Your premiership clock should be 9 years at least (hard rebuilders beware)

[Pessimistic]

Im hearing plenty of commentators discussing hard rebuilds. They usually say a couple of bad yers for a 5 year cycle. its much longer than that. If a team cant win a flag within 7-9 years, why bother? you could probably beat that with a 'soft' rebuild, or what was the accepted method pre priority picks

Hard rebuilds should have gone out with priority picks

I posted this before, but if a team has consecutive seasons with percentage below 80%, it takes at least seven seasons to win a flag, if at all.

So here's my Premiership 'calendar'

Team (sub 80%) first flag threat: Current on the clock
GWS (2012-14) 2021: 11oclock
Melbourne (2012-15) 2022: 9oclock (but in another slump maybe: clock needs winding)
St Kilda (2014-15) 2022: 9oclock
Essendon (2015-16) 2023: 6oclock
Brisbane(2014-17) 2024: 3oclock
Carlton (2015-18) 2025: 1oclock
Fremantle(2016-18) 2025: 1oclock

Only Gold Coast are sitting in a successive season slump at the moment. The other teams haven't had successive bad years for a long time.

 

[Pessimistic]

The evidence?
Richmond sub 80%: 2009-10 first flag 2017: 7 years (they had one year slump in 2016) Hardwick 2010--
Bulldogs sub 80%: 2003-04 first flag 2016: 12 years (they had one year slumps in 2012 and 2018) Eade 2005-11 McCartney 2012-14 Beveridge 2015-
Bris Bears/Lions sub 80%: 87-93 first flag 2001: 8 years (they had a one year slump in 1998) Knights 87-89 Walls 91-95 Northey 96-98 Matthews 98-08
Ports last slump was 2011-2012: its now eight years on and they look likely - Primus 2010-2012 Hinkley 2013--

recent premiers Hawthorn Collingwood Sydney Geelong and West Coast haven't had successive bad years for a long time

Also notably carlton, melbourne, essendon have had slump after slump nowhere near a flag

 

[Kwality]

The evidence?
Richmond sub 80%: 2009-10 first flag 2017: 7 years (they had one year slump in 2016)
Bulldogs sub 80%: 2003-04 first flag 2016: 12 years (they had one year slumps in 2012 and 2018)
Bris Bears/Lions sub 80%: 87-93 first flag 2001: 8 years (they had a one year slump in 1998)
Ports last slump was 2011-2012: its now eight years on and they look likely

recent premiers Hawthorn Collingwood Sydney Geelong and West Coast haven't had successive bad years for a long time

Also notably carlton, melbourne, essendon have had slump after slump nowhere near a flag

So 3 clubs in 30 flags? Port to be the 4th.

 

[JayJ20]

Im hearing plenty of commentators discussing hard rebuilds. They usually say a couple of bad yers for a 5 year cycle. its much longer than that. If a team cant win a flag within 7-9 years, why bother? you could probably beat that with a 'soft' rebuild, or what was the accepted method pre priority picks

Hard rebuilds should have gone out with priority picks

I posted this before, but if a team has consecutive seasons with percentage below 80%, it takes at least seven seasons to win a flag, if at all.

So here's my Premiership 'calendar'

Team (sub 80%) first flag threat: Current on the clock
GWS (2012-14) 2021: 11oclock
Melbourne (2012-15) 2022: 9oclock (but in another slump maybe: clock needs winding)
St Kilda (2014-15) 2022: 9oclock
Essendon (2015-16) 2023: 6oclock
Brisbane(2014-17) 2024: 3oclock
Carlton (2015-18) 2025: 1oclock
Fremantle(2016-18) 2025: 1oclock

Only Gold Coast are sitting in a successive season slump at the moment. The other teams haven't had successive bad years for a long time.

But there's a reason why we had sub 80% in 2016. Our list wasn't that bad. We just couldn't play our good players as 2017 showed.

 

[TedDougChris]

The evidence?
Richmond sub 80%: 2009-10 first flag 2017: 7 years (they had one year slump in 2016)
Bulldogs sub 80%: 2003-04 first flag 2016: 12 years (they had one year slumps in 2012 and 2018)
Bris Bears/Lions sub 80%: 87-93 first flag 2001: 8 years (they had a one year slump in 1998)
Ports last slump was 2011-2012: its now eight years on and they look likely

recent premiers Hawthorn Collingwood Sydney Geelong and West Coast haven't had successive bad years for a long time

Also notably carlton, melbourne, essendon have had slump after slump nowhere near a flag

The Dogs played in three consecutive PF's in 08, 09, 10 - that's 5 years after the sub 80%. We were poor umpiring away from the GF in at least one of those...

Theory doesn't hold here.

 

[Pessimistic]

The Dogs played in three consecutive PF's in 08, 09, 10 - that's 5 years after the sub 80%. We were poor umpiring away from the GF in at least one of those...

Theory doesn't hold here.

Or a lack of top line KPF - which dogs really tried to get.
But I guess im getting at culture and doggies culture seemed OK, but theres also overall maturity of the group. teams with young average age don't generally win flags.

The evidence im trying to define to test a theory suggest a team can be a finals regular after 5 years. Look at brisbane now. My first post has a lot more potential evidence then the three 'proofs' I noted.

 

[Pessimistic]

But there's a reason why we had sub 80% in 2016. Our list wasn't that bad. We just couldn't play our good players as 2017 showed.

A one off dip seems to be beneficial, just don't plan to stay there and fight like hell to get out of the slump. (Richmond, Eagles, Hawks)

Could the next seven premiers be: Port;GWS;Saints;Essendon;Brisbane;Carlton;Fremantle ?

Or will most of the next seven be the usual suspects which don't dip?

 

[Pessimistic]

Ignoring Gold Coast and GWS, which had poor years by design in their inauguration
Ignoring Carlton and Melbourne who seem to be in perpetual rebuild.

Left over is Adelaide and North Melbourne. never really dipping but with 'flirtations' with the top. Adelaide 05-06 and 2102, 2017 and North 2005 and 2007

 

[Art Vandelay_]

recent premiers Hawthorn Collingwood Sydney Geelong and West Coast haven't had successive bad years for a long time

Combined 12 flags since the turn of the century and seen other clubs attempt multiple rebuilds in the quest for success.

 

[Asifhe Givashe]

The Dogs played in three consecutive PF's in 08, 09, 10 - that's 5 years after the sub 80%. We were poor umpiring away from the GF in at least one of those...

Theory doesn't hold here.

I think 2016 might have been payback.

 

[btdg]

The evidence?
Richmond sub 80%: 2009-10 first flag 2017: 7 years (they had one year slump in 2016)
Bulldogs sub 80%: 2003-04 first flag 2016: 12 years (they had one year slumps in 2012 and 2018)
Bris Bears/Lions sub 80%: 87-93 first flag 2001: 8 years (they had a one year slump in 1998)
Ports last slump was 2011-2012: its now eight years on and they look likely

recent premiers Hawthorn Collingwood Sydney Geelong and West Coast haven't had successive bad years for a long time

Also notably carlton, melbourne, essendon have had slump after slump nowhere near a flag

Actually quite an interesting thread and premise overall.

One thing to note: it seems like most hard rebuilds involve at least one slump - it's not linear, but often has an early peak, then a bit of a flatline, then a year's slump. Then, it's really important not to panic.

Carlton rebuilt from 2003-2007 (held up a year or two because of salary cap punishments); then jumped up for 3 straight years in finals 09-11. In 2012, after a really bad run of injuries, we panicked, sacked Ratten, and hired Malthouse, who blew everything that was working up just when we should have been hitting the 7 year mark. Then bby year 9 we were falling apart again and the clock started anew

Essendon - their 7 year mark (from '05-06 when they bottomed out) should have been 2012-13; just as they were hitting the peak they ran into the chaos of the supplements saga. essendon's current 6 O'Clock is a bit skewed imo because of the 2016 year where their players were suspended.

Melbourne - not as sure what has happened here, other than the Neeld years meaning that the build was really shallow (with 2018 the only bright spark). Unlike Carlton they didn't panic after a sub-par 2019, but it hasn't translated to a bounce back.

For Hawthorn - '04-'05 were the consecutive bad years, an early jump in 2008, then a peak from '13-15 (8-10 years). Had a post-spike slump in 2009, but held their nerve (a premiership will do that) and continued on to success

Collingwood were able to turn two bad years in '99 and '00 into GF appearances just two years later '02 and '03, then bottomed out briefly in '04-05. From there it was only 5 years to a grand final. They seem to defy the trend completely.

West Coast had a 3 year run '08-'10 where they were out of contention including two bottom 2 seasons. 5 Years from there to a GF, and 8 to a premiership seems to fit the patter perfectly. They even had the patterned 'slump year' in their rebuild in 2013, where they dropped from finals to 13th, before bouncing back again.

So looking over this I'd say the pattern is closer to:

- Generally a hard rebuild involves a 2-3 year patch, including at least 2 years in the bottom 2 of the ladder
- The way back to the top generally takes 3-4 years to contention, which often culminates in a 'spike year', and there is often a 'slump year' on the way up.
- Strong clubs seem to have shorter periods at the bottom, might get to a GF or a flag in their 'spike year', and don't panic in the 'slump year' but treat it as a road map to the top. Their run of contention can last up to year 12 of the cycle
- Poor clubs spend longer at the bottom, and their 'spike' might not be as high. They tend to panic or have off-field crises around the 4-6 year mark, and rather than ride it out tend to panic and sack coaches or make other changes. This can derail things and send them spiralling again; in some cases, it leads to another hard rebuild

There's a message there for Brisbane, I think (who I would put closer to 5 O'Clock) - they're likely to have a slump year at some point and fall out of contention. When they do, don't panic!

 

[Pessimistic]

The best I can come up with is the culture also needs to be rebuilt/re-learned after the list is 'rebuilt'

I don't think pushing players out soon (for draft currency) is a high percentage move. If they want to go, sure.

As noted there are quick slumps which the club can recover from, but a losing year or n=bottom 6 years isnt so bad, but the really low percentage year after year does hint at consistent wallopings - surely these must have a toll, on player groups as well as fans.

80% was just arbitary. I'm sure there are other metrics

 

[Greenac]

The problem is that sometimes rebuilding on the the run doesn't work. Kangaroos tried throwing money at everyone half decent and it simply didn't work.

It's all well and good for big Victorian clubs to put their hat out and say 'hey we manage to not have to rebuild look at us' but it is considerably easier for them to recruit given all the perks that, with the exception of 2020, come with living in Melbourne snd playing for a big club.

With half a brain you can see why clubs can rationalise a full rebuild by saying "okay we are s**t and the big talent will not come right now, let's build a team and a club that can be a destination for big names and then once we have that, we don't let it go".

I think rebuilding on the run is the better option but for some clubs to get to the stage where they can viably do that there probably needs to be a hard rebuild first.

The AFL has, despite claims of equalisation, created a competition that in terms of clubs is anything but equal.

Oh, and putting up the bulldogs is a ridiculous example. They finished 7th H&A. They had a magic month in September but let's not pretend they were the dominant team that year. Brisbane had a load of help in the years leading up to their flags. Using raw data without actual analysis is just so poor.

I dont think any club WANTS to go full rebuild but sometimes there is no other option. For those below Tier 1 clubs, the alternative is to keep plodding between 7th and 14th for the next decade, never really getting close enough but never bottoming out. That is more bleak imo.

 

[Pessimistic]

The problem is that sometimes rebuilding on the the run doesn't work. Kangaroos tried throwing money at everyone half decent and it simply didn't work.

It's all well and good for big Victorian clubs to put their hat out and say 'hey we manage to not have to rebuild look at us' but it is considerably easier for them to recruit given all the perks that, with the exception of 2020, come with living in Melbourne snd playing for a big club.

With half a brain you can see why clubs can rationalise a full rebuild by saying "okay we are sh*t and the big talent will not come right now, let's build a team and a club that can be a destination for big names and then once we have that, we don't let it go".

I think rebuilding on the run is the better option but for some clubs to get to the stage where they can viably do that there probably needs to be a hard rebuild first.

The AFL has, despite claims of equalisation, created a competition that in terms of clubs is anything but equal.

Oh, and putting up the bulldogs is a ridiculous example. They finished 7th H&A. They had a magic month in September but let's not pretend they were the dominant team that year. Brisbane had a load of help in the years leading up to their flags. Using raw data without actual analysis is just so poor.

I dont think any club WANTS to go full rebuild but sometimes there is no other option. For those below Tier 1 clubs, the alternative is to keep plodding between 7th and 14th for the next decade, never really getting close enough but never bottoming out. That is more bleak imo.

Really liking the discussion. I'm just putting it out there it may be a 10 year process, probably 2 coaches. something to keep in mind when looking at alternatives.
Unless you can make it a 1ish year drop and grab (but be sure its a good year in draft talent too). We need to remember Carlton had #1 pick 3 years running, but Franklin dropped the year before and Natanui the year after.

Richmond should be interesting too. Been relatively pure to the draft,and seem to have great depth now. Raised eyebrows by not trading at all in 2017, but won the flag that year.

I agree that you embrace it if you find your club there. Hawks 04 were really there because several KPP had careers cut short all at once (or had traded croad)

At the time the hard rebuild was emphasised because trading for top line KPP was not successful. but now we have Richmond with Lynch and Port with Dixon Eagles have Kennedy but maybe that was 'unusual'
Free agency and expansion team raiding is definitely a current factor

 

[Dr Tigris]

In terms of how you win a premiership your 'clock' makes sense. Obviously what I say is general.

Premiers tend to have a squad with at least 4 A grade mature players. Without them it's just too hard.
They also tend to have quality to the bottom of their 22 - injures are usually really important in having that in September.
Premiers also tend to be remarkably good at a particular style of play. That is they aren't generic in how they play.
Premiers also tend to be incredibly well drilled, which takes years. (exceptions in some ways were Dogs 2016 and Tigers 2017 - well drilled but fairly quick ascent)

What that means is that clubs need to have access to genuine A grade stars - who usually (but not always) are early picks. Multiple top 5 picks is the easiest way to this sort of talent in bulk. You also need a lot of AFL quality players, who are mature enough to play their role week in week out under pressure.
So just to get the players you basically have to draft kids, or trade in players (see later), then develop them and the team's game style and philosophy.
This takes time, if you're starting at the bottom. Almost always star kids take years to become the sort of guys that drive a premiership. Also when you're at the bottom the kids have to take on an oversized role. This breaks many kids and often leads to poor development.

Phase 1: So, what usually happens to teams at their bottom, they get really good kids, and plenty of them. they have a high rate of loss and often patchy development. So it takes a few years before the squad starts to solidify.
Phase 2: Then you start to get positive spirals as new draftees come in and learn in a stable and protected environment. And as you start to win a few games the game plan starts to get 'better', because you're not trying to stem the bleeding. Hopefully with good luck and good management the club then has a core of stars + a good group of role players.
Phase 3: Then as you start to rise the club becomes attractive to other players. Stars might start to come across because they see the potential, and the club has spare $ because the team hasn't had the success to make ti worth paying the team more. Then you see teams really rise (see Brisbane recently - good solid squad, got in stars and suddenly contender)
Phase 4: Win a premiership and try to stay up.

Each phase can take years. So 9 years is easily possible. It can be shorter if you start low, but have ht core group, then accelerate as the team comes together. It can take longer if you have bad luck or the club panics. It can take forever if the club simply doesn't build a balanced squad and working game plan.

Underlying this is culture, more than anything. Culture helps build players that will stay and develop better. Culture builds belief in the game plan and the club. Culture is almost always a reflection of the management culture of the club. Good management = faster and stronger build. Poor culture the opposite.

When you're on top you can trade in stars, because they can see a premiership possibility. You can try and introduce kids and rebuild as you go. But it is hard, and most teams that genuinely contend drop off as a few key players leave and the culture and management that got you there stops working to stay on top.

 

[Pessimistic]

I think the key is the admin sticking with the plan over what is at least one attention span (5-7 years) Footy clubs are notoriously fickle. I see Richmond did stick to the plan which bore fruit. But there was almost a coup, and then the cycle might have kicked off again.

Oh and I agree I have taken just arbitary metrics to try and prove or disprove an argument. Nuances such as richmonds failed coup need to be overlaid.

Richmond and Hawthorn are at opposite ends of the trade or draft spectrum. but Hawks do draft and Tigers do trade. The rest are somewhere in between

 

[Freomaniac]

Im hearing plenty of commentators discussing hard rebuilds. They usually say a couple of bad yers for a 5 year cycle. its much longer than that. If a team cant win a flag within 7-9 years, why bother? you could probably beat that with a 'soft' rebuild, or what was the accepted method pre priority picks

Hard rebuilds should have gone out with priority picks

I posted this before, but if a team has consecutive seasons with percentage below 80%, it takes at least seven seasons to win a flag, if at all.

So here's my Premiership 'calendar'

Team (sub 80%) first flag threat: Current on the clock
GWS (2012-14) 2021: 11oclock
Melbourne (2012-15) 2022: 9oclock (but in another slump maybe: clock needs winding)
St Kilda (2014-15) 2022: 9oclock
Essendon (2015-16) 2023: 6oclock
Brisbane(2014-17) 2024: 3oclock
Carlton (2015-18) 2025: 1oclock
Fremantle(2016-18) 2025: 1oclock

Only Gold Coast are sitting in a successive season slump at the moment. The other teams haven't had successive bad years for a long time.

Interesting post. So it takes around 6-9 years to win a flag eh? Sounds reasonable

 

[Pessimistic]

Im hearing plenty of commentators discussing hard rebuilds. They usually say a couple of bad yers for a 5 year cycle. its much longer than that. If a team cant win a flag within 7-9 years, why bother? you could probably beat that with a 'soft' rebuild, or what was the accepted method pre priority picks

Hard rebuilds should have gone out with priority picks

I posted this before, but if a team has consecutive seasons with percentage below 80%, it takes at least seven seasons to win a flag, if at all.

So here's my Premiership 'calendar'

Team (sub 80%) first flag threat: Current on the clock
GWS (2012-14) 2021: 11oclock
Melbourne (2012-15) 2022: 9oclock (but in another slump maybe: clock needs winding)
St Kilda (2014-15) 2022: 9oclock
Essendon (2015-16) 2023: 6oclock
Brisbane(2014-17) 2024: 3oclock
Carlton (2015-18) 2025: 1oclock
Fremantle(2016-18) 2025: 1oclock

Only Gold Coast are sitting in a successive season slump at the moment. The other teams haven't had successive bad years for a long time.

Gold Coast wont be 80% this year so if they keep on trajectory, seven years is 2027

Just to expand on my theory, Why go the hard rebuild unless its to give you a better chance at a premiership on your 'upswing'? Im interested to see how these 'predictions' play out

 

[BF Tiger]

It’s important to note that it doesn’t mean you’ll get a premiership. You could stick to the plan, rise and then fall without ultimate success. Or you may only rise to mid-table, play a few years of finals but never really be in contention.

 

[Pessimistic]

It’s important to note that it doesn’t mean you’ll get a premiership. You could stick to the plan, rise and then fall without ultimate success. Or you may only rise to mid-table, play a few years of finals but never really be in contention.

Yes, why do it, especially as the priority pick is long gone

Im looking ant theres far more sub 80% seasons in 2001-2020 than 1981-2000. Ironically (in this context) equalisation seems to have made things less equal, (although there are many more measures of that)

 

[BF Tiger]

Yes, why do it, especially as the priority pick is long gone

Im looking ant theres far more sub 80% seasons in 2001-2020 than 1981-2000. Ironically (in this context) equalisation seems to have made things less equal, (although there are many more measures of that)

Equalisation might have been a lot more achievable with 12 clubs.

Just so much has to go right to win a flag, but someone might still get it more right. I’m thinking Saints and Freo herE.

 

[Duskfire]

I also think the traditional rebuilding is that much harder to pull off now that we have so many teams. Between that, priority picks and academies, it is getting harder and harder for teams to pick up a bunch of talent and then keep all that talent. Really, being out the premiership window when Gold Coast and GWS entered the competition was the worst timing, as they got all the talent; it set teams like Carlton and Melbourne back years, while on the opposite end of the spectrum, if you were still within that window it sustained it (Hawthorn, Geelong, Sydney, WCE etc etc.)

The hard rebuild is definetly a thing of the past, in most cases.

 

[Pessimistic]

In terms of how you win a premiership your 'clock' makes sense. Obviously what I say is general.

Premiers tend to have a squad with at least 4 A grade mature players. Without them it's just too hard.
They also tend to have quality to the bottom of their 22 - injures are usually really important in having that in September.
Premiers also tend to be remarkably good at a particular style of play. That is they aren't generic in how they play.
Premiers also tend to be incredibly well drilled, which takes years. (exceptions in some ways were Dogs 2016 and Tigers 2017 - well drilled but fairly quick ascent)

What that means is that clubs need to have access to genuine A grade stars - who usually (but not always) are early picks. Multiple top 5 picks is the easiest way to this sort of talent in bulk. You also need a lot of AFL quality players, who are mature enough to play their role week in week out under pressure.
So just to get the players you basically have to draft kids, or trade in players (see later), then develop them and the team's game style and philosophy.
This takes time, if you're starting at the bottom. Almost always star kids take years to become the sort of guys that drive a premiership. Also when you're at the bottom the kids have to take on an oversized role. This breaks many kids and often leads to poor development.

Phase 1: So, what usually happens to teams at their bottom, they get really good kids, and plenty of them. they have a high rate of loss and often patchy development. So it takes a few years before the squad starts to solidify.
Phase 2: Then you start to get positive spirals as new draftees come in and learn in a stable and protected environment. And as you start to win a few games the game plan starts to get 'better', because you're not trying to stem the bleeding. Hopefully with good luck and good management the club then has a core of stars + a good group of role players.
Phase 3: Then as you start to rise the club becomes attractive to other players. Stars might start to come across because they see the potential, and the club has spare $ because the team hasn't had the success to make ti worth paying the team more. Then you see teams really rise (see Brisbane recently - good solid squad, got in stars and suddenly contender)
Phase 4: Win a premiership and try to stay up.

Each phase can take years. So 9 years is easily possible. It can be shorter if you start low, but have ht core group, then accelerate as the team comes together. It can take longer if you have bad luck or the club panics. It can take forever if the club simply doesn't build a balanced squad and working game plan.

Underlying this is culture, more than anything. Culture helps build players that will stay and develop better. Culture builds belief in the game plan and the club. Culture is almost always a reflection of the management culture of the club. Good management = faster and stronger build. Poor culture the opposite.

When you're on top you can trade in stars, because they can see a premiership possibility. You can try and introduce kids and rebuild as you go. But it is hard, and most teams that genuinely contend drop off as a few key players leave and the culture and management that got you there stops working to stay on top.

‘each player has a clock and the club clock is the sum of the clocks. I prefer a tidal analogy, cos tides are composed of a few cycles merged. Therres on twice daily and on every 28 days.

I think a better strategy would be not to subsume the whole player list in a hard rebuild, but have cells of groups of players 3-4 apart approximately. These groups are developed as you would with a singular group. A really dynastic club might have three of these groups at times.
This means the dive down the ladder is less frequent and shorter. You do lock yourselves out of ‘three years of elite draft picks’ but ask Carlton how that went in 05-06-07 (bookended by buddy and niknat)

 

[Pessimistic]

In short, if you find your club at the bottom, with not much to be optimistic about, by all means maximise that opportunity.

otherwise, be very sure you know what you are doing if intentionally taking your club down there based on the lottery of draft picks

 

[Bungeye]

Yes, Malthouse took nine years to build a premiership team from scratch. Despite a couple of grand final disappointments and a couple of down years, was unwavering in his convictions to taste success. It's all about the long game and it's unfortunate coaches are not seen through to the end