Does it take too long for clubs to rebuild their lists?

[Gethelred]

Hawthorn made the prelims in 2001 so not sure how you get 8 years for us

Again: read the post you're quoting:

This is my argument, made simply.

1. Contention can be demonstrated clearly only by when a flag is won.
2. Rock bottom to contention measures the duration of a rebuild.
3. The shortest examples we have of this pattern existing are WB in 2016 and Hawthorn in 2008, at 8 seasons.
Therefore...
It takes at least 8 years to fully rebuild from failure to contention.

I've said it three posts in a row now.

In 2001, you lost by 9 points to the Bombers in their last finals win. Would you truly state that you think those Hawks were, in that moment in time, in contention for the 2001 flag?

Until you can unequivocally state that a side is in contention for a flag, that duration is live.

 

[Gethelred]

I mean, unless one of you is willing to come up with an alternative or workable definition of 'contention' that doesn't involve a flag - which is, again, the AFL success condition - you're left trying to nitpick rather than actually responding.

 

[Fadge]

There are players used during the 2016 flag were first recruited in 2008, allowing you to trace that build back there. This is some very, very old news and you've been around a very, very long time Fadge; you rather know this already. That a club can make finals whilst recontextualising or rebuilding their list is also not unusual; Collingwood, Geelong have been good at it; Sydney recruited Mills and Heeney whilst already top 4, the Lions getting in Ashcroft whilst top 4.

You're also not reading the post, because if you had you'd have seen the extremely simple breakdown of my argument towards the end. You're not really attacking it at all, just trying to nitpick an example provided that wasn't even the only example, and that nitpick is both vacuous and inane.

That's not really much of an explanation.

Seems to me it's a convenient number for supporters of clubs who are entering year 7 or 8 of a rebuild.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

I mean, unless one of you is willing to come up with an alternative or workable definition of 'contention' that doesn't involve a flag - which is, again, the AFL success condition - you're left trying to nitpick rather than actually responding.

Is that the "if you're not first you're last" thingy?

Normal definition is fine

 

[Gethelred]

That's not really much of an explanation.

Seems to me it's a convenient number for supporters of clubs who are entering year 7 or 8 of a rebuild.

This here table is called the Hierarchy of Arguments:


... and what you've done here sits second from the bottom.

Do you want to have a conversation or not, Fadge?

 

[Robroy22]

Let me know when Pies have been up there for near 2 decades.

• MOST FINALS SERIES APPEARANCES SINCE 2000. 18 – Geelong, Sydney. 14 – Collingwood, West Coast. 12 – Adelaide, Hawthorn. ...
• MOST GRAND FINALS SINCE 2000. 6 – Geelong, Sydney. 5 – Collingwood, Hawthorn. 4 – Brisbane, West Coast. ...

 

[Robroy22]

The reason it takes so long now is because of how compromised the draft is.

Not to mention the DRAW

 

[Fadge]

I mean, unless one of you is willing to come up with an alternative or workable definition of 'contention' that doesn't involve a flag - which is, again, the AFL success condition - you're left trying to nitpick rather than actually responding.

I've explained in other threads how I personally define 'contention'.

To be a 'contender' in any given year, a club has to be in a genuine position at the pointy end of the season to have a legitimate shot at the premiership.

At the extreme ends, this can range from only one club (Essendon in 2000 - noone got near them that year. Carlton were right in the mix, but fell apart in the finals series and were a long way short of them when it mattered most), to 4 clubs (Richmond, Geelong, Port Adelaide and Brisbane in 2020).

I also find people are far too quick to annoint a team a 'contender'. I had people firing shots at me from the rafters in June this year when I refused to acknowledge Carlton as a premiership contender - when they were second on the ladder and second favourite for the flag.

A contender needs to be determined in hindsight, not 4 months in advance of a finals series.

 

[Fadge]

• MOST FINALS SERIES APPEARANCES SINCE 2000. 18 – Geelong, Sydney. 14 – Collingwood, West Coast. 12 – Adelaide, Hawthorn. ...
• MOST GRAND FINALS SINCE 2000. 6 – Geelong, Sydney. 5 – Collingwood, Hawthorn. 4 – Brisbane, West Coast. ...

Fair to say we've let him know...

 

[Fadge]

Hawthorn made the prelims in 2001 so not sure how you get 8 years for us

Seems it's because you had some players recruited in 2000 that played in your 2008 premiership team.

But what about the players who were recruited in 1999, or 2001, or 2002. I expect you had players recruited in those years as well who played in the 2008 premiership?

 

[Fadge]

Again: read the post you're quoting:

I've said it three posts in a row now.

In 2001, you lost by 9 points to the Bombers in their last finals win. Would you truly state that you think those Hawks were, in that moment in time, in contention for the 2001 flag?

Until you can unequivocally state that a side is in contention for a flag, that duration is live.

Given Hawthorn lost by 9 points to a team that started favourite in the Grand Final the following week, they absolutely were premiership contenders in 2001.

 

[Gethelred]

Is that the "if you're not first you're last" thingy?

Normal definition is fine
View attachment 2153185

Okay.

This isn't really an argument specific to AFL circles. Any team in the top - arguably - 8 is 'in contention' (were us to adopt this definition) because before the game has begun the scores are level and it's a relatively even playing field.

There are plenty of teams that have made finals or come top 4 without contention. Port Adelaide cannot be considered to be in contention between 2019 and 2024, despite coming top 4 in 4 of 5 seasons and top of the ladder twice. Brisbane were arguably a paper lion between 2019 and 2022, because they were demolished in straight sets twice and beaten by 40 points in a home quarterfinal.

It's also woefully imprecise as far as workability goes. I'll be talking about that a bit more in a sec, because...

I've explained in other threads how I personally define 'contention'.

To be a 'contender' in any given year, a club has to be in a genuine position at the pointy end of the season to have a legitimate shot at the premiership.

This is extremely imprecise, Fadge, because it invites subjectivity into things.

Would you say that Port Adelaide in the above situations - from 2019 to present - are contending for premierships, despite having failed to make a single grand final in that duration? Were Geelong and St Kilda contending in 2004-05, when neither team could break clear of their interstate rivals to make a grand final?

Did Geelong contend for the entirety of the last decade?

Here's my problem with your reasoning here, Fadge. By this logic, you invite arguments at the margins; people can quibble with you in either direction concerning contention in any given year about any given side, and you more or less have to consider their points of view (when you choose to actually address their posting rather than their club of support, though). This doesn't allow for any fixable, verifiable number.

Now, you're welcome to not use my definition for contention, but you need to provide a reason why yours is superior.

At the extreme ends, this can range from only one club (Essendon in 2000 - noone got near them that year. Carlton were right in the mix, but fell apart in the finals series and were a long way short of them when it mattered most), to 4 clubs (Richmond, Geelong, Port Adelaide and Brisbane in 2020).

I also find people are far too quick to annoint a team a 'contender'. I had people firing shots at me from the rafters in June this year when I refused to acknowledge Carlton as a premiership contender - when they were second on the ladder and second favourite for the flag.

A contender needs to be determined in hindsight, not 4 months in advance of a finals series.

This, I agree with.

 

[Fadge]

This here table is called the Hierarchy of Arguments:
View attachment 2153187

... and what you've done here sits second from the bottom.

Do you want to have a conversation or not, Fadge?

Keen for you to clearly explain your rationale for stating both the 2016 Bulldogs and 2008 Hawks win their respective flags after an 8 year rebuild.

I'd hope it would be more than 'Hawthorn had some players drafted in 2000 who played in their 2008 flag', and likewise for the Bulldogs.

Because the numbers just aren't stacking up for many of us.

 

[hawkman]

Again: read the post you're quoting:

I've said it three posts in a row now.

In 2001, you lost by 9 points to the Bombers in their last finals win. Would you truly state that you think those Hawks were, in that moment in time, in contention for the 2001 flag?

Until you can unequivocally state that a side is in contention for a flag, that duration is live.

Given we were the width of the goal post from hitting the front late in the last quarter to make the Grand Final, I would say so

Would you say Collingwood were in contention for a flag in 22 when they lost to Sydney by a point in the prelim?

 

[Fadge]

Okay.

This isn't really an argument specific to AFL circles. Any team in the top - arguably - 8 is 'in contention' (were us to adopt this definition) because before the game has begun the scores are level and it's a relatively even playing field.

There are plenty of teams that have made finals or come top 4 without contention. Port Adelaide cannot be considered to be in contention between 2019 and 2024, despite coming top 4 in 4 of 5 seasons and top of the ladder twice. Brisbane were arguably a paper lion between 2019 and 2022, because they were demolished in straight sets twice and beaten by 40 points in a home quarterfinal.

It's also woefully imprecise as far as workability goes. I'll be talking about that a bit more in a sec, because...

This is extremely imprecise, Fadge, because it invites subjectivity into things.

Would you say that Port Adelaide in the above situations - from 2019 to present - are contending for premierships, despite having failed to make a single grand final in that duration? Were Geelong and St Kilda contending in 2004-05, when neither team could break clear of their interstate rivals to make a grand final?

Did Geelong contend for the entirety of the last decade?

Here's my problem with your reasoning here, Fadge. By this logic, you invite arguments at the margins; people can quibble with you in either direction concerning contention in any given year about any given side, and you more or less have to consider their points of view (when you choose to actually address their posting rather than their club of support, though). This doesn't allow for any fixable, verifiable number.

Now, you're welcome to not use my definition for contention, but you need to provide a reason why yours is superior.

Of course you'll invite 'arguments at the margins' with this logic.

And that is all well and good.

But anyone who has played or even watched a reasonable amount of sport in their lifetimes would appreciate there is rarely only ever one contender in a particularly sporting event.

I mean, how would I sound if I said to GWS supporters 'Nah, sorry. Your team was never in contention in 2023, because Collingwood won the flag and you guys didn't.'

I mean, there was a single point in the result of their Preliminary Final against Collingwood - a game that could have gone either way. And there was less than a kick in the Grand Final result the following week.

I think it is pretty easy to determine who the contenders were in a given season, albeit some might argue for or against whether there might have been a third, or fourth contender.

Though if you use my rationale, the line of delineation is usually quite clear.

 

[Gethelred]

Keen for you to clearly explain your rationale for stating both the 2016 Bulldogs and 2008 Hawks win their respective flags after an 8 year rebuild.

I'd hope it would be more than 'Hawthorn had some players drafted in 2000 who played in their 2008 flag', and likewise for the Bulldogs.

Because the numbers just aren't stacking up for many of us.

Okay.

I find it rather irritating that you've decided I need to do your homework for you, Fadge. Most of us - myself included - don't need to do all that much to win an internet argument. I'm content in my reasoning for those being the shortest because the players they got in 2007 - specifically, Easton Wood - signifies the low point. It begins there, because while there are a few others who were on the list between 2008-2016 (Bob Murphy and Matthew Boyd) that was the low point where they tried to rebuild. They got in Callan Ward in 2008, Jordan Roughead and Ace Cordy in 2009, Jason Tutt and Liam Jones in 2010. The reason why they needed to go to the well again is because their drafting sucked; Jones stalled until he came to Carlton and was redeployed as a defender, Tutt sucked, and Ward and Harbrow left pursuing expansion club money.

The picture then becomes muddied: did the Bulldogs embark on two rebuilds, or is it the same build?

It's easier to state that the dogs went from inception - 2007, when they drafted Easton Wood - to flag in 2016 than it is to truly depict within a forum length post the accurate situation as it stood for the Dogs list management. This is why I stated that it would be the work of a PhD candidate to go into each and every season of the AFL, each club and each player, and project 'contention' as a pattern in the numbers. It would involve historical research of the kind that would be mindblowing and you still would struggle to find an answer that would work for the entirety of the time footy has been around because we keep changing the rules and the amounts of teams.

Now, I could do more or less the precise same list analysis for Hawthorn as I did for the Dogs, but I rather don't need to, Fadge. I've better things to do with my time because I am not that PhD candidate and I need to have something to eat tonight.

 

[Fadge]

Would you say that Port Adelaide in the above situations - from 2019 to present - are contending for premierships, despite having failed to make a single grand final in that duration? Were Geelong and St Kilda contending in 2004-05, when neither team could break clear of their interstate rivals to make a grand final?

On this point, in any given year we have teams at different levels, and some teams might have a fair bit go wrong but still be good enough to contend, whilst others find themselves in contention because most things have gone right for them.

Take Brisbane this year, for example.

They have proven to be a very strong team, and are currently right at the absolute peak of their cycle. How many teams would have been able to recover from a 2 and 5 start to even end up contending for the premiership, let alone win it?

Collingwood were a kick from a flag in 2018, a kick from a Grand Final in 2019, COVID Year in 2020 followed by a poor year which resulted in big changes at the club and saw them quickly rebound to fall short of the 2022 Grand Final by a point and back up the following year for a flag.

Teams rarely contend for 4, 5, 6, 8 years in a row, because it usually takes so much to go right for them to contend, particularly if the team isn't quite as good as the stronger teams at the time, and/or a team isn't at the peak of their cycle (and it is unreasonable for a team to be at the peak of their cycle for 4, 5, 6, 8 consecutive years).

 

[Gethelred]

Given we were the width of the goal post from hitting the front late in the last quarter to make the Grand Final, I would say so

Would you say Collingwood were in contention for a flag in 22 when they lost to Sydney by a point in the prelim?

Hindsight is kind here, because they went on to win a flag the following season, which is my point: you cannot know in the absence of a flag whether a team is properly in contention. Even making a grand final is not enough, as the Colliwobbles demonstrates; you can be good enough to make it, but the AFL success condition's a hard task to accomplish.

 

[Gethelred]

On this point, in any given year we have teams at different levels, and some teams might have a fair bit go wrong but still be good enough to contend, whilst others find themselves in contention because most things have gone right for them.

Take Brisbane this year, for example.

They have proven to be a very strong team, and are currently right not at the absolute peak of their cycle. How many teams would have been able to recover from a 2 and 5 start to even end up contending for the premiership, let alone win it?

Collingwood were a kick from a flag in 2018, a kick from a Grand Final in 2019, COVID Year in 2020 followed by a poor year which resulted in big changes at the club and saw them quickly rebound to fall short of the 2022 Grand Final by a point and back up the following year for a flag.

Teams rarely contend for 4, 5, 6, 8 years in a row, because it usually takes so much to go right for them to contend, particularly if the team isn't quite as good as the stronger teams at the time, and/or a team isn't at the peak of their cycle (and it is unreasonable for a team to be at the peak of their cycle for 4, 5, 6, 8 consecutive years).

See what I mean? Now we're bogged down, discussing the nature of contention as a nebulous, intangible thing that is next to impossible to know without hindsight. Collingwood are only proven to have been in contention in 2022 because you won in 2023; had you not, had you relapsed and fallen down the ladder or even merely plateaued, it'd just have been another flash in the pan.

This is why it's both more workable and easier to project rock bottom to flag, and to equate flag with contention. Flags are ultimately the currency of the sport. You cannot be said to have accurately been in contention to win the flag unless you can outline specifically a formula upon which everyone can agree upon.

And on the main board, that'd be a trial unto itself.

 

[Fadge]

Okay.

I find it rather irritating that you've decided I need to do your homework for you, Fadge. Most of us - myself included - don't need to do all that much to win an internet argument. I'm content in my reasoning for those being the shortest because the players they got in 2007 - specifically, Easton Wood - signifies the low point. It begins there, because while there are a few others who were on the list between 2008-2016 (Bob Murphy and Matthew Boyd) that was the low point where they tried to rebuild. They got in Callan Ward in 2008, Jordan Roughead and Ace Cordy in 2009, Jason Tutt and Liam Jones in 2010. The reason why they needed to go to the well again is because their drafting sucked; Jones stalled until he came to Carlton and was redeployed as a defender, Tutt sucked, and Ward and Harbrow left pursuing expansion club money.

The picture then becomes muddied: did the Bulldogs embark on two rebuilds, or is it the same build?

It's easier to state that the dogs went from inception - 2007, when they drafted Easton Wood - to flag in 2016 than it is to truly depict within a forum length post the accurate situation as it stood for the Dogs list management.

Now, I could do more or less the precise same list analysis for Hawthorn as I did for the Dogs, but I rather don't need to, Fadge. I've better things to do with my time.

You're doing my homework, by providing supporting evidence to a statement you made, that many of us disagree with and don't see the logic behind?

So when the Western Bulldogs traded in 28 year old Ben Hudson in 2007, they did that with an eye on 2016?

Picking up 29 year old Scott Welsh in the 2008 pre season draft for the same reason?

But I'm sure it was the trade for 32 year old Barry Hall in 2009 that was seen as the centrepiece for their targeted 2016 onslaught.

I suggest you should have given more thought before you chose the 2016 Bulldogs and 2008 Hawks as your examples of a rebuild taking minimum 8 years.

I mean, the Western Bulldogs 2016 aren't even a great example of a rebuild. They are actually a great example of an average team playing fantastic football for a month and claiming an unexpected premiership.

Ladder positions after home and away:
2012 - 15th
2013 - 15th
2014 - 14th
2015 - 6th
2016 - 7th
2017 - 10th
2018 - 13th

If I was to say to you about your footy club right now 'I know we're in the top 4 right now (as the Bulldogs were in 2008/9/10) but we really need to embark on a rebuild, and I can guarantee you within the next 10 years we'll peak with a ladder position after home and away of 6th, with only one additional season in the finals', I'm not sure you'd be too excited about it...

 

[Fadge]

See what I mean? Now we're bogged down, discussing the nature of contention as a nebulous, intangible thing that is next to impossible to know without hindsight. Collingwood are only proven to have been in contention in 2022 because you won in 2023; had you not, had you relapsed and fallen down the ladder, it'd just have been another flash in the pan.

No.

Collingwood contended for the premiership in 2022 because they contended for the premiership.

They were a kick from the eventual premiers in the Qualifying Final, comfortably accounted for Fremantle in the Semi-Final, and lost by a point to Sydney in a Preliminary Final.

There is no doubt about the fact they contended for a Premiership in 2022.

What they did in 2023 was completely irrelevant.

 

[adammania9]

Let me know when Pies have been up there for near 2 decades.

I can but it will probably take another 15 years

In the end, the name of the game is premierships. This strategy has returned the same number of flags for the two clubs.

 

[Fadge]

This is why it's both more workable and easier to project rock bottom to flag, and to equate flag with contention. Flags are ultimately the currency of the sport. You cannot be said to have accurately been in contention to win the flag unless you can outline specifically a formula upon which everyone can agree upon.

And on the main board, that'd be a trial unto itself.

Let's do a Poll Thread:

'Who were the premiership contenders in 2023?'
Option 1 - Collingwood only
Option 2 - Collingwood, Brisbane and GWS

I'm sure you're familiar with the reasonable person test?

I'm not sure we'd see many posters other than you vote for Option 1.

 

[Obeanie1]

CBF looking it up but 7 over 5 wouldn't be in the top half a dozen clubs.

You brought up Richmond

Are seven 1st round selections over 5 drafts "F all " picks?

That was the claim / dumb statement I responded to.

 

[Gethelred]

No.

Collingwood contended for the premiership in 2022 because they contended for the premiership.

Circular logic.

They were a kick from the eventual premiers in the Qualifying Final, comfortably accounted for Fremantle in the Semi-Final, and lost by a point to Sydney in a Preliminary Final.

There is no doubt about the fact they contended for a Premiership in 2022.

What they did in 2023 was completely irrelevant.

Incorrect.