Opinion Equalisation is a myth.

[Call Me Cake]

Between 1979 and 2000, 8 teams in a 16 team competition (highest extent) won a flag - (50% strike rate).

Between 2001 and 2022, 10 teams in a 18 team competition (highest extent) won a flag - (55.56% strike rate).

The modern game being more "equal" and less prone to domination due to "efforts to curb it" is a myth retold ad nauseam.

 

[OniAu]

Dumb administration/coaching is a massive part , only have to look at Essendon through this period

Thompson - proven troublesome off field antics , still bought in
Hird - Deluded failed coach who couldnt admit fault
Appointed CEO - sacked within 48 hours as was a churchy bigot
Dodoro - Failed list manager for how long?

Then you look at Tiges , everything right off field and reap rewards

 

[adammania9]

Is equalisation meant to equal 18 different teams winning 18 flags? 14/18 sides have made preliminary finals since 2014. 10/18 have made grand finals. Their fate then is in their hands. Equalisation isn't set up to give everybody equalised success, it's set up to give an equalised chance of success.

 

[Underarm]

Between 1979 and 2000, 8 teams in a 16 team competition (highest extent) won a flag - (50% strike rate).

Between 2001 and 2022, 10 teams in a 18 team competition (highest extent) won a flag - (55.56% strike rate).

The modern game being more "equal" and less prone to domination due to "efforts to curb it" is a myth retold ad nauseam.

Statistics can tell you anything if you know how to use them.

1995-2022 14/18 teams won flags.
1967-94 7/16 teams won flags.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Statistics can tell you anything if you know how to use them.

1995-2022 14/18 teams won flags.
1967-96 7/16 teams won flags.

Except context exists, which is something you disregard to twist a narrative, not me. In this case, the modern game (and the common brought up efforts of equalisation) are usually pinned from 2001 onwards. Hence why I went from today to then, and then used the same time-span before that.

The fact that you had to go back to garner a wider spread of teams in order to twist said narrative actually proves my point further - not yours.

Yes, you can twist numbers, but context matters, and in this case, it is a response to a myth repeated in the case of a controlled method to equalise the competition from a certain point, rather than it being down to random chance/a product of a certain time-period.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Is equalisation meant to equal 18 different teams winning 18 flags?

No it's not, but if the idea of equalisation efforts are to be brought up as fact, there should be more of a flag winning discrepancy (which is what ultimately matters) than a mere 5.5% over a certain time-span. Therefore it has been nothing but a myth, plain and simple.

 

[Danw0w]

Look at the European soccer leagues and tell me again that equalisation is a myth.

 

[Underarm]

Except context exists, which is something you disregard to twist a narrative, not me. In this case, the modern game (and the common brought up efforts of equalisation) is usually pinned from 2001 onwards. Hence why I went from today to then, and then used the same time-span before that.

Yes, you can twist numbers, but context matters, and in this case, it is a response to a myth repeated in the case of a controlled method to equalise the competition from a certain point, rather than it being down to random chance/a product of a certain time-period.

Apart from being the beginining of the Millenium, I'm not sure why you would pick 2001 as a starting point. 1987 or 1990 make more sense because the thing that drives equalisation in the competition is the Draft.

Between 1967 -1989 all Premierships were won by Hawthorn(7), Carlton(7), Richmond(5), Essendon (2) and North Melbourne (2)

Then the 90s were fairly competitive with 7 different winners, because of the advent of Non Victorian teams and the implementation of the draft.

Between 1990 -2012 there were 11 different winners.

Since then we've had 6 different premiership teams. If any team other than Melbourne win this year it will be 7. So we're already better than the 70s/80s and we still have 10 years to go.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Apart from being the beginining of the Millenium, I'm not sure why you would pick 2001 as a starting point. 1987 or 1990 make more sense because the thing that drives equalisation in the competition is the Draft.

Between 1967 -1989 all Premierships were won by Hawthorn(7), Carlton(7), Richmond(5), Essendon (2) and North Melbourne (2)

Then the 90s were fairly competitive with 7 different winners, because of the advent of Non Victorian teams and the implementation of the draft.

Between 1990 -2012 there were 11 different winners.

Since then we've had 6 different premiership teams. If any team other than Melbourne win this year it will be 7. So we're already better than the 70s/80s and we still have 10 years to go.

When people say "the modern game", that's where it generally starts. And that's when the topic of equalisation/myth stemming from that was occurring (i.e; Carlton being fined, ect) - with this idea that it would be noticeably different as opposed to just 5.5%.

Also, if you want to go back further (your play, not mine):

Between 1958 to 1979, 9 teams out of a 12 team competition won a flag - 75% strike rate.

As you see, "equalisation" and the efforts of it are a myth. The results of a given time period are not down to external factors - they are a product of their specific time. Domination will occur (and still does) at it's own accord.

/thread.

 

[The Educator]

Except context exists, which is something you disregard to twist a narrative, not me. In this case, the modern game (and the common brought up efforts of equalisation) are usually pinned from 2001 onwards. Hence why I went from today to then, and then used the same time-span before that.

The fact that you had to go back to garner a wider spread of teams in order to twist said narrative actually proves my point further - not yours.

Yes, you can twist numbers, but context matters, and in this case, it is a response to a myth repeated in the case of a controlled method to equalise the competition from a certain point, rather than it being down to random chance/a product of a certain time-period.

Except that the main tools of equalisation (salary cap and draft) was bought in in the late 80s and your statistical comparison relies very heavily on the array of teams that won premierships in the 90s.

The irony is palpable

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

When people say "the modern game", that's where it generally starts. And that's when the topic of equalisation/myth stemming from that was occurring (i.e; Carlton being fined, ect) - with this idea that it would be noticeably different as opposed to just 5.5%.

Also, if you want to go back further (your play, not mine):

Between 1958 to 1979, 9 teams out of a 12 team competition won a flag - 75% strike rate.

As you see, "equalisation" and the efforts of it are a myth. The results of a given time period are not down to external factors - they are a product of their specific time. Domination will occur (and still does) at it's own accord.

/thread.

I can genuinely say that I have never heard "2001-onwards" being referred to as "the modern game" before this thread. It feels like you arbitrarily made up that date.

 

[Dogflogger]

Money still rules the league, until the AFL stop making decisions purely based on profit we will never get a equal league.
Pendleberry is closing up to 400 games played and he has never played at kardinia park, how is that fair for anyone?

 

[Call Me Cake]

Except that the main tools of equalisation (salary cap and draft) was bought in in the late 80s and your statistical comparison relies very heavily on the array of teams that won premierships in the 90s.

The irony is palpable

Between 1965 and 1986 - before the expansion teams were introduced - and just before the "late 80s" introductions you brought up (shot yourself in the foot with that one) - 6 teams out of a 12 team competition won a flag - 50% strike rate, compared to 55.5% of 2001-2022.

The fact that some continually try to move the goal posts (palpable) and that a similar pattern can still arise proves randomness/product of a time rather than methodical attempts at "equalisation" or lack thereof. And if there ever is any true discrepancy, it's never to an amount that justifies such a claim.

Myth.

 

[Dazb86]

Between 1979 and 2000, 8 teams in a 16 team competition (highest extent) won a flag - (50% strike rate).

Between 2001 and 2022, 10 teams in a 18 team competition (highest extent) won a flag - (55.56% strike rate).

The modern game being more "equal" and less prone to domination due to "efforts to curb it" is a myth retold ad nauseam.

2012 was not an equal season due to drug cheating. The rest were.

 

[The Educator]

Between 1965 and 1986 - before the expansion teams were introduced - and just before the "late 80s" introductions you brought up (shot yourself in the foot with that one) - 6 teams out of a 12 team competition won a flag - 50% strike rate, compared to 55.5% of 2001-2022.

The fact that some continually try to move the goal posts (palpable) and that a similar pattern can still arise proves randomness/product of a time rather than methodical attempts at "equalisation" or lack thereof. And if there ever is any true discrepancy, it's never to an amount that justifies such a claim.

Myth.

Haha, fair play if you do satire.

There's still only 20 opportunities to win a premiership in 20 years regardless of the number of teams. Would you say a competition with 40 teams with 20 different winners over 20 years is as equal as 6 of 12?

It has been far more equal over the last 22 years.

FMD

 

[ferball]

Except context exists, which is something you disregard to twist a narrative, not me. In this case, the modern game (and the common brought up efforts of equalisation) are usually pinned from 2001 onwards. Hence why I went from today to then, and then used the same time-span before that.

The fact that you had to go back to garner a wider spread of teams in order to twist said narrative actually proves my point further - not yours.

Yes, you can twist numbers, but context matters, and in this case, it is a response to a myth repeated in the case of a controlled method to equalise the competition from a certain point, rather than it being down to random chance/a product of a certain time-period.

1995-2000 four teams won flags. So arbitrarily pickling 2001 as the start of modern football is just changing the parameters to suit your argument.

 

[Joao]

I don't disagree but we probably don't need the thread. We literally have different rules for different clubs so you couldn't possibly conclude it is "equalised".

Being more even than La Liga or the EPL isn't an achievement when you have the ability to do better but choose not to.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

I agree that statistics don't mean much without context, but if you were going to do a comparison, the fairest comparison would be 1987-2022 (since equalisation became a thing) with 1951-1986 (both 36 seasons).
Looking at grandfinal appearances, if grand final appearances were distributed equally each team would appear 6 times in the earlier era. What you find is Collingwood (13), Hawthorn (10), Carlton (10) and Essendon (9) dominated. Meanwhile South Melbourne and Fitzroy did not have a single grandfinal appearance in that time, and Footscray only appeared twice.
Since equalisation the average number of teams each season has been 16.3. Using 16 for convenience, an equally distributed competition would have each team appear in the grandfinal 4.5 times. During this period only Geelong (10) and Hawthorn (9) have dominated, while Fremantle and Port have been disappointing with only 1 and 2 appearances (although starting in 1995 and 1997). Gold Coast are obviously a worry.
Overall it seems evident that equalisation measures do work. Just having the draft full stop would probably work best, but sentimental attachment to the father-son rule ruins its integrity, not on its own of course, but until it gets dropped we probably can't hope to get rid of priority picks and academies, COLA, free agency compensation picks and all the other measures that distort the draft.

 

[HarryBeef]

Between 1979 and 2000, 8 teams in a 16 team competition (highest extent) won a flag - (50% strike rate).

Between 2001 and 2022, 10 teams in a 18 team competition (highest extent) won a flag - (55.56% strike rate).

The modern game being more "equal" and less prone to domination due to "efforts to curb it" is a myth retold ad nauseam.

I hope this is a joke and that your math/logic isn't this bad.

 

[Daka]

Equalization system the AFL has in place is working but it's not perfect.

You can't say it's a myth when these teams below have had success ↓

Hawthorn down the bottom recent years after a successful period.
Eagles down the bottom recent years after a successful period.
Richmond missing finals in 2021 after a successful period.

Melbourne was down a long time eventually they won a flag became competitive team once they sorted out their club.
the teams that stay down a for a long time are usually poorly run like North Melbourne currently.

Richmond was absolutely terribly run during the late 80's, 90's & early 2000's.

 

[.Shotties.]

Overall it seems evident that equalisation measures do work. Just having the draft full stop would probably work best, but sentimental attachment to the father-son rule ruins its integrity, not on its own of course, but until it gets dropped we probably can't hope to get rid of priority picks and academies, COLA, free agency compensation picks and all the other measures that distort the draft.

Come on man.

 

[Smithdogmaddog]

The least equal parts of the AFL are father son, academies and the fixture.

Forgot also majority of free agents going from bottom clubs to top clubs.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Come on man.

What? Draft in reverse ladder order with no restrictions on who you can select. Simple and effective.
Start up concessions will always be required for new teams, that's inevitable.
Free agency is a pain, but it needs to be changed so instead of creating magic draft picks from thin air, the acquiring team gives them up (might have to include future picks).

 

[.Shotties.]

What? Draft in reverse ladder order with no restrictions on who you can select. Simple and effective.
Start up concessions will always be required for new teams, that's inevitable.
Free agency is a pain, but it needs to be changed so instead of creating magic draft picks from thin air, the acquiring team gives them up (might have to include future picks).

No, look at the bold. You think we're never going to get rid of CoLA?

 

[tastiger]

Dumb administration/coaching is a massive part , only have to look at Essendon through this period

Thompson - proven troublesome off field antics , still bought in
Hird - Deluded failed coach who couldnt admit fault
Appointed CEO - sacked within 48 hours as was a churchy bigot
Dodoro - Failed list manager for how long?

Then you look at Tiges , everything right off field and reap rewards

Rance, Martin, Cotchin, riewoldt, Lynch, Grimes ect also played a Hugh roll.

On VOG-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app