The rankings (from best to worst) of the 129 VFL/AFL premiership teams.

[boncer34]

Ok I am starting to fear for the Essendon Board.

That Geelong team won 3 flags on their own. They are the ones I left out.

Those Collingwood & Essendon teams won 1 flag each. And the Simon Templars, well, they didn't win any.

All these teams were playing against about 8-10 mature fully funded footy department clubs max, 3 of them at least were dealing with a stacked deck in terms of footy dept spending. Of those, Bombers 2000 team played precisely 84% of its matches at its home venues. The Richmond dynasty team played barely 50% of its matches at its home venue. Yet beat more better opponents in finals in all of its flag years than that Bombers team ever managed....

Anyway, congrats to the Bombers for winning 20 of 21 games at it home venues in 2000. The Tiger dynasty team managed 22 straight at it home venue.

And Essendon 2000 being the best Premiership team ever is about as likely as Patience Hodgson declaring she finds me very addictive. If they were, they simply would have won more finals against better teams.

Geelong won 3 flags in 2009?

That's amazing.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Geelong won 3 flags in 2009?

That's amazing.

That Geelong team won 3 flags. But yes, can report they weren't all won in 2009.

 

[boncer34]

That Geelong team won 3 flags. But yes, can report they weren't all won in 2009.

Geelong rolled out the same side in all its flags?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Geelong rolled out the same side in all its flags?

Essentially, yes. This is why dynasty teams are known as dynasty teams. Of course you would know that from the Bomber's last dynasty team 80 odd years ago. Jeez, that went quick.

 

[boncer34]

Essentially, yes.

So not yes.

 

[jannissary]

Yep.

I rate St. Kilda '09 as one of the best teams I've seen since Essendon's 2000 premiership.

20 and 2, and beaten by the best team since Essendon 2000 in the Grand Final.

They'd be in the top handful of teams that have graced the paddock since the turn of the century. Better than Collingwood 2023 and all of Richmond's premiership teams between 2017 and 2020.

one single bounce lost 'em their second premiership. st's of 09 was an impressive team, lots of highly skilled, high quality players across the ground.

 

[Mr Meow]

So not yes.

The third one didn't even have the best player in the comp anymore. Or the captain of the first two flags. Or two other former All Australian defenders (Milburn and Egan). Or the original coach.

Hawkins had replaced Mooney.

Selwood went from a high performing debut season player to the teams best performer for the third flag.

Harold Taylor wasn't around in 2007 either.

But yeah, identical sides as MR has informed us.

 

[SJ]

Awaiting this update.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Awaiting this update.

The dual rule of thumb is teams who win one flag are better than teams who win multiple flags. Only weak premiers win multiple flags.

 

[Toffee Lion]

The dual rule of thumb is teams who win one flag are better than teams who win multiple flags. Only weak premiers win multiple flags.

In fairness, the thread is mainly based on the singular season in isolation. The problem with that though is as you said, it undervalues amazing sides who won 2/3 in a row.

Like it has the Lions 3peat era sides at 48, 63 and 74. We've won 5 flags since 2000, none of those flag winning years were we utterly dominant like say Essendon 2000. I'll take the 5 flags over Essendon's 1 though.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

In fairness, the thread is mainly based on the singular season in isolation. The problem with that though is as you said, it undervalues amazing sides who won 2/3 in a row.

Like it has the Lions 3peat era sides at 48, 63 and 74. We've won 5 flags since 2000, none of those flag winning years were we utterly dominant like say Essendon 2000. I'll take the 5 flags over Essendon's 1 though.

I will tell you how hopelessly biased this list is.

Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Geelong have 84 flags between them.

This means the rest of the competition has 44 flags between them. So the rest of the competition has won more than 1 in every 3 flags. So in an unbiased list, we would expect more likely than not one of these teams to appear once in the top 3, once in the next 3, once in the next 3 and so on.

There isn't one in the top 3.

There isn't one in the top 6.

There isn't one in the top 9.

There isn't one in the top 12.

There isn't one in the top 15.

There isn't one in the top 18.

There isn't one in the top 21.

There isn't one in the top 24.

You have to wait until 25 for one of these teams, inoffensive Fitzroy, to appear on the list. We actually have no real idea or way of working out what would happen if say Essendon 1950 met Richmond 1973 or a Brisbane 2003 in a Grand Final on an era adjusted basis.

The chances of one of these clubs outside the 6 I listed not being in the top 24 Premiership teams I can tell you is somewhere in the region of 20,000 to 1 against. If you had a massive playoff tournament and the bookies bet on it you would not have any trouble securing odds of thousands to one about none of the other Premiership winners bar all the Essendon, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Melbourne, Carlton and Geelong Premiership teams finishing in the top 24. But the real odds are likely to be aorund 20,000 to 1 against.

The ratings on this thread are so far skewed towards those 6 clubs I listed that if the o/p thought about it properly he would realise his criteria is extremely faulty and that he needs to rip it up and start again, this time placing his biases to one side.

 

[Fadge]

I will tell you how hopelessly biased this list is.

Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Geelong have 84 flags between them.

This means the rest of the competition has 44 flags between them. So the rest of the competition has won more than 1 in every 3 flags. So in an unbiased list, we would expect more likely than not one of these teams to appear once in the top 3, once in the next 3, once in the next 3 and so on.

There isn't one in the top 3.

There isn't one in the top 6.

There isn't one in the top 9.

There isn't one in the top 12.

There isn't one in the top 15.

There isn't one in the top 18.

There isn't one in the top 21.

There isn't one in the top 24.

You have to wait until 25 for one of these teams, inoffensive Fitzroy, to appear on the list. We actually have no real idea or way of working out what would happen if say Essendon 1950 met Richmond 1973 or a Brisbane 2003 in a Grand Final on an era adjusted basis.

The chances of one of these clubs outside the 6 I listed not being in the top 24 Premiership teams I can tell you is somewhere in the region of 20,000 to 1 against. If you had a massive playoff tournament and the bookies bet on it you would not have any trouble securing odds of thousands to one about none of the other Premiership winners bar all the Essendon, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Melbourne, Carlton and Geelong Premiership teams finishing in the top 24. But the real odds are likely to be aorund 20,000 to 1 against.

The ratings on this thread are so skewed towards those 6 clubs I listed that if the o/p thought about it properly he would realise his criteria is so obviously faulty that he needs to rip it up and start again, this time placing his biases to one side.

Or alternatively, his bias is for the best performed teams across a single season, as per the thread topic.

Stop talking generally, let's get to specifics.

Which team from outside the top 24 should be inside the top 3, or top 6, based on the thread criteria, and why?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Or alternatively, his bias is for the best performed teams across a single season, as per the thread topic.

Stop talking generally, let's get to specifics.

Which team from outside the top 24 should be inside the top 3, or top 6, based on the thread criteria, and why?

The answer to that question is not which team but which teams. It is a fairly safe bet one of the Hawks or Lions 3peat teams would have beaten at least one of the top 28 teams for a start. In fact I would stake my life on it, that is how certain it would be to occur.

 

[Fadge]

The answer to that question is not which team but which teams. It is a fairly safe bet one of the Hawks or Lions 3peat teams would have beaten at least one of the top 28 teams for a start. In fact I would stake my life on it, that is how certain it would be to occur.

Which one, and why?

None of the Brisbane a3peaatvteaams awon enough games to finish top of the ladder at the end of the regular season, for a start, and they started favourites in one one of their 3 Grand Final wins.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Which one, and why?

None of the Brisbane a3peaatvteaams awon enough games to finish top of the ladder at the end of the regular season, for a start, and they started favourites in one one of their 3 Grand Final wins.

The thread is titled best to worst. For that to be accurate then in a sudden death game each team would need to beat the one below it, because that is how best is decided in this competition. Teams that were good enough to win 3, 4 & 5 Grand Finals are a lot more likely to beat teams who were only good enough to win one Grand Final than lose to them in a sudden death game. Collingwood 2010 couldn't even win the grand Final v 15 win St Kilda. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell they would beat all the Hawks and Lions 3peat teams in a sudden death game. It wouldn't be any shock if they didn't win any of those 6 encounters.

 

[Fadge]

Poor little Richmond and their poor little supporters.

They stumbled upon yet another thread where there's a conspiracy theory against them...

Or maybe, they just haven't had a single team worthy of being rated amongst the top echelon of teams....

Richmond's best performed premiership team across a home and away season?

Their 1920 premiership team that went 14 and 2 (86% win rate). But they only won 1 of 2 finals to win the flag, and got outscored by their opposition across the finals series.

They then had 2 x 15 and 3 win seasons where they also finished top. 1967 with a percentage of 145, but they only outscored their opposition by 20% across their two winning finals, and 1934, with a percentage of 121, but with dominant finals wins.

Be better, and you'll stop thinking there is always one conspiracy or another against you and your team.

 

[Fadge]

The thread is titled best to worst. For that to be accurate then in a sudden death game each team would need to beat the one below it, because that is how best is decided in this competition. Teams that were good enough to win 3, 4 & 5 Grand Finals are a lot more likely to beat teams who were only good enough to win one Grand Final than lose to them in a sudden death game. Collingwood 2010 couldn't even win the grand Final v 15 win St Kilda. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell they would beat all the Hawks and Lions 3peat teams in a sudden death game. It wouldn't be any shock if they didn't win any of those 6 encounters.

The team would have to be good enough across the regular season, and in their early finals, to reach the Grand Finals in the first place.

The analysis is (rightly) performed over a full season, not just the team's performance on Grand Final Day (or across multiple Grand Finals, when that has been the case).

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Poor little Richmond and their poor little supporters.

They stumbled upon yet another thread where there's a conspiracy theory against them...

Or maybe, they just haven't had a single team worthy of being rated amongst the top echelon of teams....

Richmond's best performed premiership team across a home and away season?

Their 1920 premiership team that went 14 and 2 (86% win rate). But they only won 1 of 2 finals to win the flag, and got outscored by their opposition across the finals series.

They then had 2 x 15 and 3 win seasons where they also finished top. 1967 with a percentage of 145, but they only outscored their opposition by 20% across their two winning finals, and 1934, with a percentage of 121, but with dominant finals wins.

Be better, and you'll stop thinking there is always one conspiracy or another against you and your team.

How does this hurt Richmond? You are fantasising. I am a punter. I work out the probabilities of things occurring. It is in reality a roughly 20,000 to 1 chance that no club other than Essendon, Collingwood, Hawthorn, Carlton, Geelong or Melbourne has produced a single team within the top 24 Premiership teams in VFL/AFL history. Do the calculations yourself.

20,000 to 1.

This alone tells you the criteria is so faulty it cannot achieve what the thread is purporting in the thread title.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The team would have to be good enough across the regular season, and in their early finals, to reach the Grand Finals in the first place.

The analysis is (rightly) performed over a full season, not just the team's performance on Grand Final Day (or across multiple Grand Finals, when that has been the case).

That is simply not how the best team is divined in this competition and never has been. You might as well entitle the thread "which premier has lost the least amount of irrelevant games."

 

[Fadge]

How does this hurt Richmond? You are fantasising. I am a punter. I work out the probabilities of things occurring. It is in reality a roughly 20,000 to 1 chance that no club other than Essendon, Collingwood, Hawthorn, Carlton, Geelong or Melbourne has produced a single team within the top 24 Premiership teams in VFL/AFL history. Do the calculations yourself.

20,000 to 1.

This alone tells you the criteria is so faulty it cannot achieve what the thread is purporting in the thread title.

You still haven't shared a specific example of a howler where a team outside the top 24 should be inside the top 10 or so, based on the criteria of this thread.

All you've done is mentioned a team that was ranked 28th.

Let's go.

 

[terrybull]

Poor little Richmond and their poor little supporters.

They stumbled upon yet another thread where there's a conspiracy theory against them...

Or maybe, they just haven't had a single team worthy of being rated amongst the top echelon of teams....

Richmond's best performed premiership team across a home and away season?

Their 1920 premiership team that went 14 and 2 (86% win rate). But they only won 1 of 2 finals to win the flag, and got outscored by their opposition across the finals series.

They then had 2 x 15 and 3 win seasons where they also finished top. 1967 with a percentage of 145, but they only outscored their opposition by 20% across their two winning finals, and 1934, with a percentage of 121, but with dominant finals wins.

Be better, and you'll stop thinking there is always one conspiracy or another against you and your team.

The Tigers are a bit of a strange one. Their two moist dominant home and away seasons 1982 and 2018 they didn’t win. Guess they perform better with being underdogs or slight favourites.

 

[Fadge]

That is simply not how the best team is divined in this competition and never has been. You might as well entitle the thread "which premier has lost the least amount of irrelevant games."

Oh.

So the 16, or 18, or 22, or 23 games that are played to determine who qualifies for finals are now all irrelevant?

I think you're getting confused with most of your club's dead rubbers over the last two seasons.

Now that's the very definition of irrelevant.

 

[terrybull]

That is simply not how the best team is divined in this competition and never has been. You might as well entitle the thread "which premier has lost the least amount of irrelevant games."

You need to look at this list for the best Premier in one single season. Like there was no previous years or future years. Just one.

But if we all did our list, with our own criteria, we all be disagreeing with each others list. He’ll I probably be disagreeing with myself in time.

It’s not worth the effort to get so upset over one person’s opinion.

 

[Fadge]

Tigers supporters are just lucky the thread topic isn't 'Best individual season teams in the history of the competition'.

Then they'd really be having conniptions when they see the likes of St. Kilda 2009, Geelong 2008 and Collingwood 2011 ranked ahead of EVERY ONE OF Richmond's premiership teams.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You still haven't shared a specific example of a howler where a team outside the top 24 should be inside the top 10 or so, based on the criteria of this thread.

All you've done is mentioned a team that was ranked 28th.

Let's go.

I really hope you say that to me face to face one day Fadge.