First club to 17 premierships?

[Carringbush2010]

Another year, another season gone without a flag going to a SA club.

A combined 3 flags in 57 campaigns.

Better than my mob.

 

[PREETY_FLY]

i think bulldogs. Come back to me in 30 odd years and ill say "told ya so

 

[Demonic Ascent]

It is pretty easy to win the flag a lot when you are only one of 8 teams.

Tell that to St. Kilda

 

[Demonic Ascent]

1990 was the first year of the AFL, essentially becoming a national competition rather than a local competition.

We didn't even have a SA team in 1990, how can you count that? Since 1990 Fitzroy no longer competes, Adelaide, Port, Freo, GWS and Gold Coast have all joined. Soon a Tassie team will probably join.

The competition has been evolving since 1897 when it commenced (teams introduced in 1908 & 1925) - trying to put arbitrary timeframes on success might be ok for pub discussions but as far as the official records go 1897 is the starting point.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Port Adelaide, in 1956

I think Shepparton hit 17 in the 50s too but we're taking about the VFL/AFL comp.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Agree with this sentiment.

The club with the most AFL premierships is Hawthorn with 5.

A few clubs on 3, Brisbane, Richmond, WestCoast.

But the hawks have been the most successful club in the AFL.

In the VFL when the vic league was the top comp in the country, it was Carlton at 15.

Racing for a number 17 is task for supporters living in the past at Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood perhaps even Richmond or Hawthorn.

The clock was set in 1990 when the AFL started. Different competition so different concept of a flag, not hard to understand.

1990 was the first year of the AFL, essentially becoming a national competition rather than a local competition.

Without being impolite, it seems only people who weren't around in 1990 that seem to run with the line that it was a different competition, different concept, etc.

Not one thing about the make up or structure or style of the competition changed in 1990. Same teams, same national push, etc. The only change was a marketing change. Just like North Melbourne were not a different club when they changed their name to the Kangaroos or Footscray were not a different club when they changed their name to the Bulldogs or clubs don't change because they update their logos.

The AFL recognises it's history from commencement in 1897. I understand that isn't relevant to supporters of Non-Victorian clubs so count flags that have been won in your time in the competition (none of whom started in 1990). Just like flags won in the 90's hold no relevance for supporters of Gold Coast, GWS or Tasmania when they enter the comp.

Whilst it was gradual, if you want to set a time when the competition made it's biggest change toward being National, that was 1987.

In 1987, the salary cap was introduced, player payments took a jump, 2 new teams from 2 new states were introduced (West Coast and Brisbane) and the draft as we know it today had just been implemented (in 1986). Zones were gone and the competition looked similar to today.

1990 there was no change to the competition except for a logo change. Teams in Perth, Sydney and Brisbane were already participating so it seems weird to exclude some of their time in the competition - which of course would not happen had they been good enough to win a flag during this period.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

to think that in 1964 it looked like this:

• 13 - Collingwood
• 12 - Melbourne
• 11 - Essendon
• 8 - Carlton
• 6 - Geelong
• 5 - Richmond
• 1 - Hawthorn, Bulldogs

 

[GroggSquad]

to think that in 1964 it looked like this:

• 13 - Collingwood
• 12 - Melbourne
• 11 - Essendon
• 8 - Carlton
• 6 - Geelong
• 5 - Richmond
• 1 - Hawthorn, Bulldogs

Should've changed teams to Hawthorn in 1971

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Probably ****ing hawthorn.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Should've changed teams to Hawthorn in 1971

Imagine if we’d had their fortunes since instead of being a total basket case, would be a very different comp. Pies at least have had a different run of it

 

[Fadge]

to think that in 1964 it looked like this:

• 13 - Collingwood
• 12 - Melbourne
• 11 - Essendon
• 8 - Carlton
• 6 - Geelong
• 5 - Richmond
• 1 - Hawthorn, Bulldogs

Ah yes, those were the days...

Great memories.

 

[TiggerMan22]

Think it has a lot to do with the number of deluded Richmond nuffies swarming to a thread like this.

They also did a similar thing to the 'Best Dynasty' thread, where the 20% odd of votes that went Richmond's way were ALL courtesy of Richmond supporters. A read of the thread would suggest most were actually serious with their vote, and not just taking the p1ss for the lols...

5 years ago you would've said Pies will hit 17 before Richmond even hits 11. The real delusion is thinking for some reason its not a valid opinion for one team to win 4 flags before another wins 1 like its legitimately impossible. Yet Hawks have won 13 flags to your 2 since 1958.

And once again another valid opinion that you don't like. Its a Dynasty so why can't it be the best again? You don't need to agree, but don't have a sook just because other people think differently. The last 5 years must have been really hard on your mental health haha.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Probably ******* hawthorn.

Truth.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Truth.

Don't get me wrong, I love to hate your club (our rivalry was amazing), but gotta respect the ability to consistently win flags.
Hopefully that has ended now and you face 5 decades of mediocrity

 

[Fadge]

5 years ago you would've said Pies will hit 17 before Richmond even hits 11. The real delusion is thinking for some reason its not a valid opinion for one team to win 4 flags before another wins 1 like its legitimately impossible. Yet Hawks have won 13 flags to your 2 since 1958.

And once again another valid opinion that you don't like. Its a Dynasty so why can't it be the best again? You don't need to agree, but don't have a sook just because other people think differently. The last 5 years must have been really hard on your mental health haha.

I got great enjoyment from Richmond winning the flag in 2017, so much so that I wore a Richmond guernsey in a pool bar whilst holidaying with great friends of mine who are all Richmond supporters - one of the most enjoyable Grand Finals I have seen.

But I like to play the numbers, and I would bet anyone I know as much as they want that:
A) Carlton or Essendon will get there first, or
B) if it's neither of them, it will be Collingwood ahead of anyone else.

My point was there are some deluded Richmond supporters that honestly believe they are more likely to win four more flags before any of the above scenarios eventuate. On a simple numbers game, the odds of that happening would be in the realm of 100 to 1.

 

[Rasha]

I got great enjoyment from Richmond winning the flag in 2017, so much so that I wore a Richmond guernsey in a pool bar whilst holidaying with great friends of mine who are all Richmond supporters - one of the most enjoyable Grand Finals I have seen.

But I like to play the numbers, and I would bet anyone I know as much as they want that:
A) Carlton or Essendon will get there first, or
B) if it's neither of them, it will be Collingwood ahead of anyone else.

My point was there are some deluded Richmond supporters that honestly believe they are more likely to win four more flags before any of the above scenarios eventuate. On a simple numbers game, the odds of that happening would be in the realm of 100 to 1.

You don't think Hawthorn are a chance?
They've won flags for the last 6 consecutive decades.

 

[Ron The Bear]

My point was there are some deluded Richmond supporters that honestly believe they are more likely to win four more flags before any of the above scenarios eventuate.

- look at when the thread was started
- add 2 + 2

 

[Fadge]

You don't think Hawthorn are a chance?
They've won flags for the last 6 consecutive decades.

Yep.

They're as much a chance as Richmond, given they're both currently on 13.

About 100 to 1.

 

[Fadge]

- look at when the thread was started
- add 2 + 2

You're a numbers man...

What is the probability of each team being the first to get to 17, based on the logic each team has a 1 in 18 chance each year?

 

[Rasha]

Yep.

They're as much a chance as Richmond, given they're both currently on 13.

About 100 to 1.

At the start of 1965, what were the odds of Hawthorn getting to 13 before Melbourne?

 

[Fadge]

At the start of 1965, what were the odds of Hawthorn getting to 13 before Melbourne?

Hopefully Ron can answer that one too.

I never said it won't happen.... I said you'd be hard pressed to pick the team for which it happens.

 

[Ron The Bear]

What is the probability of each team being the first to get to 17, based on the logic each team has a 1 in 18 chance each year?

Hocking turned mathematics on its head.

 

[Call Me Cake]

That sweet sweet #17 will be ours.

Manifest destiny.

 

[Carringbush2010]

so much so that I wore a Richmond guernsey in a pool bar whilst holidaying

BLASPHEMY! Didn't even read the rest of the post, how dare you!

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I got great enjoyment from Richmond winning the flag in 2017, so much so that I wore a Richmond guernsey in a pool bar whilst holidaying with great friends of mine who are all Richmond supporters - one of the most enjoyable Grand Finals I have seen.

But I like to play the numbers, and I would bet anyone I know as much as they want that:
A) Carlton or Essendon will get there first, or
B) if it's neither of them, it will be Collingwood ahead of anyone else.

My point was there are some deluded Richmond supporters that honestly believe they are more likely to win four more flags before any of the above scenarios eventuate. On a simple numbers game, the odds of that happening would be in the realm of 100 to 1.

In 1964 when Collingwood had 13, Melbourne 12, Essendon 11 and Carlton 8 you would've laughed at those who said Carlton would be first to 14 too I bet.

The game tends to go in cycles, there's no reason why someones opinion that Richmond or Hawthorn will win 4 more before Carlton, Essendon or Collingwood get another 1 (or 2) is invalid.