great season turn to ashes on the back of a sub-par performance in September. Nobody cares if you s**t the bed in round 2 but a bad day at the office in finals can be a mortal blow to flag aspirations.

 

[Elroo]

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

The irony of this coming from someone who posted on the the Society, Religion and Politics board that they were a diehard Tony Abbott supporter, and were caught out multiple times copying and pasting entire articles from the internet and trying to pass this off as their own work!

 

[Dan26]

They are defintely top 10 maybe pushing top 5 , but a gap of 60 between a premier one season to the the team that beat them the next GF is just too much IMO.
Either 2000 Bombers are too high or 2001 Lions are too low and I feel its probably a bit of both .

This is where you get it so, so wrong. Brisbane DIDN'T beat Essendon of 2000 in the next years Grand Final. They beat the Essendon team of 2001.

Its like me saying that the Essendon team of 2000 beat the Brisbane that year at the Gabba (in the wet) by 60 points, and because this Brisbane team of 2000 was only one year removed from 2001 it must be the same team. It wasn't.

Here's more warped logic: Melbourne smashed Richmond in round 5 this year. This must obviously prove that the Richmond team of 2020 was overrated. Melbourne proved in 2021 by beating Richmond that Richmond wasn't that good in 2020. 2020 must have been a soft year. And because Richmond had mostly the same players in 2021 as 2020, then "really" Melbourne's 2021 win over Richmond was the same as beating their 2020 side (because Richmond of 2021 and 2020 must be the same team) proving once and for all that Richmond wasn't really that good in 2020.

That's the astonishing mind numbing idiocy being peddled.

Everyone knows - and I mean everyone - that there are often huge differences in output from one year to the next between the clubs with similar players. This has happened for 100 years. Teams with often similar players are very different from one year to the next (Bris 2000-2001, Rich 2020-2021, Geelong 2006-2007, hawthorn 2008-2009, Richmond 2016-2017)

Players are at different stages of their careers, and there is an extremely delicate balance with the age profile of a list, and the delicate chemistry that can be produced when a playing list hits a sweet spot. Players having the best years of their career in one year, and not another year. The delicate balance of teamwork, age profile, ability, motivation, health can have huge swings from one year to the next - this is not debatable, arguable or contestable.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

This is where you get it so, so wrong. Brisbane DIDN'T beat Essendon of 2000 in the next years Grand Final. They beat the Essendon team of 2001.

Its like me saying that the Essendon team of 2000 beat the Brisbane that year at the Gabba (in the wet) by 60 points, and because this Brisbane team of 2000 was only one year removed from 2001 it must be the same team. It wasn't.

Here's more warped logic: Melbourne smashed Richmond in round 5 this year. This must obviously prove that the Richmond team of 2020 was overrated. Melbourne proved in 2021 by beating Richmond that Richmond wasn't that good in 2020. 2020 must have been a soft year. And because Richmond had mostly the same players in 2021 as 2020, then "really" Melbourne's 2021 win over Richmond was the same as beating their 2020 side (because Richmond of 2021 and 2020 must be the same team) proving once and for all that Richmond wasn't really that good in 2020.

That's the astonishing mind numbing idiocy being peddled.

Everyone knows - and I mean everyone - that there are often huge differences in output from one year to the next between the clubs with similar players. This has happened for 100 years. Teams with often similar players are very different from one year to the next (Bris 2000-2001, Rich 2020-2021, Geelong 2006-2007, hawthorn 2008-2009, Richmond 2016-2017)

Players are at different stages of their careers, and there is an extremely delicate balance with the age profile of a list, and the delicate chemistry that can be produced when a playing list hits a sweet spot. Players having the best years of their career in one year, and not another year. The delicate balance of teamwork, age profile, ability, motivation, health can have huge swings from one year to the next - this is not debatable, arguable or contestable.

Jeez this is good.

You are re-using already discredited analogies:


"Brisbane DIDN'T beat Essendon of 2000 in the next years Grand Final. They beat the Essendon team of 2001.

Its like me saying that the Essendon team of 2000 beat the Brisbane that year at the Gabba (in the wet) by 60 points, and because this Brisbane team of 2000 was only one year removed from 2001 it must be the same team. It wasn’t."

We have already shown that 2000 Brisbane team had 8 different players to their 2001 Grand Final team. But the Essendon 2000 and 2001 Grand Final teams had only 3 different players. So your counter-point does not stand up based on that evidence.



"Teams with often similar players are very different from one year to the next (Bris 2000-2001, Rich 2020-2021, Geelong 2006-2007, hawthorn 2008-2009, Richmond 2016-2017)”

You are providing a list of 5 with at least 4 teams(perhaps not so much Cats 06-07) on it that I know for a fact routinely fielded 7-8 or more different players from their adjacent year Premiership teams in the games that mattered, as if this somehow proves Essendon with 3 players different in the 2000 and 2001 Grand Final teams are just as different. The evidence you provide does not support the point you make.



"Players are at different stages of their careers, and there is an extremely delicate balance with the age profile of a list, and the delicate chemistry that can be produced when a playing list hits a sweet spot. Players having the best years of their career in one year, and not another year. The delicate balance of teamwork, age profile, ability, motivation, health can have huge swings from one year to the next - this is not debatable, arguable or contestable.”

So all these things apply to the Essendon Grand Final teams of 2000 and 2001. But they magically cease to apply to the sum of all the opposition they faced according to you. You believe that the opposition every Premier faces across a season amounts to being exactly the same in any given year as it is in any other given year. I find this mystifying how you can recognise subtle differences in factors affecting Premier teams can yield vastly differing results one season to the next, but you astoundingly somehow believe their opposition is not subject to the same phenomena.

Essendon 2000 may or may not have played the greatest single season ever, but the way you are arguing their case is a train wreck.

 

[NoobPie]

I spent a lot of time trying to prove it wrong, to figure out a quantitative way of measuring and comparing between seasons as distinct to within a season.

The two usual metrics - wins, percentage - are the cumulative same year by year - 50% win ratio not incl draws, and 100 point percentage.
Indeed, the same argument can be used round-by-round within a year as well. Is Round 17 a stronger round then Round 12 for example? No one ever says that, they'll sometimes say a round is more competitive or more evenly matched, but never a commentary on the absolute strength of a whole round.

The only ones I thought could possibly factor objectively into an analysis are
- Injuries. Seasons with relatively high injury counts to higher quality players means the season is diminished somewhat. Good luck compiling that list historically, Champion Data do it now.
- Spread of wins on the ladder. Is it a stronger competition in 2-3 teams stand out (my preference) or one where there are 5-6-7 genuine contenders (which could be argued is harder to win)? Could have metrics on season form and see where multiple teams are performance peaking at the same time. What if the finals were basically set 4 weeks out? Hard one that. Which led to
- "Meaningful" games, by which I was looking at whether games should have lower weighting if one of the teams had "nothing to play for". Wins against teams who have put the cue in the rack in Round 19, vs playing a team on their last chance to make finals. Similarly beating a Ross Lyon Freo resting players in the final round.

All interesting stuff, and ultimately time poor. Sorry no answers.

In terms of the relevance of "spread of wins" you could do a historical analysis of seasons and identify any patterns around whether teams have historically been more likely to end up with high percentages and W/L ratios when the rest of the ladder has been even or spread. Even then, I would think there are too many other variables and changes over time (eg playing genuine away games of other teams training decks versus playing 18 games on neutral venues....and in the case of 2000, over half of them in a new stadium that some of your opponents are playing their first game ever in) that would limit any conclusive claims you could make.

I suspect, to the extent you could rely on mathematics to prove anything, you would need to develop models that related a given year to years either side of it. This would at least help position the relative strength of a given season with adjacent years

For instance a season where the third team after home and away, and ultimately grand finalist wins just 14 games with a percentage of 118%, didn't make the finals in either years before and after, intuitively points to that year being a particularly weak season.

Ultimately though by this:

. After many many resets I eventually came to the same conclusion as the OP, that the important focus is on the relative strength of teams rather than any attempt to ascertain the absolute strength of teams and the competition between years.

You certainly can't conclude, just because you can't develop through mathematical or statistical proof a robust demonstration of the different overall strength of a season, that competitive strength does not change between seasons and eras.

Now you may not be saying that you can, but if you aren't then you definitely haven't arrived at the same conclusion as the OP. He is saying that you can ascertain the absolute strength of a team based overwhelmingly on the relative strength - as revealed by percentage and win loss - in that season.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

Jeez this is good.

You are re-using already discredited analogies:


"Brisbane DIDN'T beat Essendon of 2000 in the next years Grand Final. They beat the Essendon team of 2001.

Its like me saying that the Essendon team of 2000 beat the Brisbane that year at the Gabba (in the wet) by 60 points, and because this Brisbane team of 2000 was only one year removed from 2001 it must be the same team. It wasn’t."

We have already shown that 2000 Brisbane team had 8 different players to their 2001 Grand Final team. But the Essendon 2000 and 2001 Grand Final teams had only 3 different players. So your counter-point does not stand up based on that evidence.



"Teams with often similar players are very different from one year to the next (Bris 2000-2001, Rich 2020-2021, Geelong 2006-2007, hawthorn 2008-2009, Richmond 2016-2017)”

You are providing a list of 5 with at least 4 teams(perhaps not so much Cats 06-07) on it that I know for a fact routinely fielded 7-8 or more different players from their adjacent year Premiership teams in the games that mattered, as if this somehow proves Essendon with 3 players different in the 2000 and 2001 Grand Final teams are just as different. The evidence you provide does not support the point you make.



"Players are at different stages of their careers, and there is an extremely delicate balance with the age profile of a list, and the delicate chemistry that can be produced when a playing list hits a sweet spot. Players having the best years of their career in one year, and not another year. The delicate balance of teamwork, age profile, ability, motivation, health can have huge swings from one year to the next - this is not debatable, arguable or contestable.”

So all these things apply to the Essendon Grand Final teams of 2000 and 2001. But they magically cease to apply to the sum of all the opposition they faced according to you. You believe that the opposition every Premier faces across a season amounts to being exactly the same in any given year as it is in any other given year. I find this mystifying how you can recognise subtle differences in factors affecting Premier teams can yield vastly differing results one season to the next, but you astoundingly somehow believe their opposition is not subject to the same phenomena.

Essendon 2000 may or may not have played the greatest single season ever, but the way you are arguing their case is a train wreck.

I agree with much what you have said, however I don't believe season to season rolling out even the exact same 22 will replicate results. Jeremy McGovern 2020 wasn't the same as Jeremy McGovern 2018 / 19. Now multiply that by 22 individual variances. NicNat in 2020 / 2021 was different to 'coming off an ACL' NicNat in 2019.

If I look closer to home the Eagles won in '92 and '94 yet in '93 with essentially the same core group, didn't get anywhere near the GF after going 12-8 to sneak into the finals on percentage and get bundled out in a semi final. Of course you'd expect some sort of baseline level of performance with the same names on the team sheet, but just as I personally believe some years are stronger than others for the exact same reason, the same team rolling out 2 years in a row isn't necessarily going to be at the same level.

Just one example between 2000 and 2001 Essendon is Moorcroft. Had his best two seasons in 99 and 2000, kicked six in a half against the Dogs in '01 and took mark of the year, fracturing his hip in the process. So was Moorcroft 2001 the same as Moorcroft 2000, especially by September?

 

[Dan26]

We have already shown that 2000 Brisbane team had 8 different players to their 2001 Grand Final team. But the Essendon 2000 and 2001 Grand Final teams had only 3 different players. So your counter-point does not stand up based on that evidence.

It doesn't matter how many different players they had. Often teams with limited player differences can have hugely different results rom one year to the next. How many examples do you need?

So all these things apply to the Essendon Grand Final teams of 2000 and 2001. But they magically cease to apply to the sum of all the opposition they faced according to you. You believe that the opposition every Premier faces across a season amounts to being exactly the same in any given year as it is in any other given year. I find this mystifying how you can recognise subtle differences in factors affecting Premier teams can yield vastly differing results one season to the next, but you astoundingly somehow believe their opposition is not subject to the same phenomena.

Essendon 2000 may or may not have played the greatest single season ever, but the way you are arguing their case is a train wreck.

No, the way you are arguing is a train wreck. Your argument is garbage. In fact, I don't even think you know what you are arguing anymore? Are you seriously suggesting the Essendon team of 2001 was the same as the Essendon team of 2000, just because most players are the same, when there are countless example in history of huge swings in output from teams with similar players from one year to the next. Why? Because players are at different stages of their careers.

Essendon of 2000 went 24-1 with a percentage of 160% winning 3 finals by the highest aggregate in the history of the game. Essendon of 2001 lost SIX goddamn games and had a percentage only a little better than 130%, and lost a final to a 17-5 Brisbane team who finished 2nd on the ladder.

There is simply no comparison between the two teams. None.

The Bombers of 2000 would have destroyed the Essendon 2001 team. Destroyed them.

 

[NoobPie]

I agree with much what you have said, however I don't believe season to season rolling out even the exact same 22 will replicate results. Jeremy McGovern 2020 wasn't the same as Jeremy McGovern 2018 / 19. Now multiply that by 22 individual variances. NicNat in 2020 / 2021 was different to 'coming off an ACL' NicNat in 2019.

If I look closer to home the Eagles won in '92 and '94 yet in '93 with essentially the same core group, didn't get anywhere near the GF after going 12-8 to sneak into the finals on percentage and get bundled out in a semi final. Of course you'd expect some sort of baseline level of performance with the same names on the team sheet, but just as I personally believe some years are stronger than others for the exact same reason, the same team rolling out 2 years in a row isn't necessarily going to be at the same level.

Just one example between 2000 and 2001 Essendon is Moorcroft. Had his best two seasons in 99 and 2000, kicked six in a half against the Dogs in '01 and took mark of the year, fracturing his hip in the process. So was Moorcroft 2001 the same as Moorcroft 2000, especially by September?

I don't think he is saying that.

The main point is that Essendon team won just one premiership and, by the end of the next season, the same group of players that formed the "greatest team of all time" were bested by a team that was apparently mediocre in terms of premiership teams....but went on to win three in a row and make 4 GFs

The argument is that those circumstances - as well as a number of other factors that have been identified about the period - point to the more plausible conclusion that Essendon's 2000 season is better explained by the relative strength of that season more so than the absolute greatness of that team

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I agree with much what you have said, however I don't believe season to season rolling out even the exact same 22 will replicate results. Jeremy McGovern 2020 wasn't the same as Jeremy McGovern 2018 / 19. Now multiply that by 22 individual variances. NicNat in 2020 / 2021 was different to 'coming off an ACL' NicNat in 2019.

If I look closer to home the Eagles won in '92 and '94 yet in '93 with essentially the same core group, didn't get anywhere near the GF after going 12-8 to sneak into the finals on percentage and get bundled out in a semi final. Of course you'd expect some sort of baseline level of performance with the same names on the team sheet, but just as I personally believe some years are stronger than others for the exact same reason, the same team rolling out 2 years in a row isn't necessarily going to be at the same level.

Just one example between 2000 and 2001 Essendon is Moorcroft. Had his best two seasons in 99 and 2000, kicked six in a half against the Dogs in '01 and took mark of the year, fracturing his hip in the process. So was Moorcroft 2001 the same as Moorcroft 2000, especially by September?

I completely agree with all the points in your post. It stands to reason even the exact same team of players might perform better in one season than another. But the OP is trying to argue that it was only Essendon’s performance changing between 2000 and 2001, whilst he believes based on his posts that the opposition they faced amounted to being exactly the same. Which, when you think about it, is a ludicrous proposition to argue.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

It doesn't matter how many different players they had. Often teams with limited player differences can have hugely different results rom one year to the next. How many examples do you need?




No, the way you are arguing is a train wreck. Your argument is garbage. In fact, I don't even think you know what you are arguing anymore? Are you seriously suggesting the Essendon team of 2001 was the same as the Essendon team of 2000, just because most players are the same, when there are countless example in history of huge swings in output from teams with similar players from one year to the next. Why? Because players are at different stages of their careers.

Essendon of 2000 went 24-1 with a percentage of 160% winning 3 finals by the highest aggregate in the history of the game. Essendon of 2001 lost SIX goddamn games and had a percentage only a little better than 130%, and lost a final to a 17-5 Brisbane team who finished 2nd on the ladder.

There is simply no comparison between the two teams. None.

The Bombers of 2000 would have destroyed the Essendon 2001 team. Destroyed them.

If you don’t mind me saying Dan, you appear deranged.

 

[Dan26]

You believe that the opposition every Premier faces across a season amounts to being exactly the same in any given year as it is in any other given year.

On average the opposition they face is identical, when you average the ability of the 15 other opponents. We know this is a mathematical fact because it is implausible that the 700 players in total, one year would magically be of a higher combined ability than another year. The sample size is to large for there to be any meaningful difference. It's impossible

But because the DISTRIBUTION of the talent changes, we get teams who are stronger and more powerful than others in given years. I've never disputed that.

But if you take the average the ability of all 16 teams, add them together and divide by 16, you will get essentially no difference in average ability across the year from one year to the next. None.

but you astoundingly somehow believe their opposition is not subject to the same phenomena.

What the hell you are you talking about? I never said the opposition isn't subject to the same criteria. All 16 teams can potentially have wild variations from one year to the next despite minimal difference in players.

What I've said is the opposition for a premiership team consists of the entire league. You have to beat the other 15 teams and finish above all of them. Some of those opponents are good, some are bad, some are average, but when you take the average output from all 15 opponents and divide by 15, you will get next to no difference from one year to the next.

That why we know Essendon of 2000 was so good. There is no difference in combined average playing ability of the 700 players on average from 2000 to 2001. The individual opponents change, yes. But when you have a percentage of 160%, that percentage is not accumulated against one opponent. That percentage from 50 hours of football versus 15 different teams is accumulated versus 700 different opponents who on AVERAGE are going to be no different in combined ability form one year to the next.

 

[NoobPie]

I wonder if non-Essendon supporters would have greater reverence for that 2000 side if they did win the additional 1 or 2 flags that they should’ve in 99 and 2001?

But this is a case of "if my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle"

Essendon were possibly the best team in 2019, at least by the business end of the year but that is debatable. North were very much post peak but won the second flag cos Essendon got beaten by the team that finished 6th and got smashed in the first final.

In 2001 Brisbane won their last 16 games, including beating Essendon twice, and then backed that up the next two years. There is no basis to say Essendon "should" have won three premierships

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

I don't think he is saying that.

The main point is that Essendon team won just one premiership and, by the end of the next season, the same group of players that formed the "greatest team of all time" where bested by a team that was apparently mediocre in terms of premiership teams

The counter argument is that those circumstances - as well as a number of other factors that have been identified about the period - point to the more plausible conclusion that Essendon's 2000 season is better explained by the relative strength of that season more so than the absolute greatness of that team

Gotcha and on the same page with you there as I have highlighted in a previous post. I absolutely believe the competition has stronger and weaker years for a multitude of reasons. Again, I wouldn't touch this exercise myself as it's simply too easy to pick apart the rationale used to make an argument that x team should be higher or lower. What I will say, is while I think Essendon in 2000 being #1 is not entirely unreasonable and I'm happy to agree that Essendon 2000 was greater than Essendon 2001, any methodology that subsequently ranks the team that dethroned the yes, different Essendon, just 12 months later 62 places lower to be fundamentally flawed. Brisbane started 2001 4-5 and then didn't lose again all year. In 2002 and 2003, also ranked lower than I would expect, the OP's methodology again works against them as they were the masters of doing what had to be done through the season to set themselves up for September.

I'd back in Brisbane 2001, 2002 AND 2003 to beat many of the teams in the top twenty of this list.

 

[NoobPie]

If you don’t mind me saying Dan, you appear deranged.

Yup. And unhinged

The completely discredited "700 players = perfectly consistent opposition year to year" nonsense has made another appearance