Geelong on the top shelf for AFL premierships

[Tassie19Cairns20]

What's your thing with this mystical 'top shelf'? We (along with Carlton) have won 16 flags, we're still playing in the same league that's existed since 1897, and you want us to just magically ignore close to 100 years of a league's history because it doesn't favour your case?

Sorry, but Green Bay don't claim that they're 4 time Super Bowl Champs, they claim that they're 13 time World Champs. Manchester United don't claim that they've won 12 Premier League titles, they claim that they've won 19 First Division titles. You and your imaginary 'top shelf' is nothing more than a flimsy attempt to try to claim your club as top dog. West Coast have had great success over the 25 years of their existence, but they joined our league, we didn't join yours. There's a reason East Perth tried to join the VFL in the early 80s...

Yes your facts about Green Bay and Man U are correct. However their fans don't brag about "ancient" championships because they don't need to. Green Bay won the Super Bowl last year. That's all that matters. In the last 20 years Man U have been the most dominant football club by far. They don't need to brag about their distant past because they're dominating the PRESENT.

I give credit to all the historic VFL sides and their history/premierships etc. I just think it's embarrassing to hear Dees supporters bragging about 12 Premierships when they haven't won anything in almost 5 decades. Or Western Bulldogs supporters wanting to add their VFA Premierships from the 1920's to inflate their totals, and then bragging about how many premierships they have. It's not even just the Vic Clubs. You have Brisbane Lions fans including Fitzroy's totals in their tally, and Port Adelaide claiming 35 Premierships. It's all ridiculous.

Live in the Present people.

 

[greennick]

There's plenty of eagles and crows fans who like to argue that 1987, 1988 and 1989 flags "don't count"...

Hawthorn entered the competition late and we're slowly catching the teams at the top. The Pies used to have 13 more than us... now we're within 5.

You're already well past the Saints and Dogs and are hot on the tail of the Swans and Roos...

I'll answer this with a picture.

I can see three reasons in this photo he is not considered by me to be holding an AFL premiership cup:
1. He has a VFL jumper on.
2. He has a sign behind him saying "V.F.L. GRAND FINAL".
3. The cup actually says on it "Victorian Football League".

Compare that to 1990:

Or

Mmmmm.

Doesn't take anything away from the Hawks era prior to 1990 though. They still all count in their own right. As VFL premierships and in our joint VFL/AFL premiership table. Not if we're discussing AFL premierships though.

 

[TheBigBison]

Spanner in the works...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/geelong-president-colin-carter-wants-vfa-flags-counted/story-e6frf9jf-1226073590404

"The former AFL commissioner said premierships won in the Victorian Football Association from 1877 to 1896, when the breakaway Victorian Football League was formed, must be recognised by the AFL.

If the Carter campaign succeeds, Essendon would move two spots clear on the premiership table with 20 flags.

Carlton, currently equal with Essendon with 16 VFL/AFL titles, would be second with 18, while Collingwood would remain third with 16, having won just one title in the original VFA.

Carter said his thesis had the backing of the game's most famous historian, Geoffrey Blainey, and would be put to the AFL if his club agreed.

"My intention would be to take it to the AFL," he told the Sunday Herald Sun.

He is likely to encounter stiff resistance from several quarters, including Collingwood.

It should be noted Geelong won seven of the 20 titles at issue. The Cats would jump from equal seventh on the current table to outright fourth."

...and now third.

He's got buckley's chance IMHO. And I don't think the club will clear him to pursue it and He hasn't raised it again as far as I know. Interesting read though.

I also vaguely remember hearing there was a period during war years where Geelong wasn't playing. Apparently we had a hard time from the other clubs trying to rejoin the league. In the end, North stood up and spoke out for us rejoining.

 

[Gibbo_88]

To give, say, the 1897 flag as much value as the 2011 flag is completely laughable. So laughable that anyone who argues otherwise is not an intelligent person. End of story.

This!

It would be ideal if you could choose a year and then just compare flags/rate them whatever people want to do but you can't please everyone as some team will have won the premiership the year before and want it to count, as it should. People saying Melbourne in the 50's 3 in a row was better than Brisbane's or Collingwood's 4 in a row was the best...how is it really comparable when the game went from a hobby to part time job to a full time profession.

 

[Quinz]

West Coast have gone alright so far (talk with Collingwood fans about early success), but the initial team that won the first two premierships was virtually a state of origin team with 10 times the budget of anyone else.

Very inaccurate summary.

 

[Lurkalot]

True, he neglected to mention the "work" of Matt Barber.

 

[Quinz]

True, he neglected to mention the "work" of Matt Barber.

Training and weights work for all the clubs was pretty limited at that time. The extra attention to this and the professionalism that Mick Malthouse in particular brought to the team in the early 90s was a vital part of that early success.

Other than rumours, there's nothing really to suggest the Eagles players from that time were given illegal substances to assist their training.

 

[Blue Spirit]

1. Carlton and Essendon: 16 flags
3. Collingwood: 15 flags

It's been the same competition since 1897. Deal with it!

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Don't know why you can't look at success on a percentage basis to get a fair comparison between the likes of WCE/Brisbane and the pre-existing VFL sides. So for instance WCE has won 3 flags from 25 years competing at a success rate of 12%. Essendon has won 16 flags from 115 years competition (give or take the war years if they didn't compete) for a success rate of 13.9% (if my maths is correct). This gives a fairer comparison of the success of each team rather than simple 16 flags vs 3 which no new team would be able to compete against.

Also all flags are worth the same; 1897 is the same as 1989 is the same as 1992 is the same as 2011. No flag is worth more than others this is the history of the competition, deal with it.

years in competition divided by premierships won is the best way to compare clubs that have been in the competition for different periods.

essendon/carlton = 7.125
collingwood = 7.6
west coast = 8
hawthorn = 8.6

and so on... not perfect, but better than the alternative.

Or this - same thing just different way of measuring.

 

[Topper Harley]

This whole AFL premierships thing is a bit pointless.

success is just to relative to circumstance.

For example, who is more successfull, Collingwood or Geelong?

Answer: push, they've been competeing in the same competition for around 135 years and won 16 flags each.

which is the same reason Adelaide are more successfull when compared to Carlton, Carlton are more successfull when compared to Geelong, and Geelong are more successful when compared to Adelaide.

Obviously this gets a bit messy so the easiest way to do it, is by using the VFL/AFL premierships as a guide across all teams. Anyway it's all a dick measuring contest that I have limited interest in, because as a 23 year old, nobody is more successfull to me then the Cats.

 

[Vince12]

Don't know why you can't look at success on a percentage basis to get a fair comparison between the likes of WCE/Brisbane and the pre-existing VFL sides. So for instance WCE has won 3 flags from 25 years competing at a success rate of 12%. Essendon has won 16 flags from 115 years competition (give or take the war years if they didn't compete) for a success rate of 13.9% (if my maths is correct). This gives a fairer comparison of the success of each team rather than simple 16 flags vs 3 which no new team would be able to compete against.

Also all flags are worth the same; 1897 is the same as 1989 is the same as 1992 is the same as 2011. No flag is worth more than others this is the history of the competition, deal with it.



Or this - same thing just different way of measuring.

With that gimped logic you'd have Usain Bolt way down the list of best sprinters because other people have won more times right? And that's not the only thing wrong with your argument. How many teams did Essendon play against in 1897? 7? Geelong have had to play against 16 this year. Also there used to be no salary cap- don't you think things like this altered conditions a bit? Clearly they did so the only way to compare teams is against each other during the time both teams were in the competition together.

 

[RogersResults]

With that gimped logic you'd have Usain Bolt way down the list of best sprinters because other people have won more times right? And that's not the only thing wrong with your argument. How many teams did Essendon play against in 1897? 7? Geelong have had to play against 16 this year. Also there used to be no salary cap- don't you think things like this altered conditions a bit? Clearly they did so the only way to compare teams is against each other during the time both teams were in the competition together.

Essendon in 1897 had to play all opponents twice and the other top four sides three times each. Only 7 of their 17 matches were played on their home ground, 2 matches were on neutral ground and 8 were at opponents' exclusive home grounds including a final in Geelong.

How do you weight that achievement?

Each Premiership from 1897 was won under its own unique conditions and circumstances. All have equal value in the eyes of the AFL as an AFL Premiership.

There has never been an official League competition for who has won the most Premierships. They can however can be an important measure of a club's individual success during its time in the competition.

 

[Gydafud]

And to think, if the VFL never changed its name to the AFL, we wouldn't be having this argument.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

With that gimped logic you'd have Usain Bolt way down the list of best sprinters because other people have won more times right? And that's not the only thing wrong with your argument. How many teams did Essendon play against in 1897? 7? Geelong have had to play against 16 this year. Also there used to be no salary cap- don't you think things like this altered conditions a bit? Clearly they did so the only way to compare teams is against each other during the time both teams were in the competition together.

Mate the history books show Carlton & Essendon have 16 flags, Collingwood have 15, Melbourne have 12 and so on and so on until you get right down the bottom where West Coast sits with 3. Melbourne has 4 times as many flags as West Coast deal with it. This is the same league/competition that has existed since 1897.

All I offered was a more balanced way to determine each clubs/franchises success relative to their years in the competition but at the end of the day the 1897 flag is worth the same as 1916 and 2011. This is what the history books show and thats the way it will stay no matter how much you johnny-come-lately's whinge and moan. If you don't like it go and set up your own league, oh wait you tried that but all your best players drifted east to play with the big boys in the top league in the country. Oh well.

 

[Jay-Z]

God this thing has been done to death. Why are people so desperate to measure their dicks by the number of premierships their team have won? The reality is the competition has gone through so many changes (with new clubs being introduced, teams merging, teams relocating) that none of this has any relevance. You can't compare West Coast's tally with Collingwood's - you just can't. There are so many different circumstances under which each team won those flags (number of years in the competition, number of teams played against, draft / salary concessions etc) that the final number is completely irrelevant. Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows that to compare two things they have to be reasonably similar.

The comparison between clubs that have been around for 20 odd years vs clubs that have been around for over 100 is about as relevant as comparing the success of Collingwood with Man U!!

 

[Buddy Magic]

God this thing has been done to death. Why are people so desperate to measure their dicks by the number of premierships their team have won? The reality is the competition has gone through so many changes (with new clubs being introduced, teams merging, teams relocating) that none of this has any relevance. You can't compare West Coast's tally with Collingwood's - you just can't. There are so many different circumstances under which each team won those flags (number of years in the competition, number of teams played against, draft / salary concessions etc) that the final number is completely irrelevant. Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows that to compare two things they have to be reasonably similar.

The comparison between clubs that have been around for 20 odd years vs clubs that have been around for over 100 is about as relevant as comparing the success of Collingwood with Man U!!

I'd say that if I was North too!

 

[SJ]

This whole AFL premierships thing is a bit pointless.

success is just to relative to circumstance.

For example, who is more successfull, Collingwood or Geelong?

Answer: push, they've been competeing in the same competition for around 135 years and won 16 flags each.

which is the same reason Adelaide are more successfull when compared to Carlton, Carlton are more successfull when compared to Geelong, and Geelong are more successful when compared to Adelaide.

Obviously this gets a bit messy so the easiest way to do it, is by using the VFL/AFL premierships as a guide across all teams. Anyway it's all a dick measuring contest that I have limited interest in, because as a 23 year old, nobody is more successfull to me then the Cats.

Underrated and great post and the best way to look at it.

 

[demondavey]

What people have to remember is a team like West Coast has been in the competition for 24 years, have played in 5 grand finals, won 3 and also been a very successful team throughout the 90's, mid 00's and starting to climb back up again. Comparing teams against the Eagles has to be done since they have been around. So looking at the last 24 years?

Lions have been in 4 grand finals and won 3 in a row
Hawks been in 4 and won 4 (88,89,91,08)
Geelong have appeared in 8 grand finals (89,92,94,95,07,08,09,11) and won 3
Eagles been in 5 (91,92,94,05,06) and won 3
Collingwood been in 4 and won 2 (90,10)
Bombers been in 4 and won 2 (93,00)
North been in 3 (96,98,99) won 2
Blues been in 2 and won 2 (87,95)
Sydney been in 2 and won 1 (05)


Reason i put Lions on top is because 3 in a row is massive

That is the way you need to look at it, Eagles are about the fourth most successful side of the last 24 years since they have been in the competition, or equal second as they have won 3 flags along with Brisbane and Geelong, but Brisbane put 3 in a row together and Geelong stayed up for longer at their peak. I did not count Port and Adelaide as they came in post 87, and Brisbane and Fitzroy obviously existed. (Bears came in 87). You could also argue that they are equal with Brisbane and Geelong because they have both won 3 flags as well. If you want to get very particular then id say they in the last 24 years they are equal. Only team to win more flags is Hawthorn.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

VFL Flags = Best football club in Victoria.
AFL Flags = Best football club in entire Country.

VFL Comp grew into the AFL. But still 2 different titles. (1987 onwards had some difference because 2 sides joined the then VFL, but before that was a state football comp.)

Still don't understand why it is so hard for Victorians to admit a flag in 1975 was a State title and not a national title. Not sure what is embarrassing about admitting this? Doesn't mean your flag doesn't count?

Just don't get it?

 

[demondavey]

VFL Flags = Best football club in Victoria.
AFL Flags = Best football club in entire Country.

VFL Comp grew into the AFL. But still 2 different titles. (1987 onwards had some difference because 2 sides joined the then VFL, but before that was a state football comp.)

Still don't understand why it is so hard for Victorians to admit a flag in 1975 was a State title and not a national title. Not sure what is embarrassing about admitting this? Doesn't mean your flag doesn't count?

Just don't get it?

Exactly, it is just the way it was. See my above post regarding Eagles from 87 onwards, imo that is the only way to measure them against everyone else.

 

[Pj.Rj.Hj]

Sorry, but Green Bay don't claim that they're 4 time Super Bowl Champs, they claim that they're 13 time World Champs. West Coast have had great success over the 25 years of their existence, but they joined our league, we didn't join yours. There's a reason East Perth tried to join the VFL in the early 80s...

Saved your league

As for Green Bay, like Essendon and Carlton etc. They may claim 13 World Championships but the rest of the World recognises in hindsight the change in era. That's a new beginning where Green Bay has won 4 Superbowls and Cleveland has won none inspite of their AAFC and NFL (premerger) success.

 

[CF]

At last a Vic club, not Melbourne based, has joined the Lions & the Eagles with 3 flags in the national comp.
3 out of 5 aint bad for the Cats, but the Lions sit fair & square as the best team of the Aus wide era, and try as they may, I cant see the current Geelong list getting to 3 in a row.

Brisbane won 3 flags winning 75% of all their matches in the process

Geelong has won 3 flags winning 84% of all their matches in the process.


Geelong is the better team

 

[Father Jack]

The competition changed massively during the late eighties/nineties. The comp became the AFL in 1990. Yes, teams have been added since then, but it is noteworthy that the last period whereby so many teams were added was 1897. By 1997 the comp was pretty much bedded down in its new format, a format drastically different to that of 1987 and the previous 90 years.

A blanket 'its the same competition' is problematic in that it virtually rules out the expansion clubs from have a comparable record to the old Vic clubs. However, GWS and the GC have every chance of catching the Eagles/Lions/Cats as we/they are only three in front even with a 21 year start, so if you are going to make a change then 1990 provides the natural date to do so. The VFL flags are only relevant when comparing VFL teams. Can you really compare the AFL Port with St Kilda?

 

[GFC123]

Who bloody cares !! i for one don't give a shit that we havn't won 3 in a row, the point is, we've WON 3 in 5 years, that's absolutly amazing and i regard this current Geelong team as one of the best teams ever and is easily the best era in our clubs history.

 

[SJ]

The competition changed massively during the late eighties/nineties. The comp became the AFL in 1990. Yes, teams have been added since then, but it is noteworthy that the last period whereby so many teams were added was 1897. By 1997 the comp was pretty much bedded down in its new format, a format drastically different to that of 1987 and the previous 90 years.

A blanket 'its the same competition' is problematic in that it virtually rules out the expansion clubs from have a comparable record to the old Vic clubs. However, GWS and the GC have every chance of catching the Eagles/Lions/Cats as we/they are only three in front even with a 21 year start, so if you are going to make a change then 1990 provides the natural date to do so. The VFL flags are only relevant when comparing VFL teams. Can you really compare the AFL Port with St Kilda?

I don't think it's a 'race', so there is no need to try to 'catch' other clubs.

As Topper Harley posted above, if you want to compare clubs then you only can across the period both were in the same competition.